CAR_Public/190129.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, January 29, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 21

                            Headlines

22ND CENTURY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
A.J. BOGGS: Doe et al. Suit Transferred to E.D. California
ALLERGAN PLC: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action
ALLERGAN PLC: Vincent Wong Files Securities Fraud Class Action
ALLURA USA: Carbonaro Sues Over Defective Siding

ANIMIS FOUNDATION: Hires Keller Williams Real Estate Broker
ARCHBISHOP OF AGANA: Hires Blank Rome as Special Counsel
ASSETCARE LLC: Violates TCPA, Carter Suit Asserts
AUSTRALIA: Foundation's Class Action Remains at Sydney Court
BETHESDA: Fallout 76 Players to Get Free Fallout Games

BIG PICTURE LOANS: Williams et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Virginia
BOSTON, MA: MBTA Gets Unclaimed Funds in Local 589 Suit
BRIGGS & STRATTON: May 22 Claims Filing Deadline in Lawn Mower Suit
BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Verde
CENTURY SUPPORT: Made Unsolicited Calls/Texts, Fabricant Suit Says

CHEMICAL & MINING: Letters Rogatory Issuance Bid in Villella Okayed
CLARITY SERVICES: Padgett Appeals Suit Dismissal to 11th Circuit
CLEAR MANAGEMENT: Court Certifies Class in Morrison Suit
COCA-COLA CO: Israeli Judge Approves Class Action
CONAGRA BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over Retirement Benefits

CVS PHARMACY: John Does Appeal Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
DELTA OUTSOURCE: 7th Cir. Appeal Filed in Koehn Consumer Suit
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Vincent Wong Files Securities Fraud Suit
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action Lawsuit
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit

FACEBOOK INC: Bilked Children Out of Money, Docs Show
FCA US LLC: Non-conventional Shifter Hit in Lalli Product Row
FIRST AMERICAN: Court Stays Simons FDCA Suit for 60 Days
FITBIT INC: Court Extends Time to Respond to Patti Securities Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces 8-Speed Transmission Class Action

GOLDMAN SACHS: Vincent Wong Files Securities Fraud Suit
GOOGLE INC: Must Face Class Action Over Gmail Content Scanning
GREYHAWK LEASING: Gil Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
GUAPO BODEGA: Restaurant Staff Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
GUSTECH COMMUNICATIONS: Classes in Burrell FLSA Suit Certified

HOME MADE COOKING: Rayshanov Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Lawsuit
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Wants Court to Revisit Stock-Drop Ruling
INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Agreement Reached in Merger Related Suits

J&B 693 CORP: Campos Marin Sues Over Unpaid Wages
JANI-KING INT'L: Class in Mujo Minimum Wage Act Suit Certified
KENYA POWER: Court Hears Bid to Suspend Lawyer's Settlement
LEGACY HEALTH: Failed to Pay Nursing Staff for Hours Worked
LIBERTY HEALTH: Lin Hits Stock Drop from Bad Acquisitions

LSC COMMUNICATIONS: Plumley Seeks to Halt Quad/Graphics Merger
LVC TIMESHARE: Hotel Not ADA-Compliant, Says Breeze
MACNEIL AUTOMOTIVE: Brown Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Meter, Bowers File Suit Over Data Breach
MARSHALLS OF CA: Paulino Suit Moved to S.D. California

MBT FINANCIAL: Faces David Pill Securities Class Action
MBT FINANCIAL: Faces Nowitzke and Zimmer Suits in Michigan
MBT FINANCIAL: Faces Parshall Securities Class Action
MEC DEVELOPMENT: Jefferson Labor Suit Deal Denied Without Prejudice
METROPOLITAN MUSEUM: Court Rejects Artist's Antitrust Class Suit

MICHIGAN: ACLU Suit Seeks Changes to Sex Offender Registry
MODUS HOTELS: Lazarev Says Website not Blind-friendly
MONEYMUTUAL LLC: Court Certifies Class of Borrowers in Rilley Suit
MONSANTO COMPANY: Gallimore Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MULTI-STATE LOTTERY: Hot Lotto Rigging Suit Has Class Action Status

MUSICALLY INC: Roberts Sues over Unwanted Text Messages
MWAA: Kerpen Appeals 4th Cir. Ruling on Use of Toll Revenues
NC3 SYSTEMS: Carmack Files Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
NEW YORK: Court Dismisses Pisman Suit vs. DOH Without Prejudice
NEW YORK: De Blasio Administration Faces Discrimination Cases

NVIDIA CORP: Vincent Wong Files Securities Fraud Suit
OCEANFIRST FINANCIAL: Faces Parshall Securities Suit in New Jersey
ORACLE CORP: Underpays Female Staff by $13K Per Year, Suit Says
PAULS VALLEY: Former Hospital Employee Filing 2nd Lawsuit
PAYCHEX INC: Stephan Sues Over Illegal Biometrics Data Retention

PEPSI BEVERAGES: $262K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Grice FCRA Suit
PG&E CORP: Faces 50 Camp Fire Related Suits
PG&E CORP: Faces 700 Suits over 2017 Wildfire
PG&E CORP: Valenza et al. Sue over November 2018 Camp Fire
POLARITYTE INC: Court Consolidates Moreno and Lawi Suits

PORT OF SEATTLE: Supreme Court Appeal Launched in Property Dispute
PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL: Caldwell Seeks Unpaid Employee Wages
RATAN HOSPITALITY: Website Not Disabled-Friendly, Says Breeze
RD ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Salespersons' Wages, Fink Suit Says
RESOLUTE ENERGY: Assad Securities Suit Questions Sale to Cimarex

ROYAL BANK: Libor-Rigging Cases Launched Against Major Banks
SENDGRID INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Suit
SHELL CANADA: Victoria Recommends Suit vs. Oil & Gas Industry
SONIC DRIVE-IN: Class Action Settlement Reached in Data Breach Case
SPORT TV: To Face Class Action Over 2005 to 2011 Pricing

SPRINT: Court Approves 2 Settlements Over Unpaid Commissions
STONEMARK MANAGEMENT: Mack et al. Seek OT Pay for Maintenance Work
TAISHAN GYPSUM: Drywall Class-Action Lawsuit Revving Up
TEXAS: Mother Sues Prison for Failure to Prevent Son's Suicide
TRANSUNION INTERACTIVE: Michael Sporn Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois

UBER TECH: Court Disqualifies Keller Lenkner as Diva Suit Counsel
UNIQLO CALIFORNIA: Judgment with Prejudice in Rivera Suit Entered
UNITED STATES: ACLU Pursues Title IX Class Action Against DOE
UNITED STATES: Fed. Cl. Dismisses 3rd Amended Big Oak Suit
UPLAND CASCADE: Ct. Reverses Dismissed Defendants' Atty Fees Award

VEHI-SHIP LLC: Drivers Claim Minimum, Overtime Wages
VILLAGE OF ELMWOOD: G. Pruiett Suit Remanded to Ohio State Court
VISA ARGENTINA: Gas Stations File Class Action to Bring Down Fees
VISIONSTREAM: Class Suit Proposed to Win Chorus' Subbies Backpay
WAL-MART STORES: Judge Certifies Class of 5MM Job Applicants

WELBILT INC: Vincent Wong Files Securities Fraud Class Action
WELLS FARGO: Court Dismisses S. Cummings Suit With Prejudice
WILDHORSE RESOURCE: Bushansky Challenges Sale to Chesapeake
YANGTZE RIVER: Bernstein Liebhard Investigates Securities Claims
YOGAWORKS INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit


                            *********

22ND CENTURY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of 22nd Century Group, Inc. (NYSE: XXII) from February
18, 2016 through October 25, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for 22nd Century Group
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the 22nd Century Group class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1435.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) 22nd Century’s
stock was prone to manipulation through paid stock promotions; (2)
such conduct would subject 22nd Century to heightened regulatory
scrutiny by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”);
and (3) consequently, 22nd Century’s public statements were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 22,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1435.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please 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 or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen—firm.

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

CONTACT:

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


A.J. BOGGS: Doe et al. Suit Transferred to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A case, John Doe 1, John Doe 2, and John Doe 3, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. A.J.
Boggs and Company, the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-01652, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California (Fresno) on Jan. 14, 2019. The Eastern District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00061-DAD-SKO. The
case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Dale A. Drozd.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

               - and -

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

Attorneys for A.J. Boggs and Company:

          Michael David Abraham, Esq.
          Robert H Bunzel, Esq.
          Tiffany Sue Hansen, Esq.
          Jayne Laiprasert, Esq.
          BARTKO ZANKEL TARRANT AND MILLER
          900 Front Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1900
          E-mail: thansen@bzbm.com
                  jlaiprasert@bzbm.com

ALLERGAN PLC: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against, Allergan plc. ("Allergan" or the "Company") and certain of
its officers.   The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, and indexed under
18-cv-12219, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased
or otherwise, acquired Allergan securities between February 24,
2017, and December 19, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Allergan securities between
February 24, 2017, and December 19, 2018, both dates inclusive, you
have until February 19, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact
Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Allergan is a pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures,
and commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic,
surgical, and regenerative medicine products worldwide.

Through its Medical Devices business, the Company produces silicone
breast implants. Breast implants are medical devices that are used
to augment breast size or to reconstruct the breast following
mastectomy or to correct a congenital abnormality.

Breast implants consist of a silicone outer shell and a filler
(most commonly silicone gel or saline). Breast implants come in a
variety of forms, including smooth and textured.  In June 2011, the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") issued an Update on the
Safety of Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implants, which reported a
link between breast implants and Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma
("ALCL").  Following the FDA’s Update, information was added to
the products’ labeling, but the added warnings are deeply
embedded in a dense list of complications.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company’s business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) textured breast implants
manufactured by Allergan were linked to ALCL; (ii) the foregoing
link to cancer, when revealed, would foreseeably force Allergan to
recall those textured breast implants from the market; and (iii) as
a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On December 18, 2018, France’s National Agency for the Safety of
Medicines & Health Products ordered the recall of textured breast
implants manufactured by Allergan from the European market, stating
that the implants "have been linked to a rare form of
cancer"—specifically, anaplastic large call lymphoma.  On
December 19, 2018, Allergan stated that it would remove its
textured breast implants from the European market.

Following these announcements, Allergan’s stock price fell
$10.20, or nearly 7%, to close at $136.56 on December 19, 2018.

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


ALLERGAN PLC: Vincent Wong Files Securities Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Allergan plc.  If you
suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Allergan plc (NYSE: AGN)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 19, 2019
Class Period: May 9, 2017 and December 19, 2018

Get additional information about AGN:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/allergan-plc-loss-submission-form?wire=3

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Telephone: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


ALLURA USA: Carbonaro Sues Over Defective Siding
------------------------------------------------
Martha P. Carbonaro and Jameson D. Storm, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Allura USA LLC,
Plycem USA LLC d/b/a Allura, Plycem USA, Inc., Elementia USA, Inc.
and Elementia, S.A. De C.V., Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00029
(W.D. N.C., January 18, 2019) is a consumer class action against
Defendants on behalf of all persons and entities who own homes,
residences or other structures physically located in North
Carolina, on which the Defendants' fiber cement exterior siding is
or was installed.

According to the complaint, the Siding on Plaintiffs' and Class
Member's homes suffers from an inherent defect resulting in the
Siding cracking, chipping, flaking, peeling or splitting. As a
result, Plaintiffs' and Class Members' incurred and will incur
thousands of dollars in damages to replace the Siding as well as
due to water and moisture intrusion issues since the Siding does
not perform adequately, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Martha P. Carbonaro is a citizen and resident of Union
Country, residing at 2604 White Pines Court, Monroe, North
Carolina.

Plaintiff Jameson D. Storm is a citizen and resident of Mecklenburg
Country, residing at 15813 Country Lake, Pineville, North
Carolina.

Allura USA LLC is a subsidiary of Plycem USA LLC, and Plycem USA,
Inc., with a principal place of business in the State of Texas, and
at all times relevant herein, Allura USA LLC transacted and
conducted business in North Carolina.

Plycem USA LLC d/b/a Allura was and is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal
place of business in the State of Texas, and all times relevant
herein, Plycem USA LLC d/b/a Allura transacted and conducted
business in North Carolina.

Plycem USA Inc. was and is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Georgia, with a principal place of
business in the State of Texas and all times relevant herein,
Plycem USA Inc. transacted and conducted business in North
Carolina.

Elementia USA, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of
business in the State of Texas, and all times relevant herein,
Elementia USA, Inc. transacted and conducted business in North
Carolina.

Elementia, S.A.B. De C.V. was and is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of Mexico and at all times relevant herein,
Elementia, S.A.B. De C.V. conducts and is engaged in business in
the State of North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Scott C. Harris, Esq.
     Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
     Harper T. Segui, Esq.
     WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
     900 W Morgan St
     Raleigh, NC 27603
     Phone: (919) 600-5000
     Fax: (919) 600-5035
     Email: scott@wbmllp.com
            dan@wbmllp.com
            harper@wbmllp.com


ANIMIS FOUNDATION: Hires Keller Williams Real Estate Broker
-----------------------------------------------------------
Animis Foundation, Inc., seeks authority from the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Middle District of Florida to employ Keller Williams
Cornerstone Realty, as real estate broker to the Debtor.

Animis Foundation requires Keller Williams to market and sell the
Debtor's real property known as a 3 horse farms on 135 acres and 50
acres of unimproved land located in Ocala, Florida.

Keller Williams will be paid a commission of 6% of the sales
price.

Keller Williams will also be reimbursed for reasonable
out-of-pocket expenses incurred.

Gary Achtenhagen, partner of Keller Williams Cornerstone Realty,
assured the Court that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the
term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code and does
not represent any interest adverse to the Debtor and its estates.

Keller Williams can be reached at:

     Gary Achtenhagen
     KELLER WILLIAMS CORNERSTONE REALTY
     1918 SE 17th St.
     Ocala, FL 34471
     Tel: (352) 369-4044

                  About Animis Foundation

Based in Sarasota, Florida, Animis Foundation, Inc. filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Case No.
18-09515) on Nov. 2, 2018, with estimated assets and liabilities at
$1 million to $10 million respectively.  The petition was signed by
Christiaan Walhof, president.  The Debtor tapped Benjamin G.
Martin, Esq., as its legal counsel.


ARCHBISHOP OF AGANA: Hires Blank Rome as Special Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------
Archbishop of Agana, seeks authority from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Guam to employ Blank Rome, LLP, as special
insurance counsel to the Debtor.

Archbishop of Agana requires Blank Rome to provide insurance advice
and representation regarding possible negotiation or litigation in
relation to the underlying claims of abuse and the rights of the
Debtor under historical general liability insurance policies.

Blank Rome will be paid at these hourly rates:

     Partners             $450 to $1,195
     Associates           $315 to $695
     Paralegals           $180 to $450

Blank Rome will also be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses incurred.

James R. Murray, a partner at Blank Rome, LLP, assured the Court
that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is defined in
Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code and does not represent any
interest adverse to the Debtor and its estates.

Blank Rome can be reached at:

     James R. Murray
     BLANK ROME LLP
     1825 Eye Street NW
     Washington DC 20006
     Tel: (202) 420-3409
     Fax: (202) 420-2201
     E-mail: JMurray@blamkrome.com

                   About Archbishop of Agana

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Agana -- https://www.aganaarch.org/
-- is an ecclesiastical territory or diocese of the Catholic
Church in the United States. It comprises the United States
dependency of Guam. The Diocese of Agana was established on Oct.
14, 1965, as a suffragan of the Archdiocese of San Francisco,
California. It is a tax-exempt entity (as described in 26 U.S.C.
Section 501).

The Archbishop of Agana, a/k/a the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of
Agana, sought Chapter 11 protection (D. Guam Case No. 19-00010) on
Jan. 16, 2019. Rev. Archbishop Michael Jude Byrnes, S.T.D.,
Archbishop of Agana, signed the petition.

The Archdiocese scheduled $22,962,686 in assets and $45,662,941 in
liabilities as of the bankruptcy filing.

The Hon. Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood is the case judge.

The Archdiocese tapped ELSAESSER ANDERSON, CHTD. as bankruptcy
counsel; and John C. Terlaje, Esq. as special counsel. Blank Rome,
LLP, as special insurance counsel.

ASSETCARE LLC: Violates TCPA, Carter Suit Asserts
-------------------------------------------------
Stacey Carter, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Assetcare, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
8:19-cv-00150 (M.D. Fla., January 20, 2019) seeks injunctive relief
and statutory damages, all arising from the illegal activities of
Defendant, which used pre-recorded and automatically dialed
messages to solicit payment from individuals it presumably believed
to be debtors, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA"), and the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC").

The Defendant has violated the TCPA by making calls to Plaintiff
and Class Members using an "automatic telephone dialing system" and
an "artificial or prerecorded voice" without Plaintiff's and Class
Members' prior express consent within the meaning of the TCPA, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Stacey Carter is an individual citizen of the State of
Florida residing in the City of Tampa.

AssetCare, LLC is a Texas limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Sherman, Texas. AssetCare is a debt
collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott D. Owens, Esq.
     Scott D. Owens, P.A.
     3800 S. Ocean Dr. Ste. 235
     Hollywood, FL 33019
     Phone: 954-589-0588
     Fax: 954-337-0666
     Email: scott@scottdowens.com

          - and -

     Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
     Kozonis & Klinger, Ltd.
     4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300
     Chicago, IL 60630
     Phone: 312.283.3814
     Fax: 773.496.8617
     Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com


AUSTRALIA: Foundation's Class Action Remains at Sydney Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The Jakarta Post reports that the government is demanding that the
Australian government immediately establish a task force similar to
Indonesia's Montara oil spill task force to resolve the 2009 oil
spill in the Timor Sea.

The Montara rig, operated by PTT Exploration and Production (PTTEP)
Australasia, a subsidiary of the Thai oil production company PTT,
caught fire and leaked hundreds of thousands of liters of oil.

Meanwhile, the Care for West Timor Foundation's class action
lawsuit, which was filed in August 2016, remains at Sydney Federal
Court. The foundation represents more than 13,000 local fishermen.

The class action demands that the Australian government be held
accountable for spraying highly toxic dispersants on the oil spill,
following a report from the Australian Commission of Inquiry. [GN]


BETHESDA: Fallout 76 Players to Get Free Fallout Games
------------------------------------------------------
William Usher, writing for CinemaBlend, reports that it's safe to
say that a lot of people aren't terribly impressed with Fallout 76.
The game has a buffet of problems that Bethesda has been slow to
address (or quick to create solutions for), but the company is
attempting to strike peace with its players by offering them free
Fallout games in exchange for their loyalty to the product.

On December 22nd, 2018 Bethesda sent out a tweet from the official
Twitter account, wishing gamers a happy holidays and informing the
community that anyone who is logged into Fallout 76 before 2018
ends will be entitled to receive a free Fallout Classic Collection
on PC. What's weird is that the collection will also be available
for free on PC for Xbox One and PlayStation 4 owners as well, but
the tweet doesn't fully detail how that will work. We do know that
the entitlement(s) will begin rolling out in January at the start
of the new year.

I wasn't the only one to notice that console gamers would be
receiving three free PC titles. In fact, the very first comment on
the thread is asking what PS4 and Xbox One gamers are supposed to
be doing with a game collection without a gaming PC? Someone
promptly responds by saying that the games are so old you'll be
able to play them on a tablet with ease or any single-core laptop.
Basically, even the most potato of potato PCs will be able to play
the Fallout Classic Collection.

After gamers get the platforming issue all cleared up, the
discussion then centers around whether or not the collection is an
adequate response to all of the other issues Fallout 76 players
have had to endure, including many of the bugs and glitches that
are still present in the game and have been there since its
release. Or the fact that the people who paid for the Power Armor
Edition of the game ended up getting shortchanged with the canvas
bag -- although, Bethesda is working on attempting to rectify that
problem. There's also the issue with all the people who were
inadvertently doxed simply by using Bethesda's support system.

There's a lot of animosity right now from some gamers toward
Bethesda for how much Fallout 76 has failed to meet even the most
basic of expectations. However, there are also plenty of people who
are just thankful that a game like that exists.

A few more are also grateful for having the opportunity to receive
the three free classic games, including the original Fallout,
Fallout: Tactics, and Fallout 2.

If you enjoyed the original turn-based, isometric, tactical
post-apocalyptic games from back in the 1990s then you will
probably be looking forward to the collection as compensation for
dealing with all of the issues that have plagued Fallout 76. I tend
to doubt it will absolve any of the potential class action
lawsuits, and it won't really fix the problem that the people
suffered when they were doxed, but three free games are still three
free games. [GN]


BIG PICTURE LOANS: Williams et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Lula Williams, George Hengle, Dowin Coffy, Felix Gillison ,
Jr., Renee Galloway, Dianne Turner, Earl Browne, Rose Marie
Buchert, Regina Nolte, Kevin Minor, and Teresa Titus, on behalf of
themselves and all individuals similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
vs. Big Picture Loans LLC, Matt Martorello, Ascension Technologies
Incorporated, Daniel Gravel, James Williams, Jr., Gertrude
McGeshick, Susan McGeshick, and Giiwegiizhigookway Martin, the
Defendants, and Rosette LLP, the Movant, Case No. 2:18-mc-00066,
was removed fron the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, to the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Virginia
(Richmond) on Jan. 14, 2019. The Eastern District of Virginia Court
Clerk assigned Case No.: 3:19-mc-00002-REP to the proceeding. The
suit is assigned to the District Judge Robert E. Payne.

Rosette, LLP is a leading majority-Indian owned national law firm
representing tribal governments and tribal entities with offices in
Arizona, California, and Michigan.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES PLLC
          382 S Convent Ave.
          Tucson, AZ 85716
          Telephone: (520) 622-2481
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: srotkis@clalegal.com

Attorneys for Rosette LLP:

          Terry Goddard, Esq.
          GODDARD LAW OFFICE PLC
          502 W Roosevelt St.
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 258-5521
          E-mail: terry@goddardlawplc.com

               - and -

          Timothy Andrew Nelson, Esq.
          NELSON LAW GROUP PLLC
          21 W Coolidge St.
          Phoenix, AZ 85013
          Telephone: (602) 421-2681
          E-mail: tim@nelsonlawsolutions.com

BOSTON, MA: MBTA Gets Unclaimed Funds in Local 589 Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LOCAL 589, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. MBTA, Defendant, Civil Action No. 16-cv-12488-ADB
(D. Mass.), Judge Allison Burroughs of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts has issued a Memorandum and Order
concluding that the parties' dispute over the allocation of
unclaimed funds is resolved in favor of the Massachusetts Bay
Transit Authority ("MBTA").

The Plaintiffs, who are bus, trolley, light rail, and rapid transit
operators represented by Local 589, reached a settlement in the
long-running class action against MBTA.  A disagreement then
emerged over how unclaimed settlement funds associated with the
class members who did not respond to the settlement notification
should be allocated.

The Plaintiffs contend that the percentages of the settlement fund
set to be allocated to the individual class members pursuant to
filings submitted to the Court, should be recalculated such that
the full $3 million settlement, less attorneys' fees and other
approved expenses, is distributed to the Settlement Class Members.
The MBTA argues that the Settlement Agreement calls for unclaimed
funds that are not associated with individuals who affirmatively
"opted out" to revert to the MBTA.  As explained during the Jan.
10, 2019 Final Class Settlement Approval Hearing, the Court agrees
with the MBTA's interpretation of the Settlement Agreement.

The parties' dispute turns on the meaning of paragraphs 23 and 42
of the Settlement Agreement.  Paragraph 23 states that the Net
Settlement Fund will be paid to Participating Class Members in
accordance with the percentages shown on Exhibit A thereto.  In the
event that any of the individuals listed on Exhibit A should opt
out of the settlement, the Settlement Administrator will
recalculate the percentages shown on Exhibit A with those
individuals excluded.  Paragraph 42 states that if there remains
any residual from the Net Settlement Fund after all payments are
made under the Settlement, including because settlement checks are
not cashed within 90 calendar days after issuance, the residual
will be returned to the MBTA.

As seven individuals responded to the settlement notice by opting
out, paragraph 23 unambiguously requires the Settlement
Administrator to recalculate the percentages shown in Exhibit A,
and to apportion the percentages of the settlement fund that would
have been paid to those individuals to the Participating Class
Members. Paragraph 23 does not suggest, however, that the unclaimed
settlement funds associated with the class members who did not
respond should be reallocated.  Paragraph 42 calls for the return
of residual funds to the MBTA, which will include unclaimed funds.

The Plaintiffs make five arguments that the unclaimed funds should
be reallocated, all of which Judge Burroughs finds unavailing.
First, the Plaintiffs argue that the Settlement Agreement does not
define the status of the class members who did not respond to the
settlement notification and that they should therefore be treated
as having opted out.  But as is clear from the notice, the putative
class members who opted out have a different status than the class
members who did not respond: individuals who opted out did not
release their claims, while class members who did not respond are
"deemed by the Court to have fully and irrevocably released and
waived any and all Released Claims.

Second, the Plaintiffs argue that the settlement is not premised on
the adequacy of the separate, specific damage amounts sent to
claimants but on an overall amount of recovery of $3 million.  The
Plaintiffs nonetheless agree that the settlement is fair and
adequate, even under the Court's and the MBTA's interpretation of
the Settlement Agreement, and the Plaintiffs' second argument fails
to account for the reversion provision in paragraph 42 which, even
under their interpretation, has the potential to reduce the overall
recovery to an amount less than $3 million.

Third, the Plaintiffs argue that, during the drafting process, they
made their opposition to reversion of excess or unclaimed funds
clear.  That argument, according to the Judge, is insufficient to
overcome the clear language of the Settlement Agreement,
particularly considering that the Settlement Agreement contains an
integration clause.

Fourth, the Plaintiffs argue that paragraph 42 applies only to
funds that are distributed via checks that go uncashed.  Paragraph
42 is clear that the "residual" includes funds from checks that are
not cashed, but that it is not limited to those funds.

Fifth, the Plaintiffs argue that a recalculation is straightforward
and fair, but that argument has no bearing on whether the
recalculation that the Plaintiffs advocate is consistent with the
Settlement Agreement.

Therefore, and for the reasons Judge Burroughs concludes that the
parties' dispute over the allocation of unclaimed funds is resolved
in favor of the MBTA.  The parties will file a proposed order of
final approval of the class settlement consistent with the Court's
direction during the January 10 conference.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 11, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/TjCWGe from Leagle.com.

Staci Atkins Gamble, Tyrone Washington, Gregory Williams, Victoria
Perry, Hazel Cannon, Roy Green, Paul Frazier, Kurt Kiessling, John
Mooneyhan, Shara Daniels & George Cooley, Consolidated Plaintiffs,
represented by Douglas Taylor, Gromfine, Taylor & Tyler, P.C.

Local 589, Amalgamated Transit Union & Daniel Shea, Plaintiffs,
represented by Douglas Taylor, Gromfine, Taylor & Tyler, P.C.

MBTA, Defendant, represented by Mark W. Batten --
mbatten@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP & Rebecca J. Sivitz --
mbatten@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose, LLP.


BRIGGS & STRATTON: May 22 Claims Filing Deadline in Lawn Mower Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Class actions initiated in Ontario and Quebec have concluded with
settlements totalling $7,535,000.

Affected lawn mower purchasers can make claims for payment. Visit
www.lawnmowersettlement.ca (the "Settlement Website") to learn more
and to make a claim for money. Claims must be submitted by May 22,
2019.

The class actions concern all Canadians who purchased certain major
brand-name gas-powered lawn mowers labelled at 30 horsepower or
less between January 1, 1994 and December 31, 2012 which were
manufactured or labelled by the defendants. It is alleged that the
defendants agreed to manipulate horsepower labelling on certain
lawn mowers during this time. The defendants deny the allegations
and they have not been proven in court.

There is a speedy and simple online claims process for lawn mower
purchasers to claim between $15 and $55 per qualifying lawn mower.
Purchasers can provide the best information they have available.
Even a declaration without further proof may qualify for cash
compensation.

Retailers and distributors of affected lawn mowers can also claim a
share of the settlement recoveries. 20% of the Net Settlement
Amount has been allocated to an Upstream Purchase Fund.
Proportionate payments to eligible claimants will be made from the
Upstream Purchase Fund based on the eligible lawn mowers they
purchased and their corresponding horsepower ratings.

For more information regarding the claims process, including more
details about the levels of compensation and acceptable documentary
proof, see the court-approved Distribution Protocol which is posted
at www.lawnmowersettlement.ca. [GN]


BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Verde
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VERDE MINERALS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. BURLINGTON
RESOURCES OIL AND GAS COMPANY, LP, et al, Defendants, Civil Action
No. 2:16-CV-463 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi
Division, (i) denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment;
(ii) granted in part and denied in part Verde's motion for partial
summary judgment; and (ii) granted Verde's motion for leave under
Rule 15(a)(2) to amend its complaint.

Verde brings the putative class action on behalf of an alleged
class of holders of oil and gas interests in approximately 2,092
acres located in Live Oak County, Texas.  Verde claims that
Defendants 1893 Oil & Gas, Ltd. and ELP2 Minerals, Ltd. have
violated obligations that their predecessor-in-interest assumed
nearly a century ago when he agreed to pay a portion of any oil and
gas proceeds derived from the Property to the
predecessors-in-interest of Verde and other similarly situated
parties.

Verde alleges that its interest stems from a series of grants by
Edward Mattison ("Mattison Deeds"), executed between 1919 and 1921
and filed in the Live Oak County records.  The story begins in 1906
with the sale of approximately 47,000 acres, including the
Property, from The Live Oak Co. to four Texans, William Green, R.S.
Dilworth, S.V. Houston, and Philip Welhausen.  This land was
formerly known as the Fant Ranch.

Six years later, the Green Owners conveyed approximately 16,000
acres from their purchase, including the Property, to Ethel L.
Plympton of Minneapolis, Minnesota.  The sale was memorialized in a
1912 deed ("Plympton Deed"), in which Ms. Plympton agreed to pay
for the property with a cash down payment and 35 promissory
Vendor's Lien Notes," of varying principal amounts and maturities.

Rather than treating each note as an encumbrance on a particular
portion of the property, the Plympton Deed provided that said notes
are secured by a Vendor's Lien on all of the land therein conveyed,
with the noteholders free to accelerate the debt upon default.
However, a provision of the Plympton Deed ("Lien Release Clause")
also gave Ms. Plympton and her successors an open-ended option to
pay cash to the Green Owners in exchange for the release of Ms.
Plympton's selected portions of the property from the vendors'
lien.  As will be seen, Ms. Plympton and/or her successors appear
to have taken advantage of the Lien Release Clause, as the record
reflects that portions of the 16,000-acre estate were later
released from the vendors' lien.

In 1914, Ms. Plympton sold the entirety of her 16,000 acres to the
United States Installment Realty Company ("USIR") of Minneapolis
and its trustee.  That deed expressly authorized USIR and Reynolds
to subdivide the land, construct roads, and sell or encumber the
land however Reynolds saw fit.

In 1926, the Green Owners brought a quiet title action in Live Oak
County, naming as defendants a large group of purported holders of
interests in the land that the Green Owners had previously conveyed
to Ms. Plympton and USIR.  The named defendants included Mattison
and Canning, as well as the unknown heirs of each of said persons,
but not Ole P. Becken, Hans P. Becken, and O.O. West.  The Green
Owners sought to clear their title through adverse possession.

In an affidavit, S.V. Houston, one of the Green Owners, swore that
Ms. Plympton, nor anybody else, never did pay them for the land and
they had to take it back for their debts.  They had previously
released some of the land, and these companies, had some of that
land on hand.  Houston went on to describe USIR's bankruptcy, and
how the bankruptcy trustee had given the Green Owners a deed that
conveyed back to them all lands which they had not released.

None of the defendants appeared, and the court entered judgment in
the Green Owners' favor.  Specifically, the Houston judgment
declared that all right, title and interest of defendants and each
of them in and to the said premises be cancelled and removed as a
cloud on the title of the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs may have
their writ of possession.

The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment.  The
Defendants first challenge the Mattison Deeds as incapable of
conveying any legally recognized property interest.  They contend
that the grant fails because it lacks any metes and bounds
description or other means by which to identify the acreage
purportedly conveyed.

Judge Ramos finds that the Statute of Frauds does not negate the
conveyance of a property interest to Verde's
predecessors-in-interest.  The fact that there is no "Edward
Mattison Survey" in the record, however, does not cause the
Mattison Deeds to fail under the Statute of Frauds.  The
Defendants' own expert's declaration also belies their argument
that the Mattison Deeds do not provide a sufficient means to
identify the interests in oil and gas on the Property allegedly
conveyed therein.

The parties diverge widely on their views of the Mattison Deeds.
Relying on Texas oil and gas precedents, Verde argues that the
Mattison Deeds conveyed a share of ownership in the mineral
interest of the Property, or in the alternative, a fixed royalty
interest in any future oil and gas proceeds.  The Defendants, on
the other hand, dispute both characterizations and instead construe
the Mattison Deeds as at most creating an unenforceable personal
covenant.

The Judge finds that (i) the unambiguous terms of the Mattison
Deeds reflect the parties' intent to convey a royalty interest;
(ii) the royalty interest conveyed was a floating royalty interest;
(iii) the Mattison Deeds do not contain an enenforceable personal
covenant; (iv) the Mattison Deeds did not violate the rule against
perpetuities; (v) the Green Owners' efforts to foreclose on their
vendors' lien did not void the conveyances to Mattison's grantees;
(vi) the Defendants possess only a royalty interest in the Property
with the possibility of reverter; (vii) any claims for unpaid
royalties accruing after Nov. 2, 2012 are not barred by the statute
of limitations; and (viii) the Mattison Deeds are construed as
conveying a floating royalty interest.

Verde has also sought leave to amend its complaint under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2).  In its amended complaint, Verde
asks (1) to add Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Co., LP as a
Defendant, asserting against it a claim arising under the Texas
Natural Resources Code ("TNRC"); (2) to add as additional named
Plaintiffs other alleged successors to Mattison's grants; and (3)
to add a cause of action seeking a declaratory judgment that the
Mattison Deeds conveyed either a mineral interest or a royalty
interest.

Finally, the Judge will permit Verde to file its amended complaint.
He finds that the Defendants complain the amendment will be
futile, but they do not offer any arguments as regarding futility
other than the ones urged in their summary judgment briefing as to
why Verde allegedly does not hold any legally enforceable interest.
The amendment also does not appear to be the product of bad faith
or dilatory motive, nor does it appear that the Defendants will
suffer any undue prejudice as a result of the amendment.  Lastly,
he says the Defendants cannot claim to have been surprised that the
Plaintiffs would seek leave to amend while summary judgment motions
were pending (or afterward).  Nor has the request for leave to
amend mooted the parties' briefing, as the proposed amendment only
clarifies the issues developed at length through the summary
judgment briefing.

Based in the foregoing, Judge Ramos (i) denied the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment; (ii) granted in part and denied in
part Verde's motion for partial summary judgment; and (ii) granted
Verde's motion for leave under Rule 15(a)(2) to amend its
complaint.  The Clerk of the Court is ordered to file the First
Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Monetary Relief
which was filed as Exhibit 1 to Verde's motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 9, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/VN7Z75 from Leagle.com.

Verde Minerals, LLC, on behalf of itself and a class of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Walter James Scott,
Jr., Scott Law Group LLP, Douglas E. Chaves --
dchaves@coplawfirm.com -- Chaves Resendez et al & George Theodore
Scott, Scott Law Group LLP.

1893 Oil & Gas, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Charles W. Gordon,
IV, Porter Rogers et al, Laura H. Burney, Richard Glenn Foster,
Porter Rogers Dahlman & Gordon, P.C. & Fred Riley Jones, Goode
Casseb et al.

Alamo Mineral Properties, LLC, Vaughan & Sons, Inc, Curtis Torrey
Vaughan, III, Robert Louis Vaughan, ELP2 Minerals, Ltd., ELP2
Management LLC, Melba Jo Parrott & Jeannine Powell Shold,
Defendants, represented by Charles W. Gordon, IV, Porter Rogers et
al & Richard Glenn Foster, Porter Rogers Dahlman & Gordon, P.C..


CENTURY SUPPORT: Made Unsolicited Calls/Texts, Fabricant Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry D. Fabricant, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Century Support
Services, LLC and Century DS LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00058-DSC (W.D. Pa., January
18, 2019) seeks to secure redress over Defendants' willful
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and for
invasion of Plaintiff's privacy by causing unsolicited calls to be
made to Plaintiff's and other class members' cellular telephones
through the use of an auto-dialer and/or artificial or pre-recorded
or artificial voice message.

The Defendants made one or more unauthorized calls to Plaintiff's
cell phone using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS")
and/or a pre-recorded voice for the purpose of soliciting business
from Plaintiff, says the complaint. T he complaint asserts that the
Defendants called Plaintiff's cellular telephone which was listed
on the National Do Not Call registry; continued calling Plaintiff
after Defendants promised not to contact Plaintiff in violation of
Defendant's internal do not call policy; and sent text messages to
Plaintiff without prior written express consent.

Plaintiff Terry D. Fabricant is a citizen of California.

Century Support Services, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Westmoreland
County, North Huntingdon, Pennsylvania.

Century DS LLC is a Delaware limited liability company. Defendant
has its principal place of business in Westmoreland County, North
Huntingdon, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Clayton S. Morrow, Esq.
     Morrow & Artim, PC
     304 Ross Street, 7th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Phone: (412) 209-0656
     Facsimile: (412) 386-3184
     Email: csm@ConsumerLaw365.com

          - and -

     Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
     Anderson + Wanca
     3701 W. Algonquin Rd. Ste#500
     Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
     Phone: (847) 368-1500
     Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
     Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


CHEMICAL & MINING: Letters Rogatory Issuance Bid in Villella Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MEGAN VILLELLA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHEMICAL & MINING CO. OF
CHILE INC., Defendant, Case No. 15 Civ. 2106 (ER) (S.D. N.Y.),
Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Lead Plaintiff's unopposed motion
requesting that the Court issue two letters of request, also known
as "letters rogatory," for judicial assistance from a Canadian
court in aid of discovery from Canadian third parties, pursuant to
both Chapter I of the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence
Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, and Rule 28(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The case is a putative federal securities class action brought on
behalf of all individuals who purchased American Depository Shares
in the Defendant, also known as Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile
S.A. ("SQM"), on the New York Stock Exchange between June 30, 2010,
and June 18, 2015.  

Lead Plaintiff, the Council of the Borough of South Tyneside Acting
in Its Capacity as the Administering Authority of the Tyne and Wear
Pension Fund, alleges that SQM violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated
thereunder.

The Fund alleges that SQM made several public filings with the SEC
and issued press releases that contained materially false and/or
misleading disclosures because the documents failed to disclose
that: (i) money from SQM was illegally channeled to bribe Chilean
politicians and political parties, (ii) SQM had filed fictitious
tax receipts in order to conceal these bribe payments, (iii) SQM
lacked adequate internal controls over its financial reporting, and
(iv) as a result, SQM's financial statements were materially false
and misleading and not prepared in accordance with applicable
accounting principles.  The parties commenced discovery in May
2017, and, pursuant to the operative scheduling order, the deadline
for fact discovery is March 3, 2019.

Before the Court is the Fund's unopposed motion requesting that the
Court issue two letters of request, also known as "letters
rogatory," for judicial assistance from a Canadian court in aid of
discovery from Canadian third parties.  In the motion, the Fund
asks the Court to issue two letters rogatory to the Saskatchewan
Court of Queen's Bench in Canada: (1) to compel Wayne R. Brownlee
to testify and produce documentary evidence; and (2) to compel
Nutrien Ltd., as successor to Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan,
Inc., to produce documentary evidence, all in accordance with the
third-party subpoenas attached to the Fund's moving papers.
According to the Fund, Brownlee and Nutrien are Canadian third
parties located in Saskatchewan, Canada, and both parties possess
material information "highly relevant" to the claims at issue in
the action.

The Fund maintains that it has attempted to obtain the requested
discovery from Brownlee and Nutrien's predecessor without resort to
formal subpoenas, but the counsel for both Brownlee and Nutrien has
informed the Fund that they would not respond to any discovery
requests absent formal subpoenas.

SQM concedes the general relevance of discovery from Nutrien and
Brownlee and, therefore, does not oppose the Fund's request for
issuance of the letters rogatory to aid in such discovery.
However, SQM asks the Court to modify the proposed letters in five
ways.

First, SQM asks that the proposed letters be modified to expressly
address SQM's right to object to -- and prevent -- the disclosure
of privileged information" between SQM and its lawyers that may be
in the possession of Nutrien or Brownlee.  Second, SQM asks that
the proposed letters be modified to expressly acknowledge its right
to question any witness appearing pursuant to the letters.  Third,
SQM asks the Court to replace the letters' references to
"materiality" with references to "relevance."  Fourth, it asks that
the Court insert a footnote in the letters that make clear that the
factual assertions contained therein are the Fund's allegations,
not the Court's findings of fact.  Fifth, and finally, it contends
that the time period for which discovery is sought from Nutrien and
Brownlee appears substantially overbroad relative to the topics of
the proposed discovery, and asks the Court to consider whether the
time period is justified.

The Fund has not responded to SQM's proposed modifications.

After careful review, Judge Ramos concludes that the sought-after
discovery from Nutrien and Brownlee is undeniably relevant to the
prosecution of the action; may prove material to the prosecution of
this action or lead to material evidence; and is proportional to
the needs of the case, given the amount of money at stake and the
information sought.  Accordingly, the Funds' request for issuance
of letters rogatory to aid in discovery will be granted.

In addition, he finds that SQM's first four modifications to the
proposed letters reasonable under the circumstances and will thus
adopt them as provided.  However, he declines at this time to limit
the temporal scope of discovery from that which the Fund proposed.

For the reasons aforementioned, Judge Ramos granted the Fund's
motion for issuance of letters of request.  The Fund is ordred to
resubmit its proposed letters of request, revised only to include
the modifications approved by the Court within seven calendar days
of the filing of the Opinion & Order.  The Clerk of Court is
respectfully directed to terminate the motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 11, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/ui15Gb from Leagle.com.

Megan Villella, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom --
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- at Pomerantz LLP.

Megan Villella, on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP,
Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP & Jason Allen Zweig --
jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Lynn Molinaro, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Aelish M. Baig --
aelishb@rgrdlaw.com -- Brian E. Cochran -- bcochran@rgrdlaw.com --
David Avi Rosenfeld -- DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- David C. Walton --

davew@rgrdlaw.com -- Matthew Melamed -- mmelamed@rgrdlaw.com --
Samuel Howard Rudman -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP; Frank James Johnson --
FrankJ@JohnsonandWeaver.com -- at Johnson & Weaver, LLP.

Anton Mandelstam, Movant, represented by Phillip C. Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm P.A.

Sam Villella & Leroy Robinson, Movants, represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Marty Sholtis, Movant, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy --
lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

The Council of the Borough of South Tyneside Acting in Its Capacity
as the Administering Authority of the Tyne and Wear Pension Fund,
Movant, represented by Aelish M. Baig, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, John H. George, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Matthew
Melamed, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, Armen Zohrabian, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP & Sabrina Elsa Tirabassi, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP.

Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System, Movant, represented by
Gerald H. Silk -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP.

Richard Gielata, Movant, pro se.

Chemical & Mining Co. of Chile Inc., Defendant, represented by
Alison Bonelli -- abonelli@milbank.com -- Milbank, Tweed, Hadley &
McCloy LLP, Grant Richard Mainland -- gmainland@milbank.com --
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz & Scott Alexander Edelman --
sedelman@milbank.com -- Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP.


CLARITY SERVICES: Padgett Appeals Suit Dismissal to 11th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Adrienne Padgett appeals to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the Order entered in the
action styled ADRIENNE L. PADGETT, individually and on behalf of
persons similarly situated v. CLARITY SERVICES, INC., Case No.
8:18-cv-01918-JSM-CPT (M.D. Fla.), on December 13, 2018.

The Order was issued by the Hon. James S. Moody, Jr., granting the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint,
and dismissing the action with prejudice.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Defendant has reported illegal, void, and
uncollectible loans from installment loan and "payday" lenders,
such as Plain Green, LLC, as having balance due on Plaintiff's
consumer report in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Clarity Services operates as a real-time credit bureau addressing
fraud detection and credit risk management solutions.

The appellate case is captioned as ADRIENNE L. PADGETT,
individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated v. CLARITY
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 19-10147-DD, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          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: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
          Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
          John B. Scofield, Jr., Esq.
          Amy E. Tabor, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN
          628 East 9th Street
          Houston, TX 77007-1722
          Telephone: (713) 751-0400
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
          E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
                  cbc@caddellchapman.com
                  jbs@caddellchapman.com
                  aet@caddellchapman.com


CLEAR MANAGEMENT: Court Certifies Class in Morrison Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned AIMEE MORRISON, the
Plaintiff, vs. CLEAR MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-00051-CW-EJF (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Clark Waddoups
entered an order on Jan. 4, 2019:

   1. certifying the class proposed by Ms. Morrison, consisting
of:

      "all persons with addresses within Utah; who were sent any
      communication which was similar or identical to
Plaintiff’s
      on behalf of Utah Imaging Associates; to recover a consumer
      debt; in which this initial communication failed to provide
      the notice required by 15 U.S.C. section 1962g and/or 15
      U.S.C. section 1692e(11); which were not returned
      undelivered by the United States Postal Service; from April
      11, 2016 until April 11, 2017."

   2. denying CMS's motion for summary judgment; and

   3. granting Ms. Morrison's motion for summary judgment.

Ms. Morrison argues that CMS's conduct was both deceptive because
it "knowingly" and "intentionally omitted" the notices required by
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the omission was
unconscionable because it left Ms. Morrison in a position of not
knowing "the proper way to respond based on the information given
to" her.  The court agrees the failure to provide the proper
notices identifying CMS as a debt collector, as required by law,
was deceptive. CMS knowingly misrepresented the nature of its
collections activity by hiding behind a d/b/a in attempt to avoid
registering as a debt collector and providing the requisite
notices; that was a knowing and intentional deceptive act. There
may, however, be a factual dispute as to whether CMS's letter was
unconscionable.  Generally, unconscionability requires some
"extreme unfairness," the court says, citing Black's Law
Dictionary. While the court agrees that CMS acted deceptively,
there is not a factual basis for the court to conclude as a matter
of law that CMS's misconduct rises to the level of
unconscionability. Rather, she has simply repackaged the CMS's
allegedly deceptive conduct and called it unconscionable.
Nevertheless, because CMS acted deceptively, the court is persuaded
that CMS violated the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act and
Ms. Morrison is entitled to summary judgment on that question.[CC]

COCA-COLA CO: Israeli Judge Approves Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Charley Connor, writing for Global Competition Review, reported
that an Israeli court has certified a standalone class action
against Coca Cola, which is accused of abusing its dominant
position in the soft drinks market by setting excessive prices.
[GN]


CONAGRA BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over Retirement Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that ConAgra
faces a class action from former employees saying the company
carried out an illegal "reinterpretation" of their retirement plan
to deny millions of dollars in benefits.

Bart Karlson, of Eustis, Fla., filed his complaint Dec. 19 in
federal court in Chicago against ConAgra Brands, its employee
benefits administrative and appeals committees and William Ryan
Egan, vice president of human resources and member of both
committees. Karlson worked for the Chicago company from February
2007 to April 2016. At the time of his termination, he was senior
director of global benefits and on the administrative committee.

According to the complaint, the ConAgra Foods Retirement Income
Savings Plan had more than $1.4 billion in assets as of December
2015 and nearly 13,000 participants. That was two months after an
Oct. 1 announcement the company would lay off 30 percent of its
global office workers -- including Karlson -- to save at least $300
million over the next three years.

At the same time, ConAgra was selling its private label business,
"which was losing money and underperforming despite ConAgra’s
heavy investment, including a $5 billion purchase of Ralcorp, a
private label manufacturer, in January 2013. ConAgra would
eventually sell all of its private brands operations, including
those existing prior to its acquisition of Ralcorp, in February
2016, at a loss of approximately $2.7 billion plus transaction
expenses."

Karlson, whose employment ended April 1, 2016, said the company
erred when it didn’t defer or match 15 percent of his July 15,
2016, management incentive plan bonus to its pre-tax contribution
retirement plan, as had been standard practice. He said company
documents define such bonus payouts, when made within two and a
half months of termination, as part of annual compensation in that
workers would’ve been paid the money had they remained employed.

The complaint said Karlson didn’t notice the issue until April
11, 2018, after which he filed a claim with Egan, who denied the
claim, explaining a policy change in 2016 under which the old
"administrative interpretation was narrowed to achieve operational
efficiencies and stability." Karlson appealed that ruling to the
appeals committee, which Egan rejected with a similar letter saying
the plan wasn’t amended, but the way the company read the
plan’s language had changed.

Karlson noted Egan's appeal denial letter acknowledged "this change
was administrative in nature, and did not require analysis by or a
decision from the (Employee Benefits Administrative Committee),"and
said that conflicts with language dictating the EBAC has "sole and
absolute discretion to construe and interpret the plan."

He further said the timing of the policy alteration indicates "a
primary motivation for the change was ConAgra's desire to reduce
its expenses and improve its financial performance" and accused the
company of a breach of duty of loyalty and obligation to act in the
best interests of plan participants, as well as breach of fiduciary
duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The proposed class includes similarly situated former employees who
got an MIP bonus in or after 2015, which could be several thousand
people. In addition to class certification, Karlson wants the court
to force ConAgra to recover the benefits employees would've
received had the company made appropriate deferrals and matching
contributions -- including profits that money would’ve generated
for employees had it been properly accounted for at the right
time.

Representing Karlson, and seeking to serve as class attorneys, are
lawyers from the firms of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, of
San Francisco, and Novack and Macey, of Chicago.[GN]


CVS PHARMACY: John Does Appeal Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs John Does filed an appeal from a court ruling in their
lawsuit entitled John Doe, et al. v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:18-cv-01031-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.

The appellate case is captioned as John Doe, et al. v. CVS
Pharmacy, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-15074, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 26, 2018, Judge
Edward M. Chen (i) granted CVS and Employer Defendants' motions to
dismiss, and (ii) dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action alleging that they
have been discriminatorily denied benefits under their
employer-offered prescription drug benefit plans.  The complaint
names two sets of Defendants: CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Caremark, LLC.,
and Caremark California Specialty Pharmacy, LLC ("CVS"), and
Amtrak, Lowe's Companies, and Time Warner, Inc. ("Employer
Defendants").

CVS contracted with the Employer Defendants to provide prescription
drug benefits to the Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs allege that their
benefit plans allow them to obtain their HIV/AIDS medications at
favorable "in-network" prices only via mail or from a CVS pharmacy.
Compared to the non-CVS "community pharmacies" from which the
Plaintiffs were previously able to obtain their medications, the
mail order and CVS Pharmacy pickup options do not offer the same
level of privacy, convenience, reliability, and service.

The Plaintiffs bring eight causes of action: (1) violation of the
anti-discrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act ("ACA");
(2) violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"); (3) violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act;
(4) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (5)
claim for benefits due under plans governed by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"); (6) claim for breach of
fiduciary duties under ERISA; (7) failure to provide full and fair
review under ERISA; and (8) declaratory relief.  The Counts 1-4 are
against CVS only.  The Counts 5-8 are against all the Defendants.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by February 11, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on March 12, 2019;

   -- Appellant John Doe's opening brief is due on April 22,
      2019;

   -- Appellees CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Caremark California Specialty
      Pharmacy, LLC, Caremark, LLC, Lowe's Companies, Inc.,
      National Railroad Passenger Corporation and Time Warner,
      Inc.'s answering brief is due on May 21, 2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants JOHN DOE, One; JOHN DOE, Two; JOHN DOE,
Three; JOHN DOE, Four; on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; and JOHN DOE, Five, are represented by:

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER LAW GROUP
          206 Park Boulevard, Unit 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 308-5034
          E-mail: alan@clgca.com

               - and -

          Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS LLP
          1180 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 447-7060
          E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com

Defendants-Appellees CVS PHARMACY, INC.; CAREMARK, LLC; and
CAREMARK CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY PHARMACY, LLC, are represented by:

          Grant Andrew Geyerman, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 Twelfth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434-5000
          E-mail: ggeyerman@wc.com

Defendant-Appellee NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, DBA
Amtrak, is represented by:

          Ellie Frances Chapman, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS AND BOCKIUS, LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          E-mail: ellie.chapman@morganlewis.com

Defendant-Appellee LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., is represented by:

          Phillip J. Eskenazi, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
          Telephone: (213) 532-2000
          E-mail: peskenazi@HuntonAK.com

Defendant-Appellee TIME WARNER, INC., is represented by:

          Michael H. Bernstein, Esq.
          ROBINSON AND COLE LLP
          666 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 451-2900
          E-mail: mbernstein@rc.com


DELTA OUTSOURCE: 7th Cir. Appeal Filed in Koehn Consumer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Patricia Ann Koehn filed an appeal from a court ruling in
her lawsuit styled Patricia Koehn v. Delta Outsource Group,
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-01084-WCG, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit was filed against Delta Outsource
Group, Inc., a Missouri Corporation, and John Does on July 16,
2018.

Delta Outsource is a performance-based nationwide professional debt
collection company.

The appellate case is captioned as Patricia Koehn v. Delta
Outsource Group, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 19-1088, in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by January 28, 2019;
      and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before February 25, 2019,
      for Patricia Ann Koehn.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant PATRICIA ANN KOEHN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532-5868
          E-mail: andrew@sternthomasson.com
                  francis@sternthomasson.com
                  philip@sternthomasson.com

Defendant-Appellee DELTA OUTSOURCE GROUP, INCORPORATED, a Missouri
Corporation, is represented by:

          Nicole Marie Strickler, Esq.
          MESSER STRICKLER, LTD.
          225 W. Washington Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 334-3442
          E-mail: strickler@messerstilp.com


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Vincent Wong Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Dentsply Sirona, Inc. If you
suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Dentsply Sirona, Inc. (NASDAQ: XRAY)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 9, 2019
Class Period: February 20, 2014 and August 7, 2018

Get additional information about XRAY:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/dentsply-sirona-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Telephone: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP disclosed that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
investors that purchased or otherwise acquired Dentsply Sirona,
Inc. ("Dentsply" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: XRAY) between February
20, 2014 through August 7, 2018, inclusive ("Class Period").

Investors who have incurred losses in the shares of Dentsply
Sirona, Inc., and/or currently own shares, are urged to contact the
firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or
(212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning
the action on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of Dentsply Sirona, Inc.,
you may, no later than February 19, 2019, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact
Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
Dentsply Sirona, Inc.

On August 9, 2017, Dentsply Sirona disclosed that the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") had opened an
investigation into the "Company's accounting and disclosures,
including its accounting and disclosures relating to transactions
with a significant distributor of the Company." In addition,
Dentsply Sirona reported second quarter 2017 earnings that missed
the lowest analyst estimates, cut its full-year guidance by over
5%, and recorded a non-cash goodwill impairment charge of $1.2
billion as a result of an "increase in competition" and the
resulting impact on revenues and margins.

In response to these disclosures, Dentsply Sirona's share price
fell $5.18, or 8.4%, declining from $61.41 per share on August 8,
2017 to close at $56.23 per share on August 9, 2017.

Subsequently, on October 2, 2017, Dentsply Sirona unexpectedly
announced the departure of its three top executives, Chief
Executive Jeffrey Slovin, Chief Operating Officer Christopher
Clark, and Executive Chairman Bret Wise. On this news, Dentsply
Sirona shares fell another $3.48, or 5.8%, declining from $59.81
per share on September 29, 2017 to close at $56.33 per share on
October 2, 2017.

On May 6, 2018, Dentsply Sirona disclosed additional information
revealing the impact of the antitrust conspiracy on the Company's
financial results, reporting that organic revenue growth for the
first quarter of 2018 was down 1.4%, driven largely by a 7.6%
decline in the U.S. market. Dentsply Sirona also reported that on a
segment basis, consumables declined 1.3% year-over-year, while
equipment declined 1.6% year-over-year. As a result, the Company
announced that it was reducing its 2018 guidance by $0.15 per share
for the second time in nine months.

Dentsply Sirona's stock price fell $5.52, or 11%, over the next two
trading days, declining from $49.99 per share on May 4, 2018 to
close at $44.47 per share on May 8, 2018.

Finally, on August 7, 2018, Dentsply Sirona announced another
goodwill impairment charge of $1.27 billion and cut full year
earnings guidance by approximately 20% due to continued significant
destocking of product by its partner dealers.

On this news, Dentsply Sirona shares declined $9.03, or 18.6%, to
close at $39.41 on August 7, 2018, its lowest price since 2013.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately;

         Kevin Cooper, Esq.
         Gregory Stone
         Director of Case and Financial Analysis       
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
         Telephone: (800) 575-0735
                    (212) 545-4774
         Website: www.whafh.com.
         Email: gstone@whafh.com
                kcooper@whafh.com
                classmember@whafh.com [GN]


DXC TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that a class action has
been commenced by an institutional investor on behalf of purchasers
of DXC Technology Company (NYSE:DXC) common stock during the period
between February 8, 2018 and November 6, 2018 (the "Class Period").
This action was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia and is
captioned City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. DXC
Technology Company, et al., No. 18-cv-1599.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased DXC common stock during the Class Period to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf
of all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor’s
ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from
today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff’s counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. You
can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/dxctechnology/.

The complaint charges DXC and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. DXC purports to
be a leader in the information technology ("IT") services space,
focusing on helping clients decrease IT infrastructure costs and
advance to digital technology.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding the Company’s business and
prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that the
Company had changed or planned to change the operations of its
sales teams, deploying generalized sales teams as opposed to the
specialized teams that were better capable of delivering
specialized services to its clients; that the Company's workforce
optimization strategy of sharply reducing staff while reducing
costs was resulting in a shortage of sales personnel who could
execute on demand for services, thereby risking and ultimately
losing sales and revenue opportunities; and that, as a consequence,
the Company's revenue and financial performance guidance for fiscal
2019 was without a reasonable basis. As a result of defendants’
material misrepresentations and omissions, DXC's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices, reaching a Class Period high of more
than $96.00 per share, and the individual defendants were able to
sell a total of 215,549 shares of their DXC stock for proceeds of
more than $19.8 million at artificially inflated prices.

On October 24, 2018, The Register published an exclusive article
titled "DXC axes Americas boss amid latest deck chair musical." The
article discussed the early October 2018 surprise firing of the
head of the Company's Americas sales force due to a sharp decline
in the region’s revenue and, specifically, a reported 10%-15%
revenue shortfall. On this disclosure, the Company’s stock price
fell 16%.

Later the same day, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC in
response to the news of the firing, which reiterated the
Company’s fiscal 2019 earnings per share guidance.

Then on November 6, 2018, the Company reported its second quarter
2019 financial results in a press release, providing specific
revenue, pre-tax earnings and gross margin results for the quarter.
On the same day, during a conference call for investors, the
Company also disclosed that it had lost sales to significant
customers, that quarterly revenues would fall short of expectations
by hundreds of millions of dollars, and that the Company would
reduce its fiscal 2019 revenue outlook by $800 million. During the
conference call, defendants also revealed that customers were
scaling back upgrades in some instances, that the digital space was
not growing at the previously reported rates, and that the Company
had changed its sales approach for two quarters and that the
approach had been reversed because it was not working. On the
November 6, 2018 disclosures, the price of DXC stock declined 13%,
from a close of $72.21 per share on November 6, 2018 to a close of
$63.21 per share on November 7, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
DXC common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

         Darren Robbins, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Telephone: 800/449-4900
                    619/231-1058
         Email: djr@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Bilked Children Out of Money, Docs Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Phil Baker, writing for PJ Media, reported that it seems no one is
too young for Facebook to go after. In this case, the company has
been accused of taking advantage of kids when they make purchases
while playing games online. Many of the instances relate to playing
the in-app game "Angry Birds."

While the standard procedure used by most companies, including
Google and Apple, requires you to enter a password whenever you use
a stored credit card to make a purchase while playing, Facebook
never asked for the verification from the children playing the
games once the first purchase was authorized.

Since authorization was not requested, both the kids and parents
assumed items were being paid for using virtual currency, such as
credits generated by points that accumulate while playing.

As a result, surprise charges mounted on the parents' credit cards
as kids made purchase after purchase within the game, in many cases
amounting to hundreds of dollars.

This information about Facebook's behavior was discovered as the
result of the Reveal release of four court documents as part of a
2012 class-action lawsuit. Facebook has been ordered to release
another hundred or so more pages as part of the lawsuit.

According to the documents uncovered by Reveal:

   The lead plaintiff in the case was a child who used his mother's
credit card to pay $20 while playing a game on Facebook. The child,
referred to as "I.B." in the case, did not know the social media
giant had stored his mom's payment information. As he continued to
play the game, Ninja Saga, Facebook continued to charge his mom's
credit card, racking up several hundred dollars in just a few
weeks.

In spite of Facebook employees agreeing that children were likely
to be confused by the in-game purchases because it "doesn't
necessarily look like real money to a minor," the company continued
to deny refunds to children, profiting from their confusion.

The site Bleeping Computer also reports:

   Two Facebook employees deny a refund request from a child whom
they refer to as a "whale" -- a term coined by the casino industry
to describe profligate spenders. The child had entered a credit
card number to play a game, and in about two weeks racked up
thousands of dollars in charges, according to an excerpt of
messages between two employees at the social media giant.

In one case, when the child's mother asked Facebook for a refund,
explaining she only authorized the initial $20 charge, Facebook
rejected her claim. As a result, the family joined with other upset
parents in a class-action lawsuit.

Facebook's response was simply, "We appreciate the court's careful
review of these materials." [GN]


FCA US LLC: Non-conventional Shifter Hit in Lalli Product Row
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Lalli, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-10046, (E.D. Mich., January 7, 2019), seeks to temporarily
and permanently enjoin FCA from continuing to produce vehicles with
defective shifters, appropriate injunctive relief, equitable
relief, costs, restitution, damages, including statutory and
punitive damages, penalties and disgorgement, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded, costs and attorneys'
fees and such other or further relief resulting from unjust
enrichment, breach of express and implied warranty, fraudulent
concealment and for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and
Florida's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The complaint asserts that FCA US LLC designed and manufactured
cars with shifters that does not move into a physical gear position
like a traditional shifter but rather springs back to its original
position after a driver selects a gear so it does not notify
drivers of the current gear placement their vehicle is in, thus
resulting in accidental vehicle roll-away.

Lalli bought a new 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee. Her vehicle has rolled
away on at least two occasions.

FCA US LLC is a car manufacturer existing under the laws of the
State of Delaware with principal place of business and headquarters
is in Auburn Hills, Michigan. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     E. Powell Miller, Esq.
     Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
     Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
     THE MILLER LAW FIRM, PC
     950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
     Rochester, MI 48307
     Tel: (248) 841-2200
     Fax: (248) 652-2852
     Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
            ssa@millerlawpc.com

              - and -

     Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
     Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
     Melissa Troutner, Esq.
     Tyler S. Graden, Esq.
     KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     Telephone: (610) 667-7706
     Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
     Email: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
            pmuhic@ktmc.com
            mtroutner@ktmc.com
            tgraden@ktmc.com

            - and -

     Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Telephone: (206) 623-7292
     Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
     Email: toml@hbsslaw.com
            robl@hbsslaw.com

            - and -

     Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     301 N. Lake Ave., Suite 920
     Pasadena, CA 91101
     Tel: (213) 330-7150
     Fax: (213) 330-7152
     Email: christopherp@hbsslaw.com

            - and -

     Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
     Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
     David A. Goodwin, Esq.
     Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
     GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
     Canadian Pacific Plaza
     120 S. Sixth St., Suite 2600
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Tel: (612) 333-8844
     Fax: (612) 339-6622
     Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
            jkilene@gustafsongluek.com
            dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
            rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com

            - and -

     Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
     Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
     100 Washington Ave. S Ste. 2200
     MPLS, MN 55401−2179
     Tel: (612) 339−6900
     Fax: (612) 339−0981
     Email: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
            rapeterson@locklaw.com

            - and -

     Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
     Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
     Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
     Lisa A. White, Esq.
     GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
     800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Telephone: (865) 247-0080
     Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
     Email: lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
            greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
            adam@gregcolemanlaw.com
            mark@gregcolemanlaw.com

            - and -

     David Honigman, Esq.
     Douglas Toering, Esq.
     Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
     James A. Buster, Esq.
     MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C.
     1361 E. Big Beaver Road
     Troy, MI 48083
     Telephone: (248) 457-9200
     Email: dhonigman@manteselaw.com
            dtoering@manteselaw.com
            gmantese@manteselaw.com
            jbuster@manteselaw.com


FIRST AMERICAN: Court Stays Simons FDCA Suit for 60 Days
--------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, stayed the case,
RUSSELL SIMONS, Plaintiff, v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-2002-Orl-40TBS (M.D. Fla.) for
60 days from the rendition of the Order.

Pending before the Court is the parties' Joint Stipulation
Regarding First American Title Insurance Company's Motion to Stay
and Motion to Dismiss.

On Aug.17, 2018, David E. Bartine and Judith S. Bartine filed a
putative class action against Diamond Resorts Management, Inc. and
First American Title Insurance Company, Case No.
6:18-cv-1364-Orl-40TBS (M.D. Fla.).  The Bartines allege that the
Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
Florida Consumer Collections Practices Act by sending them
statutorily-authorized notices as part of Florida's trustee
foreclosure process for timeshare interests.  The Bartines'
attorney subsequently filed three additional cases on behalf of
other plaintiffs, all of which make identical allegations against
First American: the instant case, and Case No.
6:18-cv-1850-Orl-40TBS (M.D. Fla.) ("Subsequent Cases").

All four cases rest on identical legal theories and closely
analogous factual allegations.  There are motions to dismiss
pending in all the cases and motions to stay pending in the
Subsequent Cases.  The parties in all four cases have until Jan.
23, 2019, to advise whether the cases should be consolidated
pursuant to FED. R. CIV. PRO. 42(a).  In the interim, the parties
have stipulated to the entry of a stay of the Subsequent Cases
pending a decision on the motion to dismiss in Bartine.

Magistrate Judge Smith has reviewed all four complaints and the
motions to dismiss and finds there is a realistic possibility that
the motion in Bartine will be granted.  It is also apparent that
the decision in Bartine will affect the progression of the
Subsequent Cases.  But, the Judge does not know when the district
court will rule or, if the motion to dismiss is granted, whether
the Bartines will be given leave to amend.  Consequently, while
there is good cause to grant the motion for stay, a closed end stay
is more appropriate than the open-ended stay proposed by the
parties.  Now, he granted the joint renewed motion to stay this
case for 60 days from the rendition of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 11, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/m8HN3Q from Leagle.com.

Russell Simons, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian P. Parker, DC Capital
Law, LLP.

First American Title Insurance Company, doing business as First
American, Defendant, represented by Louis M. Ursini, III --
louis.ursini@arlaw.com -- Adams & Reese, LLP & Rebecca Marie Harris
-- rebecca.harris@arlaw.com -- Adams & Reese, LLP.


FITBIT INC: Court Extends Time to Respond to Patti Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANANDA PATTI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FITBIT, INC., JAMES PARK, and
WILLIAM ZERELLA, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-06922-JST (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division, has issued a
Stipulated Order extending time for the Defendants to respond to
complaint and continuing case management conference and associated
deadlines.

The action is a proposed class action alleging violations of the
federal securities laws against the Defendants.  The action is
subject to the requirements of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, which sets forth specialized procedures for the
administration of securities class actions.

The Reform Act provides for the appointment of a lead plaintiff to
act on behalf of the purported class, and further provides that the
appointment of a lead plaintiff will not be made until after a
decision on a motion to consolidate (if any) is rendered.  The
approval of the lead counsel will follow the Court's decision on
the Lead Plaintiff Motion(s).  Thereafter, the parties expect the
Court to set a schedule for the filing of an amended or
consolidated complaint by the Lead Plaintiff.

The Defendants anticipate filing motion(s) to dismiss in response
to the Lead Plaintiff's complaint and that the parties will submit
a briefing schedule to the Court in connection with any such
motion(s).  Because the special procedures specified in the Reform
Act contemplate (i) the consolidation of similar actions, if any;
(ii) appointment of the Lead Plaintiff; and (iii) the filing of a
single consolidated complaint by the Lead Plaintiff, requiring the
Defendants to respond to the existing complaint would result in the
needless expenditure of private and judicial resources.  Pursuant
to the Reform Act, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, discovery
in this action is stayed during the pendency of any motion to
dismiss.

On Nov. 15, 2018, the Court issued an Initial Case Management
Scheduling Order, setting the following deadlines:

     1. Jan. 23, 2019 for the parties to comply with certain
requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Northern District of California Civil Local Rules (Local Rules or
Civil L.R.) and Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR") Local Rules
regarding initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR process
selection, and discovery planning;

     2. Feb. 6, 2019 for the parties to file a Rule 26(f) Report,
complete initial disclosures or state objections in the Rule 26(f)
Report, and file a Joint Case Management Statement; and

     3. Feb. 13, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. for an Initial Case Management
Conference.

On Jan. 3, 2019, the action was related to Lopes v. Fitbit, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-06665-JST and reassigned to Judge Tigar.
On Jan. 4, 2019, the Court issued a notice requiring the parties to
file a Joint Case Management Statement by March 11, 2019 and
resetting the Initial Case Management Conference for March 20, 2019
at 2:00 p.m.

The  counsel for the parties respectfully submit that because the
pleadings are not yet set, and because discovery is stayed pending
any motion(s) to dismiss, good cause exists to vacate the existing
March 20, 2019 Initial Case Management Conference and associated
deadlines until after such time as the Court has the opportunity to
rule on the appointment of Lead Plaintiff and its counsel, as well
as any motion(s) to dismiss.

The parties accordingly stipulated, and Judge Tigar granted, that:

     1. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1(a), the Defendants' obligation
to answer, move or otherwise respond to the complaint is extended
until after the appointment of a Lead Plaintiff and lead counsel,
at which time the parties will meet and confer and submit to the
Court a mutually agreeable schedule for the filing of a
consolidated or amended complaint and the Defendants' responses
thereto;

     2. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-2, the Initial Case Management
Conference scheduled for March 20, 2019 is vacated, along with any
associated deadlines under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
Civil Local Rules, to be reset for a date that is 30 days after the
Court rules on the Defendants' anticipated motion(s) to dismiss
Lead Plaintiff's complaint, or such other date as the Court will
determine to be appropriate; and

     3. All Associated ADR Program deadlines likewise be deferred.

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), all signatories concur in filing
the stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 11, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Nfb9kp from Leagle.com.

Ananda Patti, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy A.
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice
& Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Fitbit, Inc & James Park, Defendants, represented by Alexis I.
Caloza -- acaloza@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West LLP, Jennifer
Corinne Bretan -- jbretan@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP & Susan
Samuels Muck -- smuck@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP.

William Zerella, Defendant, represented by Alexis I. Caloza,
Fenwick and West LLP & Jennifer Corinne Bretan, Fenwick & West
LLP.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces 8-Speed Transmission Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
General Motors 8-speed transmission lawsuit alleges fixes offered
by the automaker haven't solved problems with hard shifting,
shaking, jerking, hesitating and shuddering.

The proposed class-action lawsuit includes all consumers who
purchased or leased the following vehicles in California, Florida,
Illinois, New York, Oklahoma and Texas:

2015-2019 Chevrolet Silverado
2017-2019 Chevrolet Colorado
2015-2019 Chevrolet Corvette
2016-2019 Chevrolet Camaro
2015-2019 Cadillac Escalade
2015-2019 Cadillac Escalade ESV
2016-2019 Cadillac ATS
2016-2019 Cadillac ATS-V
2016-2019 Cadillac CTS
2016-2019 Cadillac CT6
2016-2019 Cadillac CTS-V
2015-2019 GMC Sierra
2015-2019 GMC Yukon
2015-2019 GMC Yukon XL
2015-2019 GMC Yukon Denali XL
2017-2019 GMC Canyon

The GM vehicles are equipped with GM 8L45 or 8L90 automatic
transmissions that allegedly hesitate when drivers accelerate or
decelerate. Drivers claim the transmissions can shift so hard it
feels like being hit by another vehicle. One owner claims the GM
transmission shifted from REVERSE to DRIVE so harshly the vehicle
almost went through the garage door.

Every "fix" offered by the automaker has allegedly failed to repair
the shaking, shuddering and jerking, and the plaintiffs claim both
the torque converters and transmissions cause problems with the
hydraulic systems and gears.

Court documents claim metal shavings allegedly circulate throughout
the transmissions and damage the components. Additionally, the
plaintiffs claim the 8-speed transmissions cause consumers to face
expensive repairs to flush the systems, and to replace the valve
bodies, torque converters and finally the transmissions.

According to the proposed class-action lawsuit, General Motors has
allegedly known about the 8-speed transmission problems because the
automaker has issued multiple versions of technical service
bulletins (TSBs) about the transmissions.

GM dealers have been told to perform certain repairs to fix the
transmission issues, including performing the "clutch drive learn
procedure, replace the valve body, replace the entire transmission,
flush the cooler lines and cooler, remove debris from and clean the
transmission pan, replace the transmission filter, replace the
transmission fluid, and flush the transmission."

The lawsuit alleges no fix works and GM is fully aware of it,
something allegedly reflected on repair orders. The plaintiffs say
repair notes indicate, "GM is aware of concern and a release date
of late January/February to correct issue." Another repair order
allegedly said, "no repair available until quarter 1 in 2019."

According to the lawsuit, General Motors is doing nothing but
stalling, buying time until vehicle warranties expire. The
automaker also allegedly conceals from consumers the serious
problems with the 8-speed transmissions even though dealers have
been told.

GM issued a preliminary information bulletin (PIP5337) to
dealerships about 8L90 transmissions entitled, "Shake or Shudder on
Acceleration Excessive Engine RPM Fluctuation."

The bulletin covered 2015-2016 Cadillac Escalades and Escalade
ESVs, 2015-2016 Chevrolet Silverados and 2015-2016 GMC Sierras,
Yukons and Yukon XLs. GM told technicians that customers may
report, "A shudder feeling that may be described as driving over
rumble strips or rough pavement."

"These conditions may be caused by an internal torque converter
issue. A revised torque converter that addresses these conditions
will be available soon."

In June 2016, GM issued TSB 16-NA-014, entitled "Delayed Engagement
After Sitting With Engine Off" about 8L45 and 8L90 transmission.
Technicians were told customers may complain about multiple issues:
"Vehicle delaying into gear," "Not wanting to move," "Feeling like
the transmission is slipping," or "Delayed engagement followed by a
harsh engagement."

"This condition may be caused by the torque converter draining the
transmission fluid back into the transmission pan."

Technicians were told to replace parts of the transmission or pan.

The plaintiffs claim the automaker knew the 8-speed transmissions
were wearing out early and causing metal shavings to build up in
the transmission pans. This is allegedly reflected in TSB 16-NA-175
entitled, "Shake and/or Shudder During Light Throttle Acceleration,
Between 48 and 104 KM/H (30 and 65 MPH) at a Steady State."

GM technicians were told vehicles equipped with 8L90 transmissions
could experience "A shudder feeling that may be described as
driving over rumble strips or rough pavement." Technicians were
advised to flush the transmission with new fluid and "clean the
pan/magnet if any metallic particles present and replace filter if
debris is found."

Another bulletin was issued in December 2017 allegedly claiming
transmission shudders affected all 2015-2018 "GM passenger cars and
trucks" equipped with 8L45 or 8L90 transmissions.

According to the lawsuit, GM technicians have also been told:

"Do NOT replace the torque converter or transmission assembly for
this condition. Engineer reviews have proven that replacing the
torque converter does not provide a long-term solution to TCC
[torque converter clutch] shudder. A revised service procedure will
be released in Q1 of 2019. If the vehicle experiences a repeat
shudder condition, this document should be followed again."

The plaintiffs also claim the automaker says the automatic
transmissions are "adaptive" and need to "learn" the individual
driving habits in order to shift smoothly.

The General Motors 8-speed transmission lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida - Duffy,
et al., v. General Motors, Inc.

The plaintiffs are represented by Cohen Milstein, and Gordon &
Partners.

CarComplaints.com has owner-reported complaints about the GM
vehicles named in the proposed transmission class-action lawsuit.

Chevrolet Silverado
Chevrolet Colorado
Chevrolet Corvette
Chevrolet Camaro
Cadillac Escalade
Cadillac ATS
Cadillac ATS-V
Cadillac CTS
Cadillac CT6
Cadillac CTS-V
GMC Sierra
GMC Yukon
GMC Canyon [GN]


GOLDMAN SACHS: Vincent Wong Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of The Goldman Sachs Group,
Inc.  If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE: GS)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 19, 2019
Class Period: February 28, 2014 and December 17, 2018

Get additional information about GS:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/the-goldman-sachs-group-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Telephone: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Must Face Class Action Over Gmail Content Scanning
--------------------------------------------------------------
MediaPost reports that Google has suffered a partial setback in its
effort to fight a class action lawsuit over its former practice of
scanning Gmail content to drive advertising.

The Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara
turned down the firm's bid to deny class certification to the
plaintiffs in the case.

While acknowledging that certification will require a "more
intensive effort," the court "cannot conclude on the record before
it that there is no reasonable possibility of success," Superior
Court Judge Brian C. Walsh ruled on December 10.

In November, the parties agreed to consolidate this case with four
similar ones.

In an amended complaint in the original case filed last March, the
plaintiffs allege that Google "intercepted, scanned, analyzed, and
cataloged the content of Plaintiffs' emails to Gmail subscribers
for advertising purposes in violation of state laws prohibiting the
interception of electronic communications without the consent of
all parties to the communication."

This behavior violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act
(CIPA) and the New Hampshire wiretapping and Eavesdropping Statute,
the complaint continues.

Walsh apparently disagrees with Google's argument that CIPA is
preempted by the federal Electronics Communication Privacy Act,
saying that the firm's demurrer in this matter "must fail."

The judge explains that "the function of a demurrer is to test the
legal sufficiency of a pleading," but not to test the truth of the
allegations.

On another point, Google had argued that the plaintiffs could not
claim violation of the New Hampshire statute because the complaint
states that the scanning was done using devices located in
California.

The plaintiffs countered that they could amend the complaint to
reflect that "the extent to which Google undertook these activities
in any particular state is presently unknown." So the court granted
Google's request for a demurrer "with leave to amend within 60
days."

Google did prevail in some other legal punts in the ruling — for
example, its request for judicial notice of filings in related
actions.

The court approved that, but noted that the notice will be of "the
existence and contents of these documents only, and not as to the
truth of any statements."   

However, the court denied Google's requests or judicial notice of
content of web sites, saying this is "inappropriate in most
circumstances."

The amended complaint states that plaintiff John Callan's emails
were scanned despite the fact that he has never had a Gmail
account. His emails were scanned before Google stopped the
practice, the complaint states.  

The case was filed by the law firm of Gallo LLP. [GN]


GREYHAWK LEASING: Gil Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDY GIL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
GREYHAWK LEASING, LLC d/b/a PEPSI BEVERAGES COMPANY and PEPSICO,
INC., Case No. 8:19-cv-00100 (M.D. Fla., January 14, 2019), is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to recover
alleged unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages owed to the
Plaintiff and others.

Greyhawk is a Foreign Limited Liability Company authorized and
doing business in this Judicial District.  PEPSICO is a Foreign
Profit Corporation authorized and doing business in this Judicial
District.

The Defendants are a joint employer and/or an integrated
enterprise.  The Defendants manufacture, sell, and distribute soft
drink beverages, such as Pepsi and Mountain Dew.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Owens, Esq.
          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
          FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC
          16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
          Lutz, FL 33558
          Telephone: (727) 254-5255
          Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
          E-mail: greg@fgbolaw.com
                  wolfgang@fgbolaw.com
                  miguel@fgbolaw.com


GUAPO BODEGA: Restaurant Staff Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosalio Lorenzo Aleman, Eric Robles and Braulio Trujillo Roman,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Guapo Bodega LLC, Chris Santos, Vincent Doe, Peter
Kane, and Richard Wolf,, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00159 (S.D.
N.Y., January 7, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages and redress for failure to provide itemized wage
statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New
York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a restaurant and lounge,
located at 146 Essex Street, New York, New York 10002 under the
name "Beauty and Essex" where Plaintiffs were employed as busboys
and bar backs. They worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage, spread-of-hours and overtime compensation
for the hours that they worked. Defendants also failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GUSTECH COMMUNICATIONS: Classes in Burrell FLSA Suit Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cameron McGowan Currie of the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, granted the
Certification Motions in the case, GARY BURRELL and ANTOINE LEE, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
GUSTECH COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant. ROBERT WESTBERRY and JARED
STUBBLEFIELD, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiffs, v. GUSTECH COMMUNICATIONS,
LLC, and GUSTAVO SANTAMARIA, Defendants, C/A Nos.
0:18-cv-00508-CMC, 0:18-cv-02043-CMC (D. S.C.).

By order entered Oct. 4, 2018, the court granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Consolidate the captioned matters.  The Consolidation
Order discussed but left open motions for conditional certification
of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
("FLSA"), pending in both cases.

Westberry was filed in the Northern District of Texas on Nov.r 17,
2017.  The two named Plaintiffs pursue recovery under the FLSA
against both Gustech Communications, and its owner, Santamaria.
They seek the recovery on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated satellite installation technicians.  While the collective
described in the Complaint lacks a geographic limit, the
later-filed Westberry Certification Motion limits the proposed
collective to Technicians who work or worked in Texas.

In their response to the Westberry Certification Motion, the
Defendants agree conditional certification of a single-state
collective action is proper, though they object to some of the
Plaintiffs' proposed procedures for notice and limitations on
communication.  Despite the parties' agreement as to the core
issue, the Westberry Certification Motion was stayed by consent on
May 15, 2018, in light of a then-pending motion to transfer
Westberry to the court.  Westberry was transferred to the Court on
July 24, 2018.

Burrell was filed in the district on Feb. 21, 2018.  The two named
Plaintiffs pursue recovery from Gustech Communications under the
FLSA and state law.  The Plaintiffs seek recovery on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated Technicians who work or worked
for Gustech Communications anywhere in the United States (for the
FLSA claim). The Complaint identifies the following four states as
locations in which Gustech Communications employed Technicians:
North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Florida.

The Burrell Certification Motion was filed a few weeks after the
action was filed and prior to Defendant filing an answer.  The
motion seeks conditional certification of a collective action
covering Technicians who work or worked for Gustech Communications
in North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Florida.  Gustech
Communications opposes certification based on possible overlap with
claims addressed and settled in two actions against another entity
for which Gustech Communications was a subcontractor.

The Burrell Certification Motion was referred to a Magistrate Judge
for a Report and Recommendation ("Report").  Following a hearing,
the Magistrate Judge entered a Report on June 5, 2018, recommending
the Burrell Certification Motion be granted.  The Report does not
mention Westberry or its potential transfer and consolidation.
Thus, it does not address the impact, if any, consolidation might
have on conditional certification.  Gustech Communications filed
objections to the Report on June 19, 2018.

Westberry was transferred to the Court on July 24, 2018.  On Aug.
10, 2018, the Plaintiffs in Burrell moved to consolidate the two
actions.  The Court granted the motion over Defendant Gustech
Communications' opposition.  The Oct. 4, 2018 Consolidation Order
addresses the impact of consolidation on the Certification Motions.
Addressing Gustech Communications' two specific objections to
certification, the Court, therefore, deferred resolution of the
Burrell and Westberry Certification Motions to allow the parties an
opportunity to confer to determine whether agreement is possible as
to certification in the consolidated actions and the form of notice
or, alternatively, to file supplemental memoranda addressing
certification in the context of the consolidated actions.

The parties subsequently conferred, resolved some disputed issues
as to the form of notice, and briefed other notice-related issues.
The remainder of both the Plaintiffs' and the Defendants'
post-consolidation filings address agreements and a few remaining
disputes as to (1) content of notice and consent to joinder forms,
and (2) administrative issues such as production of contact
information and the means by which the Notice will be delivered and
Consent Form returned.

Before supplemental briefing on the Certification Motions was
complete, the Plaintiffs filed two additional motions: (1) a Motion
to Toll the Statute of Limitations; and (2) a Motion to Amend the
Complaint in Burrell to add the individual Defendant Santamaria.
The Motion to Toll has been resolved by agreement.  The Motion to
Amend is opposed and remains pending.

Judge Currie finds the Motion to Amend does not require resolution
before the Certification Motions are resolved and Notice sent so
long as the pendency of the Motion to Amend is addressed in the
Notice.  She granted the Certification Motions filed in Westberry
and Burrell, with modification to the definition of the collective
to reflect consolidation.  She resolves disputed issues as to the
Notice and Consent Form and approved the same in the form attached
to her Order.  The Judge directed the notice be given consistent
with the parties' agreed procedures.

The Judge granted the Westberry Certification Motion as unopposed.
The definition of the collective is, however, modified in light of
the consolidation.  As to Burrell Certification Motion, the Judge
finds no clear error in any other aspect of the Report.
Accordingly, he adopted the Report and granted the Burrell
Certification Motion, with modification of the definition of the
collective to address consolidation.

Because these cases were consolidated after entry of the Report,
consequently, the Report did not consider the impact of
consolidation on the definition of the collective.  The Judge
adopted the following definition and conditionally certifieed a
collective in these Consolidated Cases defined to include
individuals who meet the following three requirements: (1) worked
as satellite installation technicians for Gustech Communications,
LLC; (2) were classified as independent contractors; and (3)
performed the work in the states of Florida, North Carolina, or
South Carolina, on or after Feb. 21, 2015 or in Texas on or after
Nov. 17, 2014.

Judge Currie also finds that the delivery of a hard copy through
the USPS is appropriate as the primary means of delivery of the
Notice.  The delivery by other means will be allowed only under the
following circumstances: (1) the Plaintiffs' counsel receive
inquires or requests initiated by potential collective action
members who ask to receive a copy of the notice by means other than
USPS; or (2) a Notice sent by USPS is returned as undeliverable.
In these instances, the Plaintiffs' counsel may send Notice by such
alternate means as counsel deems appropriate.

The parties have agreed to language for the Consent Form but
disagree as to how the forms may be returned or consent may be
given.  As indicated in the approved Notice and Consent Form, the
responses may be delivered by USPS, hand-delivery, other means of
physical delivery, or by email attachment or facsimile.  If
controls allow confirmation of the identity of the person signing
and that they have read the Notice in full, electronic signatures
may also be allowed on Consent Forms. The  Local Counsel will be
responsible for filing Consent Forms as soon as possible upon the
Plaintiffs' counsel's receipt.

The Judge finds the Defendants' proposed footnote should not be
included as the Defendants have not established sufficient
similarity between the cases to suggest the outcome in Alvarez is
predictive of the outcome in the Consolidated Cases.  Even if the
actions were shown to be similar, including the note would not be
helpful without inclusion of sufficient information about Alvarez
to allow Technicians to decide for themselves whether the outcome
in Alvarez was predictive of the outcome in the case.  The degree
of detail necessary would distract from the purpose of the Notice:
informing potential members of the collective about their right to
join these Consolidated Cases.

Without waiving their prior filed positions, the parties have
participated in drafting the attached Notice and Consent Form.
These forms incorporate rulings in the Order.  The Notice will be
given and consents obtained using forms substantially similar to
the attached versions.

Finally, by agreement of the parties, Judge Currie ordered that
these time frames and procedures apply:

     1. The Defendants have provided the Plaintiffs' attorneys with
the names and last known addresses of the individuals who performed
work for Gustech Communications during the relevant periods and who
may fall within the definition of the collective approved in the
Order.

     2. Within 10 days of entry of the Order, the Plaintiffs'
attorneys will mail the Notice and Consent Form to Technicians for
whom contact information was provided;

     3. Prospective members of the collective action will have 60
days from the date the Notice is mailed to them to return their
Consent Forms to join these Consolidated Cases; and

     4. The Plaintiffs may send one reminder postcard to
prospective members of the collective advising recipients they
should have previously received a notice, reminding them of the
deadline for joining, and providing contact information should they
need further information.

Accordingly, both the Westberry Certification Motion and the
Burrell Certification Motion are granted, with the definition of
the collective to reflect the Consolidated Cases as set forth.  The
Notice will be given and consent allowed following the procedures
set forth, and using the approved Notice and Consent Form.

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

Gary Burrell, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
& Antoine Lee, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by David E. Rothstein --
drothstein@rothsteinlawfirm.com -- Rothstein Law Firm, Benjamin
Weber -- bweber@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and Liss Riordan PC, pro hac
vice & Harold L. Lichten -- hlichten@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and Liss
Riordan PC, pro hac vice.

Gustech Communications, LLC, Defendant, represented by Gray Thomas
Culbreath -- gculbreath@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan White and Boyd,
Laura Watkins Jordan -- ljordan@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan White
and Boyd & Deborah Casey Brown -- dbrown@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan
White and Boyd.


HOME MADE COOKING: Rayshanov Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
ERKIN RAYSHANOV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HOME MADE COOKING CAFE and JOHN DOES
1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00266 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 14,
2019), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime pay as required
by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff's claims under the FLSA are brought as a collective
action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 2l 6(b), on behalf of himself
and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons who were/are
employed by Defendants as Baker and positions who were/are not paid
minimum wage and overtime at a rate of one and one- half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek for the period of May 15, 2017 through December
20, 2018.

According to the complaint, members of the FLSA Collective are
similarly situated because they were all subject to Defendants'
common policy and/or practice that resulted in not paying minimum
wage and overtime at a rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek
during the FLSA Collective Period, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          David A. Feinerman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. FEINERMAN
          2765 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (718) 646-4800

IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities
of Immunomedics, Inc. ("Immunomedics" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:IMMU) between August 23, 2018 and December 20, 2018, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
Immunomedics shareholders' investment losses.

If you purchased Immunomedics securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options, please visit Immunomedics
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Daniel Sadeh toll free
at (877) 779-1414 or dsadeh@bernlieb.com.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, and
unbeknownst to investors, Immunomedics misled investors by stating
in its SEC filings beginning on August 23, 2018, that, "the FDA
generally will issue a notice on Form 483 if it finds issues with
respect to its inspections" without disclosing to investors the
fact that between August 6, 2018 and August 14, 2018, the FDA cited
Immunomedics for a host of violations observed at its Morris
Plains, New Jersey, drug substance manufacturing facility. These
violations included manipulated bioburden samples,
misrepresentation of an integrity test procedure in the batch
record, and backdating of batch records, such as dates of
analytical results.

On December 17, 2018, FDAnews.com published an article titled "FDA
Hits Immunomedics for Data Integrity Breach." According to this
article, "[t]he FDA cited Immunomedics for a host of violations --
including its handling of a data integrity breach -- observed at
its Morris Plains, New Jersey, drug substance manufacturing
facility between August 6 and 14." The article states that this
breach included "manipulated bioburden samples, misrepresentation
of an integrity test procedure in the batch record, and backdating
of batch records, such as dates of analytical results."

On this news, Immunomedics's stock fell $0.87 per share or
approximately 4.6% to close at $17.86 per share on December 17,
2018, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 25, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Immunomedics securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options, please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/immunomedics-inc-immu-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-103/.


         Daniel Sadeh,Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Telephone: (877) 779-1414
         E-mail: dsadeh@bernlieb.com [GN]


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing
investors nationwide, disclosed that it has filed a securities
fraud class action against Immunomedics, Inc. ("Immunomedics" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: IMMU) and certain of its officers and/or
directors. The firm encourages shareholders to contact Block &
Leviton LLP ahead of the February 25, 2019 lead plaintiff
deadline.

The Complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, captioned Odeh v. Immunomedics, Inc. et
al., Case No. 2:18-cv-17645, alleges that between August 23, 2018
and December 20, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts. As alleged in the Complaint, on
December 17, 2018, FDAnews.com published an article titled "FDA
Hits Immunomedics for Data Integrity Breach." According to this
article, "[t]he FDA cited Immunomedics for a host of violations --
including its handling of a data integrity breach -- observed at
its Morris Plains, New Jersey, drug substance manufacturing
facility between August 6 and 14." The article states that this
breach included "manipulated bioburden samples, misrepresentation
of an integrity test procedure in the batch record, and backdating
of batch records, such as dates of analytical results." The case is
pending in the District of New Jersey, Newark Courthouse, 50 Walnut
Street, Newark, NJ 07101. The case has been assigned to Judge
Madeline Cox Arleo.

Following this news, Immunomedics stock price dropped from $17.64
at close on December 19, 2018, to $14.17 at close on December 20,
2018. [GN]


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Wants Court to Revisit Stock-Drop Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Castro-Pagan, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that
International Business Machines Corp. want a federal appeals in New
York to revisit a ruling that revived a lawsuit by workers accusing
the company of failing to protect their retirement savings from a 7
percent drop in company stock.

Earlier in December, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit handed IBM workers a rare win by reviving their Employee
Retirement Income Security Act lawsuit.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Fifth Third
Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, courts have consistently rejected lawsuits
by 401(k) investors challenging drops in company stock involving
companies such as RadioShack, WellsFargo, Target, Lehman Brothers,
Citigroup, Whole Foods, JPMorgan, L-3 Communications, and BP Plc,
among others.

IBM wants the full Second Circuit to rehear the case and affirm the
lawsuit's dismissal, according to documents filed Dec. 21.

The Second Circuit held that the workers sufficiently alleged that
no prudent ERISA plan fiduciary in IBM's position could have
concluded that an early corrective disclosure would have done more
harm than good to the company's stock price.

The ruling conflicts with governing authority providing that
fiduciary duties under ERISA can't arise outside a fiduciary
capacity. It allegedly provides conflicting standards to employee
stock ownership plan fiduciaries who also serve as corporate
officers, IBM said in its petition for a rehearing. The ruling
breached the "basic barrier" between defendants' capacity as
corporate officers and their capacity as ERISA fiduciaries, IBM
said.

The confusion could frustrate one of Congress's stated intentions
for ERISA, which was to encourage companies to offer ESOPs to their
employees, the company said. It could also encourage forum shopping
among investors desperate to avoid the uniformly contrary rulings
in other circuits, the company said.

Zamansky LLC represented the workers. Davis Polk & Wardwell
represented IBM.

The case is Jander v. Ret. Plans Comm. of IBM, 2d Cir., No.
17-3718, petition for rehearing en banc 12/21/18. [GN]


INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Agreement Reached in Merger Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Investment Technology Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 14, 2019,
that the company has reached an agreement with the plaintiffs in
the merger-related class action suits.

On November 6, 2018, Investment Technology Group, Inc.'s Board of
Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of
merger with Virtu. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
ITG's stockholders will receive $30.30 in cash for each share of
ITG common stock they hold.

In connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby, a putative class action lawsuit was filed on
behalf of Company stockholders in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York. The lawsuit is captioned Levy v. Troise et al., Index No.
616749/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 14, 2018) (the "Levy Action").  

In general, the complaint asserts claims against the Company and
the Company's board of directors, alleging, among other things,
that the defendants failed to make adequate disclosures in the
Company's proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") on December 14, 2018 relating to the Merger (in
its definitive form, the "Proxy Statement"). The Company believes
that the allegations in the complaint are without merit.

Another putative class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of
Company stockholders in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware. The lawsuit is captioned Scarantino v.
Investment Technology Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00024
(D. Del. Jan. 7, 2018) (the "Scarantino Action") (collectively with
the Levy Action, the "Actions").  

In general, the complaint asserts claims against the Company and
the Company's board of directors, alleging, among other things,
that the defendants failed to make adequate disclosures in the
Proxy Statement. The Company believes that the allegations in the
complaint are without merit.

The Company has reached an agreement with the respective plaintiffs
to resolve the Actions. In connection with the resolution of the
Actions, the Company has agreed to make an amended and supplemental
disclosures (the "Amended and Supplemental Disclosures") to the
Proxy Statement. The Amended and Supplemental Disclosures should be
read in conjunction with the Proxy Statement, which should be read
in its entirety.  

A copy of the amended supplemental disclosure is available at
https://goo.gl/4VHVsT.

Investment Technology Group, Inc. operates as a financial
technology company in the United States, Canada, Europe, and the
Asia Pacific. The company offers various solutions for asset
managers and broker-dealers in the areas of execution services,
workflow technology, and analytics that provide trade execution
services and solutions for portfolio management, as well as
pre-trade analytics, and post-trade analytics and processing.
Investment Technology Group, Inc. was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


J&B 693 CORP: Campos Marin Sues Over Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------
Antonio Ivan Campos Marin, Jose Rigoberto Sarceno Garcia, and Maria
Luzmila Chafla Yamba, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. J&B 693 Corp. (d/b/a Casa Agave
(f/k/a Limon Jungle)), Besim Kukaj, Diana de Los Angeles, Francisco
Soriano, and Martin Barroso, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00569
(S.D. N.Y., January 18, 2019) seeks unpaid minimum and overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and for
violations of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the "spread of
hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of
Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

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

Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants.

Defendants own, operate or control a Mexican restaurant located in
New York under the name "Casa Agave (f/k/a Limon Jungle.)".[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


JANI-KING INT'L: Class in Mujo Minimum Wage Act Suit Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SIMON MUJO, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. JANI-KING
INTERNATIONAL, INC., et. al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-1990
(VAB) (D. Conn.), Judge Victor A. Bolden of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

The Plaintiffs allege that Jani-King unlawfully classified them as
independent contractors under Conn. Gen. Sat Section 31-58 et seq.
Mr. Mujo and Indrit Muharremi both performed cleaning services in
Connecticut.  Mr. Mujo entered into an agreement with Jani-King on
July 11, 2007 to perform cleaning services, which required a
$15,000 non-refundable deposit.  The relationship ended in early
2016.  Mr. Muharremi is a Connecticut resident who entered into an
agreement to perform cleaning services for Jani-King on April 23,
2014, which required a $16,250 deposit.  He continues to perform
those services.

Jani-King provides commercial cleaning services to restaurants,
buildings, retailers, hotels, government buildings, health care
facilities, stadiums, schools, and universities.  Jani-King
functions by allegedly entering independent contractor agreements
to provide cleaning services to Jani-King customers.

Mr. Mujo, Mr. Muharremi, and the alleged class all have performed
cleaning services for Jani-King.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Jani-King requires all members of the putative class to sign
similar agreements to perform cleaning services for Jani-King.
Under the terms of these agreements, Jani-King allegedly requires
the Plaintiffs to pay an initial, non-refundable down payment as a
condition of Jani-King allowing them to perform cleaning services
under Jani-King contracts and with Jani-King customers.  

The Plaintiffs also allege that Jani-King controlled the methods
and procedures of customer service.  They allege that the putative
class members are entirely dependent upon Jani-King for their work
assignments, and do not maintain their own customers.  Nor they
engage in an independently established trade, occupation,
profession or business of the same nature as that involved in the
services they performed.  They further allege that Jani-King
deducts monthly sums from their wages.  They maintain that
Jani-King deducts various monthly sums from their wages, such as
royalty fees, advertising fees, finder's fees, accounting fees,
technology fees, client sales tax, lease deductions, and various
other business-related fees.

The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit on Dec. 5, 2016, and, on Feb. 9,
2017, filed an Amended Complaint alleging that: (1) Jani-King
violated the Minimum Wage Act; and (2) Jani-King has been unjustly
enriched.  The Defendants answered the Amended Complaint with
affirmative defenses.

On March 30, 2017, the Defendants moved to dismiss both the wage
and unjust enrichment claims in the Amended Complaint under Rule
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.  The Court granted in part
and denied in part, dismissing the state-law wage claims.  It,
however, preserved the unjust enrichment claim insofar as the
underlying franchise agreement was an employment agreement that
conditioned initial or continued employment on payment of a down
payment or other fees.

On April 23, 2018, the Plaintiffs moved to certify the class.  The
Defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion to
certify the class.  The Plaintiffs replied to the response and the
Defendants filed a sur-reply.  Finally, the Plaintiffs responded to
the Defendants' Sur-Rely.

The Plaintiffs bring th action under Rule 23(b)(3), seeking a class
of all individuals who have performed cleaning work for Jani-King
in Connecticut since Dec. 5, 2010.

Judge Bolden holds that because the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs'
Connecticut wage claims and only permitted the unjust enrichment
claim to go forward, the certification of any class is properly
limited to all individuals who have performed commercial cleaning
work for Jan-King in Connecticut since Dec. 5, 2010 under the terms
of a Jani-King franchise agreement.  He also holds that the class
may be appropriately certified under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the class meets the Rule
23(b)(3) and Rule 23(a) requirements.  Accordingly, he granted the
Plaintiffs' motion with respect to class certification.

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

Simon Mujo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated & Indrit Muharremi, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Richard Eugene
Hayber -- rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com -- The Hayber Law Firm, LLC,
Shannon Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan,
P.C., pro hac vice & Lori Ann Knuth, The Hayber Law Firm LLC.

Jani-King International, Inc., Jani-King, Inc. & Jani-King of
Hartford, Inc., Defendants, represented by Alison G. Fox , Faegre
Baker Daniels LLP, Kerry L. Bundy -- kerry.bundy@FaegreBD.com --
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice, Larry E. LaTarte --
larry.latarte@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac
vice, Peter Joseph Murphy -- pjmurphy@goodwin.com -- Shipman &
Goodwin LLP & Rory Collins -- rory.collins@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre
Baker Daniels.


KENYA POWER: Court Hears Bid to Suspend Lawyer's Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Victor Amadala, writing for The Star, reported that the High Court
in Nairobi heard an application by six Kenyans seeking to suspend
an out-of-court settlement that the Kenya Power signed with Nairobi
lawyer Apollo Mboya.

The lawyer who together with the Electricity Consumer Society of
Kenya had in January last year filed a class action suit against
the power distributor over fraudulent billions and abuse of
monopoly agreed to the matter out of court.

The six petitioners led by Jerotich Seii, however, applied to court
on December 6, 2018, seeking to suspend the settlement, urging that
the deal did not sort out main issues raised in the public
sponsored case.

"In a heart shattering moment, and flagrant breach of trust
bestowed upon him by the people of Kenya, the first petitioner
chose to settle this petition by entering into a consent order
dated October 23, 2018," reads one of the claims filed by the six
in December.

They asked the court to suspend the consent orders in this petition
pending the hearing and determination of the substantive issues
raised in the petition. Lawyer Apollo Mboya had not responded to
our inquiries about the case and subsequent deal with Kenya Power
by the time of going to press.

Speaking to the Star, Seii said lawyer Apollo Mboya breached public
trust when he agreed to the deal in private without consultation.

"This was a public interest case. It was wrong for the lawyer who
was acting on behalf of the public to agree to the deal in private.
The out of court deal failed to address key issues raised by the
public against Kenya Power," she said.

According to her, the deal failed to address how the powerman will
compensate consumers for false and misleading representation in
electricity tariffs and bills.

Consumers had accused Kenya Power of inflating and backdating
November and December 2017 bills to recover Sh10.1 billion fuel
cost charge as had been indicated in the firm's annual statement
for the year ended June 2017. It had so far recovered Sh2 billion,
leaving out Sh8.1 billion that was to be passed on to consumers in
monthly invoices.

She added Kenya Power is still abusing its monopoly through over
pricing as well as subjecting consumers to third party vendors who
charge high transaction fees.

Other petitioners include Wanjeri Nderu, Eva Mutua, James Gitau,
Fredrick Asira and Victor Otieno.

Kenya Power agreed to stick to tariffs approved by the Energy
Regulatory Commission and set up billing query centres
countrywide.

It also gave customers 30 days to raise billing complaints,
promising not to disconnect supply to customers who raise issues
regarding their bills within the period.

The listed power distributor also agreed to pay suit costs for
Mboya and the Electricity Consumers Society of Kenya. [GN]


LEGACY HEALTH: Failed to Pay Nursing Staff for Hours Worked
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maxine Bernstein, writing for OregonLive.com, reports that Legacy
Health hasn't paid its nursing staff for all hours worked,
including overtime, improperly deducted money from their wages and
denied them meal and rest breaks as required by law, according to a
new class-action suit filed in federal court.

Legacy's hospitals have failed to compensate non-exempt employees
for work during meal breaks and for work performed while
"off-the-clock," the suit alleges.

Legacy Health deducts 30 minutes from nurses’ shifts for a meal,
although nurses remain on duty and are continually interrupted to
provide patient care, the suit says.

"Nursing staff involved in direct patient care are not permitted to
take a 30-minute uninterrupted and bona fide meal or rest break due
to the demands of their jobs during the majority of their shifts,"
the complaint says. "In the rare instances where they attempt a
meal or rest break, they remain on duty in that they are required
to respond to calls from their patients, doctors, patients'
families, other nursing staff and hospital staff, attend to the
normal demands of the job, and otherwise respond to emergencies."

Julianne Hunter, who worked as a nurse for Legacy Emanuel Medical
Center, is the named plaintiff in the suit filed in U.S. District
Court on Dec. 26.

Legacy Health spokesman Brian Terrett said the company hasn’t had
a chance to review the lawsuit.

"It is Legacy Health's practice not to comment on legal matters or
litigation, but rather let the process occur in the appropriate
venue," Terrett said.

According to the suit, Hunter worked as a non-exempt nurse between
March 2009 and April 2016, and her regular hourly rate of pay was
$48.18 per hour during her last year of work. Hunter says in the
suit she was interrupted repeatedly during lunch breaks, and
performed "off the clock" work that included cleaning, preparing
and organizing equipment, interacting with patients, assisting
other hospital staff, handling patients medical charts and other
tasks but was not compensated for that work.

Hunter estimated that she worked on average 12 to 13 hours each
shift, and between 48 and 52 hours per week.

The suit is filed on behalf of hundreds of others on Legacy
Health's nursing staff, it says. The staff include nurses, nursing
aides and nursing assistants who work or have worked for Legacy
Health, Legacy Emanuel Medical Center, Legacy Emanuel Hospital &
Health Center, Legacy Health Partners, and Randall Children’s
Hospital.

The plaintiffs are seeking their unpaid wages and overtime and
civil penalties of $200 for every alleged violation of the federal
Fair Labor Standards At. According to the suit, Legacy has been
sued for similar alleged wage violations at least four prior
times.

In 2017, Oregon officials fined Legacy Emanuel Medical Center
nearly $277,000 for failing to ensure that employees get breaks. At
the time, the state Bureau of Labor and Industries said it was the
largest amount of civil penalties in the agency's history.

The 2017 fine resulted from a state investigation launched after
receiving about a dozen employee complaints, many of them from
surgical technicians who said they couldn't even go to the restroom
for four hours or more. Bureau investigators found that the North
Portland hospital had more than 4,400 meal and rest period
violations in 2015 and 2016.

In September, Legacy Health was facing a $5 million fine, the
largest civil penalty ever assessed from the Oregon Bureau of Labor
and Industries, after employees again complained about being forced
to skip meal and break periods. [GN]


LIBERTY HEALTH: Lin Hits Stock Drop from Bad Acquisitions
---------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Lin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Liberty Health Sciences Inc., George
Scorsis, and Rene Gulliver, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00161, (S.D.
N.Y., January 7, 2019), seeks to recover damages caused by
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Liberty is a Canada-based company whose principal business activity
is the production and distribution of medical cannabis through its
wholly-owned subsidiary DFMMJ LLC. Liberty was involved in numerous
fraudulent acquisitions and transactions, in particular the
acquisition of shell companies at artificially inflated prices,
causing its stock to fall $0.36, or nearly 34%, over the next two
trading days to close at $0.70 on December 4, 2018, upon corrective
disclosure.

Lin owns Liberty stocks and lost considerably when its stock price
dropped. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


LSC COMMUNICATIONS: Plumley Seeks to Halt Quad/Graphics Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Plumley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LSC Communications, Inc., Thomas J.
Quinlan, Judith H. Hamilton, M. Shan Atkins, Margaret A. Breya,
Francis J. Jules, Thomas F. O’toole, Richard K. Palmer, Douglas
W. Stotlar, Shivan S. Subramaniam, Quad/Graphics, Inc. and QLC
Merger Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00030, (D. Del.,
January 7, 2019) seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting
in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing
the proposed acquisition of LSC Communications, Inc. by
Quad/Graphics through its wholly-owned subsidiary QLC Merger Sub,
Inc., rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger,
rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

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

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

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800
      Email: rm@maniskas.com


LVC TIMESHARE: Hotel Not ADA-Compliant, Says Breeze
---------------------------------------------------
Byron Breeze, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LVC Timeshare Management, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-00191 (D. N.J., January 7, 2019), seeks injunctive
relief, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New Jersey Law
Against Discrimination.

Defendant owns and/or operates that certain hotel known as the
Legacy Vacation Club located at 1400-1500 Ocean Avenue, Brigantine,
New Jersey 08203. Breeze was born without legs and without complete
hands, and uses a wheelchair for mobility. He visited the
Defendant's website and found that its online reservation system
lacked the disabled accessible features (i.e. ADA-compliant guest
rooms) that would permit disabled individuals to independently
assess whether the Hotel and its available guestrooms meet their
individual accessibility needs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Erik M. Bashian, Esq.
      BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C.
      500 Old Country Road, Ste. 302
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 279-1554
      Fax: (516) 213-0339
      Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com


MACNEIL AUTOMOTIVE: Brown Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers
----------------------------------------------------------------
WARDELL BROWN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MACNEIL AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS, LTD.
d/b/a WEATHERTECH, an Illinois Corporation, and ADP LLC, the
Defendant, Case No.: 2019CH00503 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Jan. 14, 2019),
seeks to curtail Defendants' unlawful collection, use, storage, and
disclosure of Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric
data.

According to the complaint, WeatherTech is a manufacturer and
supplier of automotive accessories within the state of Illinois.
When WeatherTech hires an employee, including Plaintiff, he or she
is enrolled in their ADP employee database using a scan of his or
her fingerprint. WeatherTech uses the ADP employee database to
monitor the time worked by its hourly employees. While many
employers use conventional methods for time tracking (such as ID
badge or punch clocks), WeatherTech's employees are required to
have their fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device.

Biometrics are not relegated to esoteric corners of commerce. Many
businesses -- such as WeatherTech -- and financial institutions
have incorporated biometric applications into their workplace in
the form of biometric timeclocks or authenticators, and into
consumer products, including such ubiquitous consumer products as
checking accounts and cell phones. Unlike ID badges or time cards
-- which can be changed or replaced if stolen or compromised --
fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated
with each employee. This exposes WeatherTech's employees to serious
and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a database
containing fingerprints or other sensitive, proprietary biometric
data is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed -- like in the
recent Google+, Equifax, Uber, Facebook/Cambridge Analytica, and
Marriott data breaches or misuses -- employees have no means by
which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other
unlawful or improper use of this highly personal and private
information.

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act,
specifically to regulate companies that collect, store and use
Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints.
Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law,
WeatherTech disregards their employees' statutorily protected
privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores, disseminates, and
uses employees' biometric data in violation of BIPA, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 233 1550
          Facsimile: 312 233 1560f
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  aficzko@stephanzouras.com
                  hjenkins@stephanzouras.com

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Meter, Bowers File Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Meter and Ronald Bowers, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Marriott International,
Inc. and Starwood Hotels & Resorts, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00025
(D. Conn., January 7, 2019), seeks actual, statutory, punitive,
exemplary and/or multiple damages, disgorgement, restitution,
preliminary or other equitable or declaratory relief, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses and such other and favorable relief resulting from
negligence and breach of contract.

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

Marriott operates Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide. Meter and
Bowers have been Starwood Rewards Program members for some time and
have registered their personal credit cards with them. They
frequently stay at Defendants' properties and hotels and uses
Starwood Rewards points on each visit. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

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

            - and -

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

            - and -

     Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
     CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
     1101 Market Street Suite 2650
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Telephone: (215) 864-2800
     Email: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

            - and -

     Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
     John Scheflow, Esq.
     CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
     150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Telephone: (312) 782 4880
     Email: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
            jscheflow@caffertyclobes.com


MARSHALLS OF CA: Paulino Suit Moved to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A case, Joan Catheryn Paulino an individual, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Marshalls of
CA, LLC and Does 1 Through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
37-02018-00058335-CU-OE-NC, was removed from the California
Superior Court, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California (San Diego) on Jan. 14, 2019.
The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No:
3:19-cv-00099-JM-WVG to the proceeding. The suit alleges
job-related violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Jeffrey T. Miller.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Graham Lambert, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514-5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
          E-mail: gl@haffnerlawyers.com

Attorneys for Marshalls of CA, LLC:

          Matthew B. Riley, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C
          501 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 232-0441
          Facsimile: (619) 924-2744
          E-mail: mriley@littler.com

MBT FINANCIAL: Faces David Pill Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
MBT Financial Corp. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 14, 2019, that the
company is facing a putative class suit entitled, David Pill v. MBT
Financial Corp, et al.

On January 9, 2019, MBT was sued by David Pill ("Pill"), a
purported MBT stockholder, on behalf of Pill and all MBT
stockholders other than the named defendants and their affiliates
(the "Purported Class").

The complaint is a derivative and putative class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan and entitled David Pill v. MBT Financial Corp, et al.,
naming each MBT director and MBT as defendants.  

The complaint alleges violation of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The allegations are that MBT violated
the Exchange Act 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 Corporation's 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, directing MBT to amend its proxy statement,
and damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees.

As disclosed and certified by Pill in the complaint, when including
the case against MBT, Pill has sought during the last three years
to serve as a representative party on behalf of a class in seven
lawsuits arising under the federal securities laws.

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.  The company was founded in 1858 and is
headquartered in Monroe, Michigan.


MBT FINANCIAL: Faces Nowitzke and Zimmer Suits in Michigan
----------------------------------------------------------
MBT Financial Corp. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 18, 2019, that the
company is facing derivative and putative class action suits each
initiated by Gary Nowitzke and Walter Zimmer.

On January 15, 2019, MBT was provided a copy of a complaint from
its lawyers showing that on January 11, 2019, it was sued by Gary
Nowitzke, a purported MBT stockholder, on behalf of himself and all
MBT stockholders other than the named defendants and their
affiliates (the "Purported Class").

The complaint is a derivative and putative class action filed in
the Circuit Court for the County of Monroe, Michigan, captioned
Gary Nowitzke v. MBT Financial Corp, et al., naming each MBT
director (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"), and MBT and
First Merchants Corporation (First Merchants) as defendants.

On January 15, 2019, MBT was sued by Walter Zimmer, a purported MBT
stockholder, on behalf of himself and all MBT stockholders other
than the named defendants and their affiliates (the "Purported
Class").

The complaint is a derivative and putative class action filed in
the Circuit Court for the County of Monroe, Michigan, captioned
Gary Zimmer v. MBT Financial Corp, et al., naming each MBT director
and MBT and First Merchants as defendants.

Both of the above lawsuits allege 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 complaints 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.

The defendants believe the allegations in the complaints 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. The company was founded in 1858 and is
headquartered in Monroe, Michigan.


MBT FINANCIAL: Faces Parshall Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
MBT Financial Corp. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on January 14, 2019, that
the company is facing a putative class suit entitled, Paul Parshall
v. MBT Financial Corp., et al.

On January 11, 2019, the law firm of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
provided to Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP, attorneys for MBT, a
copy of a complaint filed on January 11, 2019, on behalf of Paul
Parshall ("Parshall"), a purported MBT stockholder, on behalf of
Parshall and all MBT stockholders other than the named defendants
and their affiliates (the "Purported Class").

The complaint is a derivative and putative class action filed in
the Circuit Court for the County of Monroe, Michigan, captioned
Paul Parshall v. MBT Financial Corp., et al., naming each MBT
director (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"), MBT, and
First Merchants 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 Corporation's
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.

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.  The company was founded in 1858 and is
headquartered in Monroe, Michigan.


MEC DEVELOPMENT: Jefferson Labor Suit Deal Denied Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTONIO JEFFERSON et al., Plaintiffs, v. MEC
DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01394 (E.D. Cal.),
Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California denied the parties' joint motion to approve
a settlement agreement of all of the Plaintiffs' several claims
without prejudice to the refiling of a subsequent settlement motion
that cures the issues identified in the Order.

The lawsuit is about an employer that allegedly violated federal
and California employment and wage laws by, amongst other acts and
omissions, failing to pay statutorily-required overtime
compensation to its employees.  The employer is the Defendant, and
the Plaintiffs are three former employees of MEC: Jefferson, Wayne
Lewis, and Gregory Brown.  

The Plaintiffs worked as logisticians at MEC's China Lake and
Inyokern locations.  They were employed by MEC during the following
time periods: Jefferson from May 26, 2014 through Sept. 8, 2015;
Lewis from Feb. 10, 2014 through Sept. 8, 2015; and Brown from May
12, 2014 through Sept. 8, 2015.

After leaving their employment at MEC, the Plaintiffs filed suit
against MEC in October 2017.  They alleged that MEC violated
multiple federal and California employment and wage laws affecting
them and a class of other similarly situated logisticians.  On that
basis, the Plaintiffs pleaded seven claims for relief against MEC.

Their first claim is (1) failure to pay overtime compensation as
required by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  Their
six other claims against MEC are based on California law: namely,
(2) failure to pay overtime compensation; (3) failure to provide
meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; (5)
failure to pay all wages due at termination; (6) engaging in unfair
competition; and (7) failure to comply with California's wage
statement laws, such as by failing to further the Plaintiffs with
accurate itemized written statements showing their total hours
worked.

The Plaintiffs pleaded their FLSA claim on behalf of themselves and
a class of similarly situated logisticians pursuant to Section
216(b) of the FLSA, which allows a plaintiff to bring an FLSA claim
in behalf of himself and other employees similarly situated.
Similarly, they pleaded their California claims pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly
situated logisticians.

After engaging in some discovery, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant
filed their joint Settlement Motion, which is now before the Court.
To date, the Plaintiffs have not moved for class certification for
any of their claims, and they indicate that they have abandoned
their pursuit of class certification.

The parties assert that they have reached a settlement agreement
which, if approved by the Court, will resolve all of the
Plaintiffs' claims.  The parties argue that the settlement
agreement should be approved by the Court because the settlement
agreement is fair and reasonable.

In the settlement agreement, the Defendant agrees to make the
following four settlement payments to the Plaintiffs, respectively:
(1) $22,000 to Jefferson; (2) $24,000 to Lewis; (3) $21,000 to
Brown; and (4) $61,344.45 to all the Plaintiffs -- to be paid
directly to the Plaintiffs' attorneys -- representing the full and
final settlement of all of the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
costs.

The parties assert that the settlement agreement applies only to
the claims of the three Plaintiffs -- not to any putative class
members -- because the Plaintiffs have abandoned their pursuit of
class certification.

Judge Ishii cannot conclude that the parties' proposed settlement
agreement is a fair and reasonable resolution.  He finds that the
parties' assertions about the Plaintiffs' range of recovery are
problematic.  First, the assertions are not supported by any
evidence, meaningful explanation, or calculation -- all of which
the Court needs in order to determine the accuracy of the parties'
asserted range of recovery and, in turn, the fairness and
reasonableness of the proposed settlement amounts.  Second, the
parties' unsupported assertions about the Plaintiffs' range of
recovery fail to distinguish and identify the range of recovery for
each of the Plaintiffs' several claims, most importantly the FLSA
claims.

The Judge also finds that the parties did not satisfactorily
address the issue of liquidated damages.  The parties failed to
clearly explain to what extent the proposed settlement amounts and
reasonable range of recovery accounted for liquidated damages.
Further, the parties did not clearly explain why and to what extent
these defenses reduced the proposed settlement amounts from the
maximum possible recovery.

He further finds that The parties' proposal for attorneys' fees is
problematic.  The parties did not make any attempt at explaining
why 165 hours is reasonable, other than to assert without
evidentiary support that the Plaintiffs' counsel actually billed
more than 165 hours.  They provided no evidentiary support for the
proposed attorneys' fees and costs.  Although the parties asserted
that two of the Plaintiffs' attorneys have, respectively, 21 years
and over 10 years of experience, the parties provided no meaningful
explanation for why a "blended" rate of $365 per hour is
reasonable.  The parties provided no detailed explanation or
calculation for how they "blended" the Plaintiffs' attorneys' rates
to reach $365 per hour.

The fact that the Plaintiffs are being compensated and reviewed and
agreed to the proposed settlement agreement does not obviate the
legal requirement that the releases be appropriately tailored.

Finally, the Judge cannot determine whether there are legitimate
questions about the existence and extent of the Defendant's FLSA
liability.  Consequently, he cannot conclude that the parties'
proposed settlement agreement is a fair and reasonable resolution
of a bona fide dispute.

Accordingly, Judge Ishii denied the parties' Settlement Motion
without prejudice to the refiling of a subsequent settlement motion
that cures the issues identified in the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 11, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/cjcDdt from Leagle.com.

Antonio Jefferson, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher
Wayne Rowlett -- rowlett@pvflaw.com -- Perez Vaughn & Feasby, Inc.,
John Vaughn -- vaughn@pvflaw.com -- Perez Vaughn & Feasby Inc.,
Peter R. Rosenzweig -- prosenzweig@kleinbard.com -- Kleinbard LLC,
pro hac vice & Jeffrey Feasby -- feasby@pvflaw.com -- Perez Vaughn
& Feasby Inc.

Wayne Lewis, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated & Gregory Brown, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Jeffrey Feasby, Perez Vaughn & Feasby Inc. & Peter
R. Rosenzweig, Kleinbard LLC, pro hac vice.

MEC Development, LLC, Defendant, represented by Ian Blade Wieland
-- ian@sw2law.com -- Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland, PC, Matthew E.
Feinberg, PilieroMazza PLLC, pro hac vice, Nichole D. Atallah --
natallah@pilieromazza.com -- Pilieromazza PLLC, pro hac vice &
Timothy F. Valley, PilieroMazza PLLC, pro hac vice.


METROPOLITAN MUSEUM: Court Rejects Artist's Antitrust Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ephrat Livni, writing for Quartz, reports that the art business is
notoriously hard to break into and extremely difficult to make a
name in. Some artists get depressed and blame themselves. Others
curse critics. The painter Robert Cenedella, subject of a 2016 film
called Art Bastard, which characterizes him as an "outsider" and
the "anti-Andy Warhol," thinks there's something much bigger at
play.

Mr. Cenedella believes there's a conspiracy among major museums,
galleries, collectors, and auction houses to keep demand and prices
high for a chosen few contemporary artists, and in February he
filed a class action lawsuit claiming a violation of antitrust law.
The artist targeted five prominent New York museums that have
rejected his work -- the Metropolitan, Guggenheim, Museum of Modern
art, New Museum, and Whitney -- arguing that they are part of a
cabal to eliminate competition in the art market. On Dec. 19, a New
York federal court rejected Mr. Cenedella's claim but left the door
open for more litigation.

In his 32-page opinion (paywall), which was almost as harsh as a
critic's unfavorable assessment of an artwork, judge John Koeltl
explains that he's dismissing Cenedella's case because the artist
hasn't shown there's an actual controversy that can be resolved
with a lawsuit. "Although the plaintiff assures the court that his
work is of a quality that would be shown in the defendant museums
if not for the alleged conspiracy, this subjective boast alone
cannot substantiate the plaintiff's claim that enjoining the
alleged conspiracy would lead the defendants to begin purchasing
his work," Koeltl writes.

Mr. Cenedella argued that by conspiring to keep demand high for
just a few artists, art-market insiders have depressed prices and
desire for work by those who aren't chosen. He didn't say his
paintings would necessarily hang in New York's great museums, but
that they could, that they were good enough, and that demand for
his work was lower because the defendants were stifling
competition.

The court concluded that the claims were too tenuous and that any
injury Mr. Cenedella might have suffered was indirect.

Mr.  Koeltl called Mr. Cenedella's arguments "highly speculative"
and that it would be impossible to determine what the works were
really worth. Art's value is subjective and there was no way for
the judge to say whether museum staff would choose his painting
over a Warhol if there was no alleged conspiracy, given the
vagaries of "public taste, the interest of purchasers, and the
opinions of critics and academics."

Yet, Mr. Cenedella's claim is not dead yet. The case was dismissed
without prejudice, which means he can still try to revive the suit
by filing again with the missing facts filled in. If Mr. Cenedella
can do more than just assert that there's a conspiracy and show the
insiders had a motive to conspire, backed by actual evidence, that
might allow for some legal remedy to be crafted, and he might just
get his suit to trial.

What's certain is Mr. Cenedella's move to sue was clever. His works
may not end up hanging in the great museums of New York, but by
filing the case, he's getting more attention and that is what
artists need to succeed. [GN]


MICHIGAN: ACLU Suit Seeks Changes to Sex Offender Registry
----------------------------------------------------------
George Hunter, writing for The Detroit News, reported that William
Hetherington says he's still being punished after paying his debt
for a crime he didn't commit.

Hetherington, 65, made national headlines after his 1986 conviction
for a new Michigan crime, spousal rape. Innocence advocates raised
questions about the conviction, and his case was highlighted in the
1990s by multiple media outlets, including the "Phil Donahue Show,"
ABC's "Prime Time Live" and CBS's "60 Minutes."

Despite his clean prison record, Hetherington served more than
double the maximum sentence under Michigan guidelines for spousal
rape because at parole hearings he refused to express remorse for a
crime he insisted he hadn't committed. When he was released in
2009, his name was added to the Michigan State Police Sex Offender
Registry, and he struggled to adjust to life after prison.

The Air Force veteran was in a federal program that provides
housing and other services for honorably discharged homeless
military veterans -- but when the state changed the rules in 2011
requiring him to stay on the sex offender list for life, he was
kicked out of the program, which bars anyone with lifetime
reporting requirements on sex offender registries.

Civil rights advocates say Hetherington is an example of how
thousands of people have been unfairly penalized by the Michigan
Sex Offender Registry more than two years after the Sixth Circuit
Court ruled the state's changes retroactively putting people on the
list for life were unconstitutional.

"All the government has ever done is violate my rights," said
Hetherington, who lives in a small apartment provided by a minister
in Vassar, near Frankenmuth. "Now they're doing it again. It's the
story of my life."

Hetherington is one of 40,000 convicted sex offenders in Michigan
who are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union in a
federal class-action lawsuit against the state.

The lawsuit, filed in June in U.S. District Court, demands that the
state lift the offenders' lifetime registry requirements. That
would allow them access to benefits they're cut off from because
they're on the list -- including the program Hetherington was
kicked out of, the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing
initiative.

"The lifetime requirement is effectively lifetime parole, because
you have to report even small things like getting an email address
or phone number," said Miriam Aukerman, senior staff attorney at
ACLU of Michigan.

"There are other reporting requirements, such as if you want to
travel anywhere for more than seven days, you have to report that
in person," Aukerman said. "The statue also says people on the
registry can’t loiter within 100 feet of a school, which means
parents can't watch their kids' sports games or graduations without
being in violation."

State police spokeswoman Shanon Banner said the agency is in
compliance.

"As a result of the 6th Circuit decision, the MSP informed law
enforcement that similar retroactive enforcement of the
requirements under the 2006 or 2011 amendments against other
similarly situated offenders could likewise be unconstitutional,"
she said in a written statement.

"However, it needs to be noted that the court did not find the sex
offender registry itself to be unconstitutional, nor did it find
prospective enforcement of the 2006 or 2011 requirements against
offenders with offense dates after such amendments to be
unconstitutional."

Banner said state police are unable to take people off the list who
had been retroactively required to report for life.

"Efforts to modify the registry as a whole require legislative
changes to the (sex offender registry)," she said. "To this end, we
have been engaged in discussion with the Legislature, Attorney
General’s Office and other stakeholders for some time in regards
to the offenders who were named in the lawsuit."

Phone calls to the Attorney General's Office were not returned.

Aukerman said the current system diverts police from monitoring
potentially dangerous sex offenders because the list includes
people convicted of less serious crimes.

"Our original lawsuit involved five people," she said. "One of our
clients was a little older than the girl he was dating in high
school, and she got pregnant at age 15. He got prosecuted. He's now
married to the girl; they have kids together, but he's on the sex
offender registry for life. That's not the kind of person law
enforcement should be wasting resources monitoring."

Michigan passed the sex offender registration law in 1994 as a
private law enforcement database. After initial registration, the
only other requirement was for offenders to tell the state within
10 days of a change of address.

When the registry was set up, people convicted of one sex offense
were to stay on the list for 25 years after the conviction; those
convicted of multiple crimes were to be on the list for life.

Through the years, lawmakers amended the registry, including making
the names public. A 2006 change retroactively barred most offenders
from living, working or loitering within 1,000 feet of school
property. In 2011, a rules change forced many offenders who would
have been on the list only for 25 years to remain in the database
for life.

The ACLU and the University of Michigan Clinical Law Program filed
a lawsuit in 2012 on behalf of five offenders who were required
under the new rules to be on the list for life. In 2016, the 6th
Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that retroactively applying the
changes to people already on the list was unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2017 declined to hear an appeal,
upholding the 6th Circuit Court decision -- but despite the ruling,
Hetherington and thousands of others remain on the sex offender
list for life.

"The state isn't in compliance, so we filed a new lawsuit against
the state in June," Aukerman said. "It's a class action on behalf
of everyone on the registry."

As that case winds its way through the courts, Hetherington said
he's struggling to make ends meet. He said his sole income is his
Social Security check.

"My own government is screwing me over," he said. "But that's
nothing new."

Hetherington had separated from his wife, Linda, and was in the
middle of a custody battle for their three daughters when she twice
accused him of raping her before asking prosecutors to drop the
charges, according to Detroit News archives.

Linda Hetherington later made a third rape claim after she and her
estranged husband had sex on Sept. 24, 1985. He said the sex was
consensual; she claimed she was tied up and brutally raped.

Hetherington was arrested and became the first person charged under
Michigan's spousal rape law. During his trial in Genesee County
Circuit Court, the judge prohibited cross-examination of his wife,
who died in 2012.

The rape charge was prosecuted at the same time as Hetherington's
custody case, and the divorce court froze his assets so he was
unable to hire an attorney or get out of jail on bond. But the
judge in the criminal trial ruled he wasn't indigent and refused to
provide him with a court-appointed lawyer.

Prosecutors produced no physical evidence of rape at the trial.
Linda Hetherington had undergone a pelvic examination in a hospital
three hours after the reported rape, and there was no evidence of
injury or forced penetration.

The court-designated psychologist who examined Hetherington
concluded: "This is not a man who would force himself sexually or
hostilely on another individual," according to court records.

Two police officers testified they had seen tape marks on Linda's
face. Two doctors who examined her said they saw no such marks, but
the jury apparently believed the officers and returned a guilty
verdict.

"There's something about you, Mr. Hetherington, that frightens me,"
Genesee County Circuit Judge Thomas Yeotis said before handing down
his sentence.

The sentencing guideline for the new offense was 12 months to 10
years but Hetherington was sentenced to 15 to 30 years. Yeotis
didn't explain why he deviated from the guidelines.

"The whole thing was a joke," Hetherington said. "There were so
many holes in my case it wasn't funny. But I got convicted
anyway."

Ten years after Hetherington's conviction, attorney Jeff Feldman
accepted the case pro bono. He used the Freedom of Information Act
to get copies of five photographs police took of Linda Hetherington
hours after the alleged rape. Prosecutors never disclosed the
photos to the defense.

Feldman took the photos to forensic photographer John Valor, who
was the lead forensic photographer in the trial of serial killer
Ted Bundy.

Valor swore in a 1998 affidavit that the pictures of Linda
Hetherington showed no scratches, tape marks or abnormalities of
any kind. He added such marks would have been clearly visible

Still, Hetherington's appeals were denied until he was released
from prison in 2009. He said life hasn't been easy since then.

"It's just been one nightmare after another," he said.

Julie Hurwitz, a civil rights attorney who has consulted
Hetherington, said he's been given a raw deal.

"He had four months left on the sex offender registry before his 25
years were going to be up," she said. "He was originally told he'd
be on the registry for 25 years -- then they changed the law and
retroactively required him to stay on the list for life.

"That meant he was immediately kicked out of this housing program,
and job training programs, and lost other benefits," Hurwitz said.
"The real impact is this poor man is afraid to leave this one-room
hovel he's living in, fearing he'll be picked up for violating the
Sex Offender Registration Act. It's a shame." [GN]



MODUS HOTELS: Lazarev Says Website not Blind-friendly
-----------------------------------------------------
Dmitriy Lazarev, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Modus Hotels Group LLC, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-00098, (E.D. N.Y., January 7, 2019), seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief and compensatory damages under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Defendant owns and operates the Windsor Suites located in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It has a commercial website,
www.thewindsorsuites.com, which offers and allows the user to
browse services and facilities such as online booking and
accommodations, locations, entertainment amenities information,
events and promotions to the public. Plaintiff attempted to browse
services and facilities, online booking and accommodations,
locations, entertainment amenities information, events and
promotions. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that the website
is not accessible to the blind. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONEYMUTUAL LLC: Court Certifies Class of Borrowers in Rilley Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Scott Rilley, Michelle Kunza, Venus
Colquitt-Montgomery, Jonathan Aldrich, and Kendra Buettner, on
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
MoneyMutual, LLC, Selling Source, LLC, and PartnerWeekly, LLC,
Defendants, Civil No. 16-4001 (DWF/LIB) (D. Minn.), Judge Donovan
W. Frank of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The case is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of
all Minnesota residents who used moneymutual.com or any
MoneyMutual-branded website to obtain a payday loan from Aug. 1,
2009 through the date the Court certifies the Class, against the
Defendants, for violations of Minnesota statutes and common law.

The Defendants collectively operate a lead-generating business for
various payday lenders.  Consumers would go to their website to
fill out an application, and then the Defendants would sell the
application to lenders.  The lenders would independently decide
whether to lend consumers money.

The Plaintiffs are consumer-borrowers and have filed a purported
class action against the  Defendants related to the payday loans.
Plaintiffs Rilley and Kunza have been involved in the litigation
since its inception in March 2014; Plaintiffs Aldrich, Buettner,
and Colquitt-Montgomery have been involved since March 2018.  Each
Named Plaintiff visited the MM Website from a computer in
Minnesota, submitted their Minnesota address and banking
information, and were matched with a lender that provided a loan
with a principal under $1,000.

The Plaintiffs first filed their complaint in Minnesota state
court, naming only MoneyMutual as a Defendant.  They eventually
amended the complaint to add Defendants PartnerWeekly and Selling
Source.  The Defendants then removed the case to the Court and
moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  In the Aug.
30, 2017 Order, the Court found the exercise of personal
jurisdiction appropriate, but dismissed the RICO claim under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

On March 21, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Complaint, which added Plaintiffs JAldrich, Colquitt-Montgomery,
and Buettner, omitted the previously dismissed claims, and did not
add any new claims or theories of recovery.  The Defendants moved
to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint again for lack of personal
jurisdiction.  On Oct. 3, 2018, the Court denied the Defendants'
motion.

The Plaintiffs now move the Court for an order certifying the case
as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
23(b)(3) on behalf of the following proposed class of borrowers:
All individuals residing in Minnesota who (1) received a loan from
a lender of $1,000 or less, (2) that required a minimum payment
within 60 days of loan origination of more than 25% of the
principal balance, (3) by using moneymutual.com or any
MoneyMutual-branded website, (4) from Aug. 1, 2009 through the date
of the Order.

The Plaintiffs also move the Court for an order appointing the
Named Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class and appointing E.
Michelle Drake and John G. Albanese of Berger & Montague, P.C., and
Mark Heaney of Heaney Law Firm, LLC as the Class Counsel.

Judge Frank granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
He certified the class, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, of all individuals residing in Minnesota who
(1) received a loan from a lender of $1,000 or less, (2) that
required a minimum payment within 60 days of loan origination of
more than 25% of the principal balance, (3) by using
moneymutual.com or any MoneyMutual-branded website, (4) from Aug.
1, 2009 through the date of the Order.

The Judge appointed Rilley, Kunza, Colquitt-Montgomery, Aldrich,
and Buettner as the class representatives; and E. Michelle Drake
and John Albanese of Berger Montague PC and Mark Heaney of Heaney
Law Firm, LLC, as the class counsel.

The parties will negotiate the content of the class notice.  Within
21 days of the date of the Order, the parties will submit a joint
proposed notice to the Court.  If the parties are unable to agree
on the content of the notice, the parties will each submit a
proposed notice, together with briefing not to exceed 10 pages per
side, within 30 days of the date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 11, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/QZQEcF from Leagle.com.

Scott Rilley, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
Michelle Kunza, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, Linda Gonzales, individually and on behalf of the
putative classes & Michael Gonzales, individually and on behalf of
the putative classes, Plaintiffs, represented by E. Michelle Drake
-- emdrake@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., Jeffrey Laurence
Osterwise -- josterwise@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P. C., pro hac
vice, John G. Albanese -- jalbanese@bm.net -- Berger & Montague,
PC & Mark L. Heaney -- mark@heaneylaw.com -- Heaney Law Firm, LLC.


Venus Colquitt-Montgomery, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, Jonathon Aldrich, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated & Kendra Buettner, on behalf of themselves
and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by John G.
Albanese, Berger & Montague, PC.

MoneyMutual, LLC, Selling Source, LLC & PartnerWeekly, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Christina Rieck Loukas --
cloukas@winthrop.com -- Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, Donald J.
Putterman -- ayoung@plylaw.com -- Putterman Landry & Yu LLP, pro
hac vice, Joseph M. Windler -- jwindler@winthrop.com -- Winthrop &
Weinstine, PA, Michelle L. Landry, Putterman Landry & Yu LLP, pro
hac vice & Tobias G. Snyder, Putterman Landry & Yu LLP, pro hac
vice.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Gallimore Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY L. GALLIMORE, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00034-CRS (E.D. Mo., Jan. 14, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, 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 Plaintiff is 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

MULTI-STATE LOTTERY: Hot Lotto Rigging Suit Has Class Action Status
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Smith, writing for Hawaii News Now, reported that the case
that inspired the Game Show Network documentary "Cover Story: The
Notorious Lottery Heist" is headed back to court.

A lawsuit against the Multi-State Lottery Agency gained
class-action status, according to the Associated Press. At the
center of it sits the Hot Lotto scandal.

Eddie Tipton, who used to work as an information security director
at MUSL, confessed to rigging a random number generator in Iowa,
Colorado, Wisconsin, Oklahoma and Kansas to commit years of fraud.

According to the Des Moines Register, he's currently serving a
25-year prison sentence in Clarinda, Iowa. Attorneys spearheading
the class-action are seeking a deposition with Tipton at the
prison.

The attorneys are representing customers who purchased losing Hot
Lotto tickets for roughly 20 drawings between 2005 and 2013. Their
game had been tainted by Tipton's software, which allowed him to
predict winning numbers on certain days of the year.

According to The Register, a $14 million jackpot went unclaimed for
nearly a year, but it wasn't from a lack of trying. Several
attempts were made to claim the December 2010 prize on behalf of an
anonymous, off-shore trust company in Belize.

The Iowa Lottery Office ultimately denied the claims because they
were made anonymously.

Investigators turned to surveillance footage at the convenience
store to find the person who purchased it. That led them to Tipton,
The Register reported.

His brother, Tommy, and close friend, Robert Rhodes, also admitted
to winning sums of money with lottery numbers given to them by
Eddie Tipton.

This isn't the first lawsuit borne out of this case. Larry Dawson,
who won a $6 million jackpot in the Hot Lotto, sued the Iowa
Lottery and MUSL in 2016 in an attempt to get a larger jackpot.

As is the case in many lotteries, when the jackpot is won, it
resets at a lower amount. Dawson's argument was that Tipton's
illegitimate jackpot win caused a reset that never should have
happened, therefore Dawson was entitled to more money.

Dawson is seeking an additional $10 million, the AP reported. [GN]


MUSICALLY INC: Roberts Sues over Unwanted Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK ROBERTS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MUSICALLY, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-at-00044 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 14, 2019), seeks to stop
Defendant's practice of sending text messages using an automatic
telephone dialing system to the cellular telephones of consumers
nationwide without their prior express written consent; seeks to
enjoin Defendant from continuing to send text messages using an
automatic telephone dialing system to consumers who did not provide
their prior express written consent to receive them; and seeks to
obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct, pursuant to
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, prior to receiving the text messages at
issue, the Plaintiff never had any contact with Defendant. He is
not a customer of Defendant and does not owe Defendant a debt.
Musically texted Plaintiff using an automatic telephone dialing
system without his prior express written consent at least three
times, including two messages on December 25, 2018 and one on
December 26, 2018 from the short code telephone number 59109. The
impersonal nature of these text messages and the number of
complaints from consumers indicate that Defendant was texting
consumers from a list of telephone numbers and without human
intervention.  Defendant was and is fully aware that unwanted
autodialed text messages are being sent to consumers' telephones
through its own efforts and those of its agents.  Defendant
knowingly sent (and continues to make) autodialed text messages to
consumers' telephones without the prior express written consent of
the recipients. In so doing, Defendant not only invaded the
personal privacy of Plaintiff and members of the putative Classes,
but also intentionally and repeatedly violated the TCPA, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  scott@bursor.com

MWAA: Kerpen Appeals 4th Cir. Ruling on Use of Toll Revenues
------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Kerpen, et al., on behalf of all those similarly situated, the
Applicants, vs Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, et al.,
the Respondent, Case No. 18A726 (U.S.), is an appeal in the United
States Supreme Court from a court decision in Case No. 17-1735 (4th
Cir.).  The applicants also ask the Supreme Court for a 30-day
extension, to February 20, 2018, of the deadline for filing their
petition for a writ of certiorari.

In the Fourth Circuit appeal, Appellants have raised a variety of
constitutional and statutory challenges to MWAA's ability to use
toll revenues to fund projects enhancing access to Dulles airport.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all of these
claims, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment.[BN]

A copy of the Fourth Circuit's decision is available at
https://is.gd/419C4t

Attorneys for Applicants:

          Robert J. Cynkar, Esq.
          Patrick m. Mc Sweeney, Esq.
          Christopher I. Kachouroff, Esq.
          MC SWEENEY, CYNKAR & KACHOUROFF PLLC
          13649 Office Place, Suite 101
          Woodbridge, VA 22192
          Telephone: (703) 621-3300

               - and -

          Gene C. Schaerr, Esq.
          Erik S. Jaffe, Esq.
          Stephen S. Schwartz, Esq.
          Michael T. Worley, Esq.
          SCHAERR JAFFE LLP
          1717 K Street NW, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 787-1060
          E-mail: gschaerr@schaerr-jaffe.com

Counsel for Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority:

          Sona Rewari, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20037
          E-mail: srewari@hunton.com

Counsel for U.S. Department of Transportation and Elaine Chao

          Noel J. Francisco, Esq.
          Solicitor General
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530-0001
          E-mail: SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

Counsel for the District of Columbia and Karl Racine:

          Mary L. Wilson, Esq.
          Senior Assistant Attorney General
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF
          COLUMBIA | OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
          441 4th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001-0000
          Telephone: 202 724-5693
          E-mail: mary.wilson@dc.gov

NC3 SYSTEMS: Carmack Files Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Carmack, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NC3 Systems, Inc., doing business as
"Caliva", Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00347 (N.D. Cal., January 19,
2019) seeks legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal
actions of Defendant in transmitting unsolicited, autodialed SMS or
MMS text messages, en masse, to Plaintiff's cellular device and the
cellular devices of numerous other individuals across the country,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

The Plaintiff nor any members of the proposed Class never provided
their "prior express written consent" to Defendant or any
affiliate, subsidiary, or agent of Defendant to permit them to
transmit text messages to any of the Class's telephone numbers
using an "automatic telephone dialing system", says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of San Jose, California.

NC3 Systems, Inc., doing business as "Caliva," is a cannabis
dispensary and cultivation facility. The Defendant maintains its
corporate headquarters and principal place of business in San Jose,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     David W. Hall, Esq.
     HEDIN HALL LLP
     Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 766-3534
     Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
     Email: dhall@hedinhall.com

          - and -

     L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     1990 North California Blvd., 940
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Phone: (925) 300-4455
     Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
     Email: ltfisher@bursor.com

          - and -

     Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     888 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (646) 837-7142
     Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
     Email: pfraietta@bursor.com


NEW YORK: Court Dismisses Pisman Suit vs. DOH Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the case, ANATOLY PISMAN, M.D, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. HOWARD A. ZUCKER,
M.D., J.D., as Commissioner of the New York State Department of
Health, Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-7210 (NGG) (SMG) (E.D. N.Y.).

Pisman brings the putative class action under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983 on behalf of all New York Medicaid providers who have received
a notice that they have been placed in the New York State
Department of Health's ("DOH") Accelerated Collection Campaign
("ACC").  The Plaintiff alleges that, through the ACC, Defendant
Zucker, Commissioner of DOH, has violated the Plaintiff's right
under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to procedural due process
and has deprived him of his private property withoutjust
compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment.  The case
concerns Medicaid expenditures in the state of New York and the
method used by DOH for collecting outstanding liabilities from
Medicaid providers.

According to the Plaintiff, faced with the possibility that state
Medicaid spending could exceed the maximum permissible amount of
annual Medicaid expenditures, the DOH has undertaken a number of
plans of action Q pursuant to which the state intends to bring
spending in line with the cap.  One such plan is the ACC. Through
the ACC, DOH collects and keeps unverifiable purported overpayments
from Medicaid providers where DOH either lacks records from which
the existence of a liability may be determined, or has not provided
such records" to the providers

The Plaintiff, a physician enrolled as a provider in DOH's Medicaid
system, received a Notice on Aug. 4, 2017 ("Letter").  It was the
first time that the Plaintiff had been informed by DOH regarding an
overpayment determination with respect to any of his submitted
claims and remittances.  On Aug. 8, 2017, the Plaintiff sent an
email to DOH requesting more information about and supporting
documentation for the outstanding balances.  The following day, a
DOH agent responded to the Plaintiff's email.  The agent provided
the Plaintiff with a screenshot of alleged overpayment liabilities
dating back to 2010 connected to hiss Medicaid provider ID number.
The agent told Plaintiff that DOH did not, however, have access to
his Medicaid claims, and that for copies of previous remittance
advices for all Medicaid claims submitted and paid by New York
State he would have to contact a contractor, CSC Providers Services
("CSC").  The Plaintiff and his representatives continued to
correspond with DOH in August and September 2017.  During this
time, the Plaintiff also submitted multiple requests for
information to CSC, which told the Plaintiff that it could not
provide him with the requested remittances because the remittances
were more than five years old.

On Sept. 5, 2017, DOH provided the Plaintiff with two pages of a
remittance addressed to the Plaintiff and dated Feb. 26, 2014, that
listed the liabilities as they existed at that time.  The Plaintiff
alleges that he had not previously received the remittance and that
DOH could not confirm that it was ever sent to him or anybody else.
DOH referred the Plaintiff to a second contractor, CSRA, for more
information concerning the remittances.  On Nov. 2, 2017, the
Plaintiff contacted CSRA, which confirmed that the remittances had
never been sent to the Plaintiff because he was not the "pay-to" on
the statements.  CSRA did not tell the Plaintiff to whom the
remittances has been provided, purportedly due to restrictions
imposed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
("HIPAA").

On Feb. 6, 2018, DOH provided the Plaintiff with copies of
remittances establishing a deficiency of $16,861.06.  

The Plaintiff filed the complaint on Dec. 11, 2017.  He seeks a
judgment declaring the ACC "null and void," an injunction
preventing the Defendant from implementing the ACC or retaining any
funds collected pursuant to the ACC, the production of supporting
documentation to substantiate the information in the Letter, and
other relief that the court may deem just and proper, including
litigation costs and attorney's fees.

At a pre-motion conference on March 15, 2018, the Court granted the
Defendant leave to move to dismiss the complaint.  The motion was
fully briefed on July 20, 2018.

The Defendant argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs due process claim because the claim is moot, and that
the Court lacks jurisdiction over the takings claim because the
claim is unripe.

Judge Garaufis holds that the Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate
both claims but that jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's takings
claim should be declined pursuant to the prudential ripeness
doctrine set forth in Williamson County Regional Planning
Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City.  

First, the Judge agrees with the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff's due
process claim is not mooted by the production of the remittance
advices.  First, the fact that the DOH has now provided these
remittance advices to the Plaintiff does not address the question
of why DOH failed to give these records to him in the first place.
Additionally, contrary to the Defendant's argument, the Plaintiff's
interest extends beyond simply demanding that DOH provide proof of
the Plaintiff's indebtedness.  Regardless of whether the remittance
advices ultimately support DOH's determination of liability, the
Plaintiff has an interest in challenging a program that allegedly
deprived him of his procedural rights in the process of reaching
this determination.

Next, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff's takings claim fails both
prongs of the Williamson County ripeness analysis.  First, he
cannot meet the finality requirement. The Letter threatened
enforcement action but, as far as the court is aware, DOH has not
commenced any proceedings against Plaintiff or actually taken his
property.  The Judge also finds that the Plaintiff fails to satisfy
the exhaustion prong.  The Plaintiff does not allege that he
pursued any of these remedies prior to bringing the action and he
does not offer any justification for his failure to exhaust them.

Finally, he finds that while threats of subsequent legal action can
help establish jurisdiction, they are not sufficient to meet the
deprivation requirement of a procedural due process claim.  The
Plaintiff's reliance on Senape v. Constantino to argue the opposite
is inapt.

Because the Plaintiff's complaint does not adequately allege that
his takings claim is ripe for adjudication in federal court, the
Judge dismisses the claim.  And because the Plaintiff cannot show
that he has been deprived of any property interest, the Judge needs
not decide whether the ACC provides sufficient procedural due
process.  He therefore dismisses the Plaintiff's procedural due
process claim.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Garaufis granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss.  He dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint without
prejudice.  The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter
judgment for the Defendant and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 9, 2019 Memorandum and Order is
available at https://is.gd/B3nsKd from Leagle.com.

Anatoly Pisman, M.D., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jack I. Zwick,
Jennifer Leinbach -- jleinbach@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Rotter -- jrotter@glancylaw.com
-- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph D. Cohen --
jcohen@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice &
Brian Phillip Murray -- bmurray@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP.

Howard A. Zucker, M.D., J.D., as Commissioner of the New York State
Department of Health, Defendant, represented by Seth J. Farber,
N.Y.S. Office of the Attorney General.


NEW YORK: De Blasio Administration Faces Discrimination Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Hennelly, writing for The Chief, reports that kawyers
representing municipal unions trying to prove the city
systematically discriminated against people of color and women have
been stymied in the courts in recent years by the de Blasio
administration's resistance to producing ethnic, gender and salary
data, citing privacy concerns.

Now, with passage of legislation Dec. 20, the City Council and
Speaker Corey Johnson believe they are on the verge of being able
to have that demographic and compensation data provided on an
annual basis, although it might require overriding a veto by Mayor
de Blasio.

'Worse Than Private Sector'

Mr. Johnson told supporters on the steps of City Hall at a rally
for the bill that the municipal workforce lagged far behind the
private sector in terms of gender pay equity.

"It is even worse in city government than it is in the private
sector in New York City—which is shameful," he said. "The
municipal workforce faces a gender wage gap that is three times
larger than the gap experienced by women working in the private
sector."

Two years ago, using data from the Office of Payroll
Administration, Public Advocate Letitia James reported there was a
$5.6-billion pay gap between female city workers and their male
peers.

James: Will Expose Patterns

At the Dec. 20 rally Ms. James, who Jan. 1 will become State
Attorney General, said that with the kind of demographic and salary
data to be supplied under the bill, longstanding patterns of
gender, and race-based pay disparities would become apparent.

"Justice can be a long journey with twists and turns," she said.
"But it is usually the data" that sets the stage for "a Brown vs.
the Board of Education or overturning stop-and-frisk."

The drive by the City Council to bring greater transparency to how
the city compensates its workforce comes as the de Blasio
administration continues to deal with three separate class-action
lawsuits, all charging that for decades it engaged in illegal and
systemic employment discrimination against women and people of
color.

Lawyers for Communications Workers of America Local 1180, which
represents Administrative Managers; District Council 37's EMS
Locals 2507 and 2621, and FDNY civilian employees, are all pursuing
pay-and-promotion discrimination cases.

For more than a year the de Blasio administration and Local 1180
have been close to a settlement. In April 2015, the U.S. Equal
Opportunity Employment Commission found reasonable cause to believe
that for decades the city had engaged in widespread discrimination
against women and people of color in the title of Administrative
Manager.

'Historic Problems'

The finding covered every city agency as well as the Housing
Authority. The EEOC ruled that there had been "structural and
historic problems" in how the city treated women and people of
color with the Administrative Manager title that resulted in their
being paid "much less than their white male counterparts."

"This bill will go a long way in correcting the civil-rights and
equal-employment failures in what is supposed to be one of the most
progressive cities in America," Local 1180 President Gloria
Middleton told the crowd.

Arthur Cheliotes, her predecessor who is now the local's business
manager, said the Federal law guaranteeing equal pay for women was
enacted by President John Kennedy in 1963.

'A Quicker Solution'

Yetta Kurland, the lead attorney for both Local 1180 and the EMS
unions in their lawsuit, said in a City Hall interview that if the
municipal employment data bill was already law, her clients "could
have saved a lot of time, which could have potentially helped us
get to a solution a lot quicker."

During the Council hearings that guided the legislation's drafting,
the de Blasio administration raised concerns that disclosure of the
gender, race and pay data would risk breaches of employee privacy.

Council Majority Leader Laurie Cumbo, one of the bill's leading
backers, said the measure built in rigorous privacy protections
assuring that the data it generated would be available only to key
members of the City Council's data analytics team for 90 days.

"But this isn't going to be information that reveals people's
personal identity and information," Ms. Cumbo said. "The Council
will now be an equal branch of government because this information
is already available on the Mayor's side."

'Nothing Fairer Than Equity'

She conceded that it remained an "open question" whether the Mayor
would sign the legislation. "We have to know where he is going to
land here," she said. "But if you say you want New York City to be
the fairest of the fair in the world, there is nothing more fair
than pay equity. I don't see how you don't support it."

Council Member I. Daneek Miller, who chairs the Civil Service and
Labor Committee, said that the Mayor should see signing this bill
as "an opportunity for him to right" what Mr. Miller believes has
been discrimination holding back women and people of color for
generations.

"There is an element of Tammany Hall in this system here, and it
has been perpetuated by these policies that are allowed to continue
because we cannot disseminate this data that could discourage it
from continuing on and on," he said.

When asked if the Mayor would sign the bill, spokeswoman Marcy
Miranda said in a statement, "This Administration remains firmly
committed to fair and equal pay, benefits for employees, gender and
racial equity." [GN]


NVIDIA CORP: Vincent Wong Files Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class action has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of NVIDIA Corporation. If you
suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

NVIDIA Corporation (NASDAQGS: NVDA)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 19, 2019
Class Period: August 10, 2017 and November 15, 2018

Get additional information about NVDA:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/nvidia-corporation-loss-submission-form?wire=3

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Telephone: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


OCEANFIRST FINANCIAL: Faces Parshall Securities Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------------
OceanFirst Financial Corp. said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 16, 2019, that
the company is facing a putative class action suit entitled, Paul
Parshall v. Capital Bank of New Jersey, et al.

OceanFirst Financial Corp., a Delaware corporation ("OceanFirst"),
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October
25, 2018 (the "Merger Agreement"), with Capital Bank of New Jersey,
a New Jersey chartered commercial bank ("Capital Bank"), and
OceanFirst Bank, National Association, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
OceanFirst ("OceanFirst Bank"). Pursuant to the terms and subject
to the conditions of the Merger Agreement, Capital Bank will merge
with and into OceanFirst Bank, with OceanFirst Bank as the
surviving bank (the "Merger").

OceanFirst, along with Capital Bank and members of the Capital Bank
board of directors, have been named as defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit filed by alleged stockholders of Capital Bank
in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Cumberland County, Law
Division, captioned Paul Parshall v. Capital Bank of New Jersey, et
al., Docket No. CUM-L 000020-19 (the "Parshall Action"). The
Parshall Action alleges, among other things, that the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus omitted material information about the
proposed Merger.

OceanFirst and Capital Bank believe that the Parshall Action is
without merit and that no further disclosure is required to
supplement the Proxy Statement/Prospectus under any applicable
rule, statute, regulation or law. However, to avoid the costs,
risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, OceanFirst and
Capital Bank have determined that they will voluntarily make
certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://goo.gl/DbwpXE.

OceanFirst Financial Corp. operates as the holding company for
OceanFirst Bank N.A. that provides a range of community banking
services. The company offers various deposit products to retail,
government, and business customers, including money market
accounts, savings accounts, interest-bearing checking accounts,
non-interest-bearing accounts, and time deposits. OceanFirst
Financial Corp. was founded in 1902 and is based in Toms River, New
Jersey.


ORACLE CORP: Underpays Female Staff by $13K Per Year, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Shepherd, writing for IT Pro, reported that Oracle has been
systematically underpaying its female workers by an average of
$13,000 per year, a lawsuit has claimed.

A new motion in a class-action suit claims that women who worked
for the IT giant made 3.8% less than their male counterparts in
terms of their base pay, 13% less in bonuses and 33% less in stock
options.

According to the motion, discrepancies with an "extraordinarily
high degree of statistical significance" were found in Oracle's
payroll data, and were not based on "valid job-related reasons"
like performance or experience.

An analysis conducted on behalf of the plaintiffs indicated that
women were paid less than men even in cases where they had been
working for the same length of time and achieving the same level of
performance.

The class-action suit hopes to represent more than 4,200 women who
have been working for Oracle since 2013 in roles including support,
IT and product development. Six plaintiffs are specifically named
in the suit, all of whom have now left Oracle.

This is not the first time that Oracle has been accused of gender
discrimination; the company was also sued by the US Department of
Labor in 2017, over claims that it disproportionately overpaid
white men while underpaying female, black and Asian staff with the
same job titles.

Oracle has similar gender pay issues in the UK, according to the
company's annual gender pay gap report. The report, which all
companies operating in the UK are required by law to publish,
details the average difference in salaries between men and women
within the company. Oracle's latest report showed that in the UK,
male employees were paid an average of 20% more than women, with a
38% average gap in bonuses.

The company claims that this is due to the fact that around a
quarter of its workforce is female, which leads to more men in
high-paying roles and skews the overall average. The company also
said that it is taking steps to address its gender imbalances such
as implementing unconscious bias training for all managers and
emphasising the importance of diversity to hiring managers.

Despite these assurances, however, the latest motion in the case
alleges that Oracle was aware of issues surrounding wage
discrimination but has done nothing to correct them. "Women are
getting paid less across the board," said Jim Finberg, the attorney
representing the claimants. "These are some of the strongest
statistics I've ever seen -- amazingly powerful numbers."

Finberg is something of an expert, having brought a very similar
suit against Google in 2017 which alleged that the Silicon Valley
firm was also underpaying female staff, as well as denying them
promotions. The suit is still ongoing.

When approached, an Oracle representative declined to comment on
the lawsuit. [GN]



PAULS VALLEY: Former Hospital Employee Filing 2nd Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Sylvia Corkill, writing for News9.com KWTV, reports that problems
in Pauls Valley continue despite promises from the city to pay
former hospital employees in full.

While majority of the employees were paid, three employees named in
a recent class action lawsuit filed against the city continue to
wait.

One of the named employees representing the more than 100
individuals in the class action suit says she's so upset she's
taking matters into her own hands.

"I personally am going to file a civil lawsuit now," said for Pauls
Valley Hospital office manager Michelle Simmons.  

In addition to the class action lawsuit, Simmons says the city will
soon have to contend with more legal problems. A second suit has
been filed on her behalf. She says like everyone else she's tired
of getting jerked around.

"It did cause extra stress. I had made arrangements because they
had guaranteed us we were going to get our checks, so I made
arrangements to pay past due bills and now I can’t even do that,"
said Simmons.

Last week Simmons says she went to collect her paycheck when she
was told she didn’t have one.

"He pointed at me and said there's no check here for you, you have
to talk to your lawyer because you have filed a lawsuit," said
Simmons.

She also says while most of her fellow co-workers were paid, it
wasn't in full.

"None of the employees who did get their paychecks, they still
didn’t get their PTO paid out, there was no severance pay even
though there was a policy," she said.

Pauls Valley City Attorney, Jay Carlton, Esq. did not return News
9’s calls for comment.[GN]


PAYCHEX INC: Stephan Sues Over Illegal Biometrics Data Retention
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Stephan, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. Paychex, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,,
Defendants, Case No. 2019CH00205 (Ill. Cir., January 7, 2019),
seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to destroy her biometrics
in its possession, to cease all unlawful activity related to the
capture, collection, storage and use of biometrics, statutory
damages together with costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees for
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Stephan alleges that the Defendants implemented a timekeeping
system provided by Paychex that relied on the collection, storage,
and usage of employees' fingerprints and biometric information
without informed consent in violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act. She was required to scan her entire hand
and/or handprint into Paychex's biometric timekeeping device each
time she needed to "clock-in" and "clock-out." [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William P.N. Kingston, Esq.
      Jad Sheikali, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 893-7002
      Fax: (312) 275-7895
      Email: wkingston@mcgpc.com
             jsheikali@mcgpc.com


PEPSI BEVERAGES: $262K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Grice FCRA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALTAREEK GRICE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PEPSI BEVERAGES COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-8853 (JPO) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge J. Paul
Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the District of New York
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for an
award of attorney's fees and costs.

Grice, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, brought
the action against Defendant PBC on the basis of PBC's alleged
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), on June 19,
2017 in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego.
The Plaintiff alleges that PBC has violated the FCRA by procuring
consumer reports of the Plaintiff and the class members for
employment purposes without making the required disclosure in a
stand-alone document.

PBC then removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, and the case was transferred to
the Court on Nov. 14, 2017.  On Jan. 31, 2018, following a private
mediation held before the parties had engaged in any extensive
discovery, the parties notified the Court that they had settled.

Under the parties' proposed settlement terms, PBC agrees to pay
$1,192,275 to a common fund.  The common fund is intended to cover
all payments owed under the settlement, including class member
payouts, attorney's fees and costs, the cost of settlement
administration, and a service award for Plaintiff Grice.  After
deducting all fees, costs and the service award from the common
fund, the rest of the fund -- $710,850 -- will be distributed to
the class members submitting valid claims forms.

However, although the putative class consists of 23,133 members,
only 1,879 members have submitted valid claims forms, representing
approximately 8.1% of the entire class.  The low participation rate
here triggers a reversionary term under the Settlement Agreement
which allows PBC to claw back 40% of the Net Settlement Fund --
$284,340 -- with the remaining 60% -- $426,510 -- to be distributed
equally among the participating class members

The Class Counsel now move for an attorney's fees award of
$397,387, costs reimbursement totaling $74,507.79, and a service
award for Grice of $5,000.  The $397,387 attorney's fees figure
represents one-third of the original $1,192,275 common fund created
by the terms of the parties' settlement.  Per the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, PBC agreed not to oppose the attorney's fees
award, and no class member has objected to the instant motion.

On Nov. 8, 2018, the same date on which the Plaintiff moved for a
final approval of a class action settlement of up to $1,192,275,
the Plaintiff separately moved for an award of attorney's fees and
costs, to be paid out of the settlement fund to the Class Counsel.
After a fairness hearing on Nov. 15, 2018, the Court certified the
proposed class and approved the settlement as fair and adequate
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), but reserved judgment
on the Plaintiff's motion for fees and costs.

Judge Oetken certified the proposed class and determines the
settlement to be fair, reasonable and adequate under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(e).  Accordingly, he granted the Plaintiff's
motion to certify the proposed class and approved the settlement.
He also granted the Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, costs,
and a service award for Plaintiff Grice is granted in part and
denied in part.

The Judge awarded the Class Counsel awarded attorney's fees of
$262,300.50 and reimbursement of expenses of $16,537.57.  American
Legal Claims Services is awarded reimbursement of administrative
costs of $57,970.22.  Plaintiff Grice is awarded a service award of
$5,000.

The "Effective Date" of the settlement will be the fifth business
day after the expiration of the applicable appellate period.  If a
party appeals the Order, the "Effective Date" of the settlement
will be the day after all appeals are finally resolved.  The Order
will constitute a judgment for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 58.

Within seven days of the Effective Date, the Defendant will deposit
sufficient funds with the settlement administrator, American Legal
Claims Services, so that the settlement administrator may
distribute funds in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.

Within 14 days of the Order, the Judge ordered that the settlement
administrator will distribute funds in the settlement account by
making payments in the order:

      a. Paying the Class Counsel $262,300.50, as directed by the
Class Counsel;

      b. Reimbursing the Class Counsel $16,537.67 litigation costs
and expenses, as directed by the Class Counsel;

      c. Paying American Legal Claims Services $57,970.22 for
settlement administration services;

      d. Paying a service award of $5,000 to named Plaintiff
Altareek Grice; and

      e. Paying the class members who timely submitted valid claim
forms their pro rata share of $426,510, as further described in the
Settlement Agreement.

Upon the Effective Date, the litigation will be dismissed with
prejudice, and all the class members who have not excluded
themselves from the settlement will be permanently enjoined from
pursuing and/or seeking to reopen claims that have been released
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.  The Clerk of Court is
directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 54, 56, and 61.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 11, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/FRFAWJ from Leagle.com.

Altareek Grice, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lonnie C. Blanchard, III --
lonnieblanchard@gmail.com -- The Blanchard Law Group, Apc, Peter R.
Dion-Kindem -- peter@dion-kindemlaw.com -- The Dion-Kindem Law
Firm, pro hac vice & Marc Reed Edelman, Morgan & Morgan P.A.

Pepsi Beverages Company, Defendant, represented by Aaron Warshaw,
Ogletree Deakins, Jonathan Hisataka Liu --
jonathan.liu@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart, P.C., Timothy L. Johnson --
tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C., Christina Marie Schmid, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C., James R. Silvers, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Stephen R. Woods --
stephen.woods@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C..


PG&E CORP: Faces 50 Camp Fire Related Suits
-------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on January 14, 2019, that
as of January 11, PG&E is aware of approximately 50 complaints on
behalf of at least 2,000 plaintiffs related to the Camp Fire, six
of which seek to be certified as class actions.

The litigation currently pending against PG&E related to the Camp
Fire includes claims under multiple theories of liability,
including inverse condemnation, trespass, private nuisance, public
nuisance, negligence, negligence per se, negligent interference
with prospective economic advantage, negligent infliction of
emotional distress, premises liability, violations of the Public
Utilities Code, violations of the Health & Safety Code, malice and
false advertising in violation of the California Business and
Professions Code.

The plaintiffs principally assert that PG&E's alleged failure to
maintain and repair its distribution and transmission lines and
failure to properly maintain the vegetation surrounding such lines
were the causes of the Camp Fire.

The plaintiffs seek damages and remedies that include wrongful
death, personal injury, property damage, evacuation costs, medical
expenses, establishment of a class action medical monitoring fund,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other damages.

PG&E said, "Just over two months have elapsed since the Camp Fire,
a relatively short amount of time in which to assert claims. As
such, PG&E expects a significant number of additional claims to be
asserted with respect to the Camp Fire."

PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States. PG&E Corporation was founded in 1905 and is based in
San Francisco, California.


PG&E CORP: Faces 700 Suits over 2017 Wildfire
---------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on January 14, 2019, that
as of January 11, 2019, PG&E is aware of approximately 700
complaints on behalf of at least 3,600 plaintiffs related to the
2017 Northern California wildfires, five of which seek to be
certified as class actions.

These cases have been coordinated in the San Francisco County
Superior Court. The coordinated litigation is in the early stages
of discovery. A trial with respect to the Atlas fire has been
scheduled to begin on September 23, 2019.

The litigation currently pending against PG&E related to the 2017
Northern California wildfires includes claims under multiple
theories of liability, including inverse condemnation, trespass,
private nuisance and negligence. They principally assert that
PG&E's alleged failure to maintain and repair its distribution and
transmission lines and failure to properly maintain the vegetation
surrounding such lines were the causes of the 2017 Northern
California wildfires.

The plaintiffs seek damages that include wrongful death, personal
injury, property damage, evacuation costs, medical expenses,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other damages.

Insurance carriers who have made payments to their insureds for
property damage arising out of the 2017 Northern California
wildfires have filed 41 subrogation complaints in the San Francisco
County Superior Court as of January 11, 2019. These complaints
allege, among other things, negligence, inverse condemnation,
trespass and nuisance. The allegations are similar to the ones made
by individual plaintiffs.

PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States. PG&E Corporation was founded in 1905 and is based in
San Francisco, California.


PG&E CORP: Valenza et al. Sue over November 2018 Camp Fire
----------------------------------------------------------
MARIE VALENZA, BRANDEE GAIL GOODRICH, KRISTAL A. DAVIS-BOLIN,
BARBARA MORRIS and ASHLEY DUITSMAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PG&E CORPORATION,
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, And DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case
No. 19CV00133 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 14, 2019), alleges that
Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiffs and the Class by,
among other things, failing to install and/or maintain reasonable
safety equipment to prevent fires, failing to properly maintain
their electrical infrastructure in a safe condition, ailing to turn
off dangerous power lines and failing to manage the vegetation.

According to the complaint, starting in the early morning hours of
November 8, 2018, a massive wildfire tore through thousands of
acres in Butte County's foothills, killing dozens and destroying
thousands of homes and business. Named the "CAMP FIRE" because of
its proximity to Camp Creek Road, this blaze burned approximately
153,336 acres, 13,972 residences, 528 commercial buildings and
4,293 other buildings. There are an estimated 85 civilian
fatalities attributed to the CAMP FIRE, number which may not be
final as the damages and loss of life are continuing to be
assessed. However it was not started, as its name implies, by
campers, but instead by PG&E Corporation, which is the parent
company of Defendant Pacific Gas & Electric Company, and their
breach of its duty to properly maintain and operate electrical
infrastructure.

The Pacific Gas and Electric Company is an American investor-owned
utility with publicly traded stock that is headquartered in San
Francisco.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michelle M. Lunde, Esq.
          SAVAGE, LAMB & LUNDE, PC
          1550 Humboldt Road, Suite 4
          Chico, CA 95928
          Telephone: (530) 592-3861
          Facsimile: (530) 592-3865

POLARITYTE INC: Court Consolidates Moreno and Lawi Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
PolarityTE, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 14, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended October 31, 2018, that the Court has consolidated
the Moreno and Lawi cases under the caption In re PolarityTE, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

On June 26, 2018, a class action complaint alleging violations of
the Federal securities laws was filed in the United States District
Court, District of Utah, by Jose Moreno against the Company and two
directors of the Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-00510-JNP (the "Moreno
Complaint").

On July 6, 2018, a similar complaint was filed in the same court
against the same defendants by Yedid Lawi, Case No.
2:18-cv-00541-PMW (the "Lawi Complaint").

Both the Moreno Complaint and Lawi Complaint allege that the
defendants made or were responsible for, disseminating information
to the public through reports filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and other channels that contained material
misstatements or omissions in violation of Sections 10 and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 adopted thereunder.

Specifically, both complaints allege that the defendants
misrepresented the status of one of the Company's patent
applications while touting the unique nature of the Company's
technology and its effectiveness. Plaintiffs are seeking damages
suffered by them and the class consisting of the persons who
acquired the publicly-traded securities of the Company between
March 31, 2017, and June 22, 2018.

Plaintiffs have filed motions to consolidate and for appointment as
lead plaintiff. On November 28, 2018, the Court consolidated the
Moreno and Lawi cases under the caption In re PolarityTE, Inc.
Securities Litigation (the "Consolidated Securities Litigation"),
and requested the appointment of the plaintiff in Lawi as the lead
plaintiff. An order for appointment of the lead plaintiff has not
been entered. After the lead plaintiff is appointed, the plaintiff
will have 60 days to file an amended complaint.

The Company believes the allegations in the Moreno Complaint and
Lawi Complaint are without merit, and intends to defend the
litigation, vigorously. The Company expects its first response will
be to file a motion to dismiss after the first to occur of the
plaintiff filing an amended complaint or the period for filing an
amended complaint expires. At this early stage of the proceedings
the Company is unable to make any prediction regarding the outcome
of the litigation

PolarityTE, Inc., a translational regenerative medicine company,
develops functionally polarized human tissues to improve clinical
medicine and biomedical research. PolarityTE, Inc. was incorporated
in 2015 and is based in Salt Lake City, Utah. As of April 5, 2017,
PolarityTE, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of PolarityTE, Inc.


PORT OF SEATTLE: Supreme Court Appeal Launched in Property Dispute
------------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT KASEBURG, For Himself and As a Representative of a Class of
Similarly Situated Persons, the Petitioners, v. PORT OF SEATTLE, a
municipal corporation, PUGET SOUND ENERGY INC; COUNTY OF KING, a
home rule charter county; CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT
AUTHORITY, the Respondents, Case No. 18-838 (U.S.), is an appeal
filed in the Supreme Court of United States on Jan. 4, 2019, from a
lower Court decision in Case No.: 6-35768 (9th Cir.).

The Petitioners filed a writ of certiorari. Response is due Feb. 4,
2019.

The case's central concern is the ownership of a railway corridor
that stretches along the eastern shore of Lake Washington.  In the
late 1800s and early 1900s, the Northern Pacific Railway Company
assembled the Corridor by purchasing private proerty and condemning
shoreland.  In 2008, Northern Pacific's successor-in-interest,
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company, transferred its
property interest in the Corridor to King County.  The Plaintiffs,
who own property near the Corridor, asked for an order quieting
title in the Corridor against a number of parties, including King
County; and for declaratory judgment that, among other things, they
are the fee owners of the railroad right-of-way at issue.  King
County counterclaimed to quiet title against Plaintiffs and for a
declaratory judgment.

The District Court granted summary judgment to Port of Seattle,
Puget Sound Eneergy Inc., King County and Central Puget Sound
Regional Transit Authority.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed.[BN]

Counsel for Petitioners

          Steven M. Wald, Esq.
          Thomas S. Stewart, Esq.
          Elizabeth G. McCulley, Esq.
          STEWART WALD & MCCULLEY LLC
          2100 Central, Suite 22
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 303-1500
          E-mail: wald@swm.legal

PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL: Caldwell Seeks Unpaid Employee Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
SHAKILA CALDWELL, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated and/or aggrieved employees of Defendant in the State of
California, the Plaintiff, vs. PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL SECURITY
SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. CGC-19-572750 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 14, 2019), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, unreimbursed expenses, interest, attorney's
fees, damages, liquidated damages, penalties, and costs pursuant to
the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of herself and all
other current and former non-exempt employees who performed work
for Defendants in California and who suffered at least one of the
wage and hour violations. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
decreased its employment-related costs by systematically violating
California wage and hour laws and engaging in unlawful and unfair
business practices, the lawsuit says.

Professional Technical Security Services Inc. was founded in 1994.
The company's line of business includes providing detective, guard,
and armored car services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Graham S.P. Hollis, Esq.
          Vilmarie Cordero, Esq.
          Nathan Reese, Esq.
          GRAHAMHOLLIS APC
          3555 Fifth Avenue Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: 619.692.0800
          Facsimile: (619) 692 0822
          E-mail: ghollis@grahamhollis.com
                  vcordero@grahamhollis.com
                  nreese@grahamhollis.com

RATAN HOSPITALITY: Website Not Disabled-Friendly, Says Breeze
-------------------------------------------------------------
Byron Breeze, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ratan Hospitality Group LLC and Ratan
Hotels Management LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00187 (D. N.J.,
January 7, 2019), seeks injunctive relief, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination.

Defendant owns and/or operates that certain hotel known as the Town
House Inn & Suites located at 50 US Highway RT-46 East and River
Road, Elmwood Park, New Jersey 07407. Breeze was born without legs
and without complete hands, and uses a wheelchair for mobility. He
visited their website and found that its online reservation system
lacked the disabled accessible features (i.e. ADA-compliant guest
rooms) that would permit disabled individuals to independently
assess whether the Hotel and its available guestrooms meet their
individual accessibility needs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Erik M. Bashian, Esq.
      BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C.
      500 Old Country Road, Ste. 302
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 279-1554
      Fax: (516) 213-0339
      Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com.


RD ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Salespersons' Wages, Fink Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN FINK, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated v. RD ENTERPRISES, LLC, and THOMAS DORFMAN, Case
No. 19-0119 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., January 14, 2019),
accuses the Defendants of violating the Massachusetts Wage Act by,
among other things, failing to pay the Plaintiff at least the
minimum wage and the overtime premium for working more than 40
hours per week performing door-to-door sales.

RD Enterprises, Inc., is a company that maintains a corporate
address in Woburn, Middlesex County, Massachusetts.  Thomas
Dorfman, according to the Corporations Division for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts is the Company's Manager.  The
Company provides marketing and consulting services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Davis, Esq.
          DAVIS & DAVIS, P.C.
          350 Park Street
          Park Place South, Suite 105
          North Reading, MA 01864
          Telephone: (978) 276-0777
          E-mail: jdavis@davisanddavispc.com


RESOLUTE ENERGY: Assad Securities Suit Questions Sale to Cimarex
----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE ASSAD, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. RESOLUTE ENERGY CORPORATION, TOD C. BENTON, RICHARD F.
BETZ, JOSEPH CITARRELLA, WILKIE S. COLYER, JAMES E. DUFFY, THOMAS
O. HICKS, JR., GARY L. HULTQUIST, JANET W. PASQUE, ROBERT J.
RAYMOND, NICHOLAS J. SUTTON, WILLIAM K. WHITE, CIMAREX ENERGY CO.,
CR SUB 1 INC., and CR SUB 2 LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00079-UNA (D.
Del., January 14, 2019), stems from a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which Resolute Energy will be acquired by Cimarex
Energy Co. ("Parent"), CR Sub 1, Inc. ("Merger Sub 1"), and CR Sub
2 LLC.

On November 18, 2018, Resolute Energy's Board of Directors caused
the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Cimarex.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Resolute
Energy's stockholders will receive $14.00 in cash and 0.2366 shares
of Parent common stock, $35.00 in cash, or 0.3943 shares of Parent
common stock for each share of Resolute Energy they own.

The Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
the Proposed Transaction, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the
Proposed Transaction for February 22, 2019.  The Plaintiff alleges
that the Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration
Statement false and misleading.  Among other things, the Plaintiff
contends, the Registration Statement fails to disclose: (i) all
line items used to calculate EBITDA; (ii) after-tax cash flows and
all underlying line items; and (iii) a reconciliation of all
non-GAAP to GAAP metrics.

Resolute Energy is a Delaware corporation and maintains its
principal executive offices in Denver, Colorado.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.  Resolute
Energy is an independent oil and gas company focused on the
acquisition and development of unconventional oil and gas
properties in the Delaware Basin portion of the Permian Basin of
west Texas.

Defendant Parent is a Delaware corporation and a party to the
Merger Agreement.  Defendant Merger Sub 1 is a Delaware
corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, and a party to
the Merger Agreement.  Merger Sub 2 is a Delaware limited liability
company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the
Merger Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROYAL BANK: Libor-Rigging Cases Launched Against Major Banks
------------------------------------------------------------
James Booth, writing for CityA.M., reported that a string of major
banks have been accused of rigging the Libor benchmark again, five
years on from a major scandal.

A class action has been filed in the US against banks such as the
Royal Bank of Scotland, Barclays, Lloyds Banking Group, HSBC, UBS,
Bank of America, Citi and Deutsche Bank.

The action, which is being led by a Connecticut-based bank, also
targets New York Stock Exchange-owner Intercontinental Exchange
(Ice), which took over the running of Libor from the British
Bankers' Association (BBA) in 2014 after it emerged banks were
manipulating the benchmark to help their own trading positions.

The claim accuses the bank's of setting artificially low rates "to
the detriment of investors in financial instruments," the Sunday
Telegraph reports.

It said the banks "corrupted" the process of setting the Libor rate
by submitting lower rates to Ice, allegedly saving themselves
hundreds of millions of dollars in the process.

According to the claim: "Defendants combined and conspired to
depress -- and actually did depress -- Ice Libor submissions,"
adding: "Every basis point movement in Ice Libor downward would
save [the banks] more than $100m (GBP77.5m) in payments."

The Libor -- or London interbank offered rate -- is a benchmark
rate which is set daily for five major currencies and for seven
different borrowing periods, ranging from overnight loans to 12
months.

It is used to underpin numerous financial contracts worth hundreds
of trillions of dollars, however, its veracity was questioned after
it emerged that banks had been attempting to manipulate the rate.

Institutions such as Barclays, Deutsche Bank and UBS were fined
over rate-rigging while bankers, including former Citi trader Tom
Hayes, were jailed.

UBS, Ice, Deutsche Bank and Lloyds declined to comment.

Barclays, RBS, Citi and Bank of America were approached for
comment. [GN]


SENDGRID INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. has filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf
of holders of SendGrid, Inc. ("SendGrid") (NYSE: SEND) common stock
in connection with the proposed acquisition of SendGrid by Twilio
Inc. and its affiliate ("Twilio") announced on October 15, 2018
(the "Complaint").  The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against SendGrid, its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), and Twilio, is captioned Rosenblatt v.
SendGrid, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-01931 (D. Del.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff’s counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220,
Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at
info@rl-legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.

On October 15, 2018, SendGrid entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Twilio.  Pursuant to the terms
of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of SendGrid will receive
0.485 shares of Twilio common stock for each share of SendGrid
stock they own (the "Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a registration
statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Complaint alleges
that the Registration Statement omits material information with
respect to, among other things, SendGrid’s financial projections
and the analyses performed by SendGrid’s financial advisor.  The
Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on
behalf of holders of SendGrid common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 25, 2019.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

         Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
         Gina M. Serra, Esq.
         Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
         Telephone: (888) 969-4242
                    (302) 295-5310
         Fax: (302) 654-7530
         Website: www.rigrodskylong.com
         Email: gms@rl-legal.com
                sdr@rl-legal.com [GN]


SHELL CANADA: Victoria Recommends Suit vs. Oil & Gas Industry
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alastair Spriggs and Frances Bula, writing for The Globe and Mail,
reported that the City of Victoria has become the first
municipality in B.C. to support filing a class-action lawsuit that
seeks to have oil and gas companies help pay a portion of the costs
associated with climate change and is hoping other municipalities
follow its lead.

A Victoria council meeting, held on Jan. 17, found that the impacts
of climate change have resulted in substantial costs for local B.C.
governments, and asks the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) to
examine the possibility of initiating the lawsuit.

"Our province is in a climate emergency and response from fossil
fuel companies has been inadequate," Victoria Councillor Ben Isitt
said. "The cost of climate change has been overwhelming for local
governments in B.C., and taxpayers shouldn't be the only ones
paying for the impacts."

The decision comes days after the Insurance Bureau of Canada
estimated that Canadian governments paid up to $5.7-billion for
uninsured damages caused by extreme weather events in 2018. A
report in 2015 estimated that storm surges and a one-metre rise in
sea level, which is projected by the year 2100, could cost Victoria
businesses up to $415,557 a day.

"We're all facing the consequences of climate change in different
ways, but we have to respond as one," Mr. Isitt added.

A similar campaign established in 2017 saw 16 municipalities across
the province write letters to the 20 largest fossil fuel companies
in the world, requesting them to pay for the impacts of climate
change. The Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal
Communities, representing 53 local governments, joined the
movement, but the motion was narrowly defeated at the UBCM annual
meeting last year.

Victoria council received only one reply in the 2017 campaign, from
Shell Canada.

According to Mr. Isitt, Shell Canada's response demonstrated no
binding commitments to shift away from the use of fossil fuels, or
any attempts to mitigate the costs for affected communities.

Andrew Gage, a staff lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law, which
is working with municipalities on the campaign, says that although
the oil and gas industry is dismissing municipalities' concerns,
some communities are prepared to take a more aggressive stance in
the form of litigation.

The City of Victoria is instructing staff to track the city's
climate-related costs, and is seeking legal advice in relation to
the letter from Shell Canada concerning the companies'
responsibility as they prepare to endorse the resolution at the
2019 UBCM annual meeting in September.

The new Vancouver council hasn't taken a stand yet, but Green Party
Councillor Pete Fry said the councillors in his party, along with
those from COPE and OneCity, as well as the mayor, support the idea
of the city joining a lawsuit.

He said the initiative is going through internal discussions
because it involves complex legal issues and judgments about how
useful it would be for the city to get embroiled in a lawsuit.

"The lawyers have been looking at it. At a certain point, it will
take a decision from council. Then we will have to decide how much
political capital to stake on that. On a party level, we have been
pushing for it."

Mr. Fry said he recognizes that the public doesn't like it when
city councillors start taking on what seem to be symbolic political
causes -- "they didn't elect the Don Quixote council" -- and they
wouldn't be enthusiastic about paying millions for a lawsuit that
produces nothing.

But, he said, they may come to support a lawsuit when they realize
how high the costs will be for cities to cope with the impacts of
climate change.

In response to the momentum building around B.C., Tara Lemay, head
of media relations at Shell Canada, says filing lawsuits against
the procedures of energy providers is not the answer.

"We believe co-operation is required," she said. [GN]


SONIC DRIVE-IN: Class Action Settlement Reached in Data Breach Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma's News 4 reported that less than two years after a data
breach affected customers of a local fast-food chain, a settlement
has been reached and some customers might be eligible for a cash
payment.

In 2017, officials with Sonic Drive-In said that they were notified
of "unusual activity" regarding credit and debit cards used at
Sonic.

"The ongoing breach may have led to a fire sale on millions of
stolen credit and debit card accounts that are now being peddled in
shadowy underground cybercrime stores," according to
KrebsOnSecurity, which first reported the possible breach.

"Our credit card processor informed us last week of unusual
activity regarding credit cards used at SONIC. The security of our
guests' information is very important to SONIC. We are working to
understand the nature and scope of this issue, as we know how
important this is to our guests. We immediately engaged third-party
forensic experts and law enforcement when we heard from our
processor. While law enforcement limits the information we can
share, we will communicate additional information as we are able,"
a statement from Sonic read.

Less than a week after the announcement, a lawsuit was filed.

Now, it appears that a class action settlement was reached and
customers may be eligible for a cash payment.

"The Settlement includes all residents of the United States of
America who made a purchase at any one of the 325 impacted Sonic
Drive-In locations and paid using a credit or debit card from April
7, 2017 through October 28, 2017," the notice read.

Customers who visited one of the following Oklahoma locations
during that time period must submit a claim in order to be eligible
for payment:

902 W. Petree - Anadarko
430 W. Doolin- Blackwell
112 East H Ave. - Cache
7457 US Hwy 277- Elgin
24125 S. Hwy 49- Lawton
2612 Southwest Lee Blvd. - Lawton
908 N. Broadway- Marlow
301 S. Main St. - Okarche
11577 Ridge Rd. - Thackerville
125 S. Mustang Rd. - Yukon
901 N. Cemetery Rd. - Yukon.

For a full list of stores affected, click
https://tinyurl.com/y7qfzjqz [GN]


SPORT TV: To Face Class Action Over 2005 to 2011 Pricing
--------------------------------------------------------
Telecompaper reports that Portuguese premium sports platform Sport
TV will be tried in a class action to obtain compensation for
allegedly charging customers excessively high prices for its
services between 2005 and 2011. According to daily Publico, the
action was brought by the Competition Observatory in response to
the EUR 3.7 million fine applied by the Competition Authority on
Sport TV for violating competition laws.

The Competition Observatory maintains that the pay-TV broadcaster
abused its dominant position regarding the transmission of football
matches and discriminated against Nos' competitors by not allowing
the individual sale of the service, forcing users to buy a package
of channels. [GN]


SPRINT: Court Approves 2 Settlements Over Unpaid Commissions
------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Friedman, writing for phoneArena.com, reports that in
December, the U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Kansas announced
that it had approved two settlements made by Sprint (via Kansas
City Business Journal) related to lawsuits over unpaid commissions.
Both class action suits date from 2008, and claim that following
its merger with Nextel, Sprint failed to pay its reps the proper
commissions owed them under a prior agreement. Sprint employees say
that the system used by the company was unable to credit them with
the proper amount of commissions over a number of years.

Under the terms of the settlement, a class of 34,905 Sprint retail
store employees will share $30,500,000.00. That works out to a
little more than $873 per class member. 3,917 business channel
employees will split $3,650,000.00, or nearly $932 per person. The
employees worked for Sprint from 2005-2009. Word of the settlement
comes as both sides were preparing for trial. Sprint paid a record
$330 million to New York State to settle a suit involving unpaid
state taxes.

"The settlement is the result of over ten years of hard work by
many people and the dedication of our class representatives. We are
happy the class will finally be paid early in the New
Year."-Michele R. Fisher, attorney, Nichols Kaster, PLLP

Sprint executives never thought that they would have to settle this
case. Internal documents that were filed to the court revealed that
the company's executive charged with fixing the problem wrote that
it would take "lawyers, guns, and money" for the employees to get
the commissions they deserved.

It appears that Sprint is trying to get its legal house in order
before its proposed merger with T-Mobile closes. Still awaiting FCC
and FTC approval, the $26.5 billion deal was announced in April,
and the companies hope to close on the deal sometime in the first
half of this year. [GN]


STONEMARK MANAGEMENT: Mack et al. Seek OT Pay for Maintenance Work
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT MACK, BRIAN DUDANIEC ROBERT CINTRON, RHENDO WHETSTONE and
CAREY NICKS, each individually and on behalf of All others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STONEMARK MANAGEMENT, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00264-SCJ (N.D. Ga., Jan. 14,
2019), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and reasonable attorneys'
fees as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiffs and the
Maintenance Workers lawful overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as
Maintenance Workers within the period beginning three years
preceding the filing of this Complaint. The Plaintiffs were paid an
hourly rate. The Defendant owns and operates numerous large-scale
residential properties throughout Georgia and other locations
throughout the United States.

It was Defendant's common practice to not pay Plaintiffs and the
Maintenance Workers for all of the time they spent responding to
emergency calls, traveling to Defendant's properties after loading
specific tools for the purpose of performing work at Defendant's
properties, and performing the maintenance work itself. As a
result, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiffs and the Maintenance
Workers a proper overtime rate of one and 1.5 times their regular
rate for all hours in excess of 40 in a week during weeks in which
the Plaintiffs were on call, the lawsuit says.

Stonemark Management, LLC provides multi-family property management
services for owned and third party group assets. The company
focuses on the management, leasing, marketing, due diligence,
development, rehabilitation, and disposition of multi-family
properties.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          C. Andrew Head, Esq.
          Bethany Hilbert, Esq.
          HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC
          4422 N. Ravenswood Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60640
          Telephone: (404) 924-4151
          Facsimile: (404) 796-7338
          E-mail: ahead@headlawfirm.com
                  bhilbert@headlawfirm.com

               - and -

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

TAISHAN GYPSUM: Drywall Class-Action Lawsuit Revving Up
-------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Law Journal reports that a class-action lawsuit that
claims Chinese-manufactured drywall made American homeowners sick
is revving up in Virginia.

The Virginian-Pilot reported on Dec. 26 that about 175 people are
suing Chinese companies in a federal court in Norfolk. Lawyers for
both sides are hashing out a schedule to move forward.

The plaintiffs are part of a larger class-action lawsuit that
involves thousands of people in several states. They claim the
Chinese-made drywall contained hydrogen sulfide, which destroyed
electrical wiring and sickened residents.

Some of the drywall was sold through the Norfolk-based company
Venture Supply, which supplied the drywall inside each of the
plaintiffs' homes.

The suit is against Taishan Gypsum Co. and Beijing New Building
Materials Public Limited. The firms' lawyers say they're working
quickly to resolve the case.[GN]


TEXAS: Mother Sues Prison for Failure to Prevent Son's Suicide
--------------------------------------------------------------
Keri Blakinger, writing for Chron.com, reported that while he was
in prison, Sawyer Letcher hallucinated on a regular basis. He heard
voices, banged his head against the walls and cut himself just to
"feel good" as the blood ran down.

He was "openly suicidal" and gave repeated warnings of his
destructive intent. But still, according to a legal claim filed
this month, prison officials and medical providers did not do
enough to intervene, allegedly leaving the 19-year-old alone in a
cell with the means to kill himself.

Now, his mother has launched a federal lawsuit against the Texas
prison system and its University of Texas medical provider, saying
the state violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing
to address her teenage son's "obvious mental disabilities."

"This is one of the most egregious failures to prevent a suicide
that I've ever seen," said Scott Medlock, one of the attorneys
representing Letcher's family in the case. "This poor kid needed
help, they knew he needed help and they just put him back in his
cell knowing that this is likely to happen."

The Texas prison and the University of Texas Medical Branch
declined to comment on pending litigation.

In 2017, the Texas prison system saw 34 suicides, the
second-highest number in a decade. At the same time, suicide
attempts have been on the rise, though previously officials chalked
that up to a change in data recording.

Warning signs

The San Angelo teen first ended up in the criminal justice system
in eighth grade, when he was sent to juvenile prison and lived on a
special unit for kids with severe mental illnesses, according to
court filings. While there, he got into an altercation with a guard
-- and ended up catching an assault charge that landed him in adult
prison in 2015.

The day after he set foot on TDCJ grounds, he told medical staff he
"felt suicidal," the suit alleges. In the months that followed, he
repeatedly harmed himself and attempted suicide.

He saw "shadows" passing by his cell, ate his own feces, cut his
arms in an "openly suicidal fashion" and told a counselor it made
him "feel good to feel the blood running down."

Sometimes, he heard voices telling him to hurt himself, and he'd
bang his head against the wall to make them stop.

During his time in prison, according to court filings, he was
diagnosed with bipolar disorder, impulse control disorder and
borderline intellectual functioning. Medical staff gave him
medication, but he thought they were trying to sabotage him and
sometimes refused to take it.

Several attempts

Officials put him in the Hodge Unit's Developmental Disabilities
Program, a prison outpatient program for severely mentally ill
inmates. The program was designed to help prisoners learn life
skills, but Letcher knew that wasn't enough. He asked to be moved
to the more intensive "inpatient" program -- but medical staff
denied him, according to the lawsuit.

His self-harming behavior continued, as he slit his wrists, tried
hanging himself and even ran headfirst into a wall in an effort to
break his own neck. Twice in his last 18 months, Letcher was
hospitalized after he was found hanging by sheets in his cell.

At one point, psychiatric providers noted his danger to himself
when they recorded that, "PATIENT REMAINS A THREAT TO HIS SAFETY."
Though they refused to permanently admit him to the inpatient
psychiatric prison next door, officials cycled Letcher in and out
of the crisis management program intended to treat acutely suicidal
inmates.

Two months before his death, he was discharged for the last time --
but he promised one of the counselors he "would be back."

On May 24, 2017, Letcher was rushed to a local emergency room after
he swallowed a handful of Benadryl, a tube of ointment, and a
couple weeks' worth of antidepressants. The next afternoon, he was
brought back to Hodge Unit, where a nurse ordered that he see a
"psych provider."

There were no crisis management beds open, so a nurse allegedly
told prison officials to keep him under "constant and direct
observation." But apparently prison staff ignored that request,
instead putting Letcher in a one-man cell with bars that would work
as tie-off points and blankets that could be tied into a noose.

The next day, just after noon, officers found him hanging from a
bedsheet in his cell. He was pronounced dead an hour later at a
local hospital.

'They let them down'

According to his family's attorneys -- the same duo handling a
high-profile class action lawsuit over a lack of air conditioning
in sweltering Texas prisons -- that all adds up to a violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act because prison officials knew
Letcher was mentally ill and allegedly failed to make "reasonable"
accommodations.

"Had TDCJ and UTMB reasonably accommodated Sawyer's disabilities,"
Medlock and co-counsel Jeff Edwards wrote, "he would have likely
completed his remaining prison term and returned home to live with
his mother, the Plaintiff, in just a few short years."

Officers could have put him under "constant direct observation,"
confiscated his bedding, made sure he was in a cell with other
people, and put him in a placement without obvious tie-off points,
the suits alleges.

"This was a kid with serious mental health problems that did not
really belong in prison," Medlock said. "Every opportunity that
there would have been for the state of Texas to help this poor
family, they let them down."

Neither TDCJ nor UTMB has responded to the legal filings yet in
court. [GN]


TRANSUNION INTERACTIVE: Michael Sporn Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, MICHAEL SPORN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TRANSUNION INTERACTIVE,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-05424, from the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago) on Jan. 14, 2019. The Chicago Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:19-cv-00266 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Jorge L. Alonso.

The Plaintiff asserts class claims against TransUnion Interactive,
Inc. for alleged violations of the California Consumer Credit
Reporting Agencies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the
California False Advertising Law, and the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, the lawsuit says.

Transunion Interactive Inc. provides credit information and
information management services. The Company maintains credit
histories on approximately 500 million consumers around the globe,
as well as helps businesses better acquire customers, strengthen
long-term customer value and increase their bottom line.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

Attorneys for TransUnion Interactive, Inc.:

          Joshua Douglas Anderson, Esq.
          Michael C. O'Neil, Esq.
          Terence N. Hawley, Esq.
          Bruce Robert Van Baren, Esq.
          Timothy Robert Carwinsk, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          101 Second Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 659-5617
          E-mail: janderson@reedsmith.com
                  michael.oneil@reedsmith.com
                  thawley@reedsmith.com
                  bvanbaren@reedsmith.com
                  tcarwinski@reedsmith.com

UBER TECH: Court Disqualifies Keller Lenkner as Diva Suit Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DIVA LIMOUSINE, LTD., Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-05546-EMC (N.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted Uber's motion to disqualify
Diva's counsel Warren Postman and his firm, Keller Lenkner, LLC
("KL").

Diva, a licensed provider of livery services in California, brings
the putative class action on behalf of providers of pre-arranged
ground transportation services against Uber Technologies and
related business entities.  Diva alleges that Uber secures cost
savings by misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors
instead of employees and in doing so takes market share from
competitors like Diva that operate their businesses in compliance
with the law. Diva asserts two causes of action: a claim under the
California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and a claim under the
California Unfair Practices Act ("UPA").

Diva filed its class action complaint on Sept. 10, 2018.  It then
filed a motion for partial summary judgment on a "single issue":
whether Uber drivers are properly classified as independent
contractors or employees under the California Supreme Court's
recent ruling in Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.
5th 903 (2018).

On Oct. 24, 2018, Uber filed the instant motion to disqualify
Diva's counsel Warren Postman and his firm, Keller Lenkner LLC
("KL").  It contends that Mr. Postman, during his previous tenure
at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Litigation Center, had worked with
Uber on litigation implicating the driver classification question
under a common interest agreement, pursuant to which he became
privy to Uber's privileged and confidential information.

While at the Chamber, Mr. Postman worked with Uber in several areas
of litigation, two of which Uber highlights.  First, in March 2016,
the Chamber filed a lawsuit challenging a Seattle ordinance that
authorized independent contractor drivers to collectively bargain
with "driver coordinators" like Uber.  In April 2017, Uber joined
the litigation as a co-plaintiff with the Chamber.  Second, during
Mr. Postman's time at the Chamber, the Chamber filed amicus briefs
in several appeals in driver classification suits against Uber.
Among those appeals is O'Connor et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
No. 13-3826 (N.D. Cal. filed August 16, 2013), which originated in
the Court and to which the instant case has been related.  The
issue on appeal was whether the driver classification suits should
be sent to arbitration, and the Chambers' amicus briefs supported
Uber's position that the arbitration agreements in Uber's contracts
with its drivers were enforceable.

Prior to Mr. Postman joining KL, he and KL separately consulted
legal ethics experts about the conflict that may potentially arise
from Mr. Postman litigating against Uber on the driver
classification issue.  Both experts independently advised that Mr.
Postman's work at the Chamber] did not establish an attorney-client
relationship with Uber and did not appear to create a conflict.
Id.

Diva believes that Uber is seeking to disqualify Mr. Postman and KL
for strategic gain rather than out of a genuine concern about
unfair advantage, perhaps because Diva recently filed a motion for
partial summary judgment in the case based on Dynamex, or because
KL over the past few months has served Uber with over 10,000
demands for arbitration on behalf of individual Uber drivers in
Razak v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 18-1944 (3d Cir. filed Apr.
27, 2018), a Third Circuit appeal about the driver classification
issue.  Uber has not moved to disqualify KL in Razak.

Magistrate Judge Chen holds that Mr. Postman owed a duty of
confidentiality to Uber with respect to his work on the Seattle
litigation and amicus briefs, and the substantial relationship test
applies.  The Chamber's communications with its members about the
Uber amicus briefs related to a legal matter and were made with an
expectation of confidentiality.  And as with the Seattle
litigation, even if draft amicus briefs were shared with others
outside the privilege, Diva has not shown that all communications
between Uber and Mr. Postman related thereto was shared with
others.

Next, notwithstanding that the legal issues in the Seattle
litigation are largely distinct from those in the case, the
Magistrate finds that there is sufficient overlap between the
factual contexts to infer that information material to the
evaluation, prosecution, settlement or accomplishment of the
Seattle litigation is also material to the evaluation, prosecution,
settlement or accomplishment of the current representation.  


In addition, the subject of Mr. Postman's work with Uber in the
Seattle litigation is, for purposes of disqualification under
California law, substantially related to the case.  Mr. Postman's
involvement in the Seattle litigation was extensive.  The
undisputed evidence of Mr. Postman's long-standing involvement in
overseeing the Chamber's relationship with Uber supports a rational
conclusion that he obtained confidential information in the course
of that relationship that is material to his current representation
of Diva in the instant action against Uber.

Diva urges the Court to exercise its discretion to refrain from
disqualifying KL on equitable grounds.  It asks the Court to take
into account that Mr. Postman and KL conscientiously sought and
obtained expert ethical guidance before becoming adverse to Uber,
and reasonably relied on that advice.  The Magistrate finds that
Diva has not provided a basis in equity to deny the
disqualification motion.  Moreover, Diva has not shown that Uber
unduly delayed in bringing the Motion, that Uber's motion
constitutes tactical abuse, or that disqualification will result in
undue hardship or impose an undue financial burden in Diva's
prosecution of this litigation.

Finally, the Magistrate holds that Diva has not described any
particular prejudice it would suffer as a result of Uber moving for
KL's disqualification, while not so moving in in Razak.  The case
is still in its early stages; no discovery has been conducted nor
any dispositive motions litigated.  Uber has not delayed in this
case in moving to disqualify Mr. Postman and KL.  Accordingly, Uber
has not waived its right to seek KL's disqualification.

For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Chen granted Uber's
motion to disqualify Mr. Postman and KL.  The Order disposes of
Docket Nos. 40 and 85.

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

Diva Limousine, Ltd., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael A. Geibelson
-- MGeibelson@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP, Aaron M.
Sheanin -- ASheanin@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP, Ashley
Conrad Keller -- ack@kellerlenkner.com -- Keller Lenkner LLC, pro
hac vice, Seth Adam Meyer -- sam@kellerlenkner.com -- Keller
Lenkner LLC, pro hac vice, Tai Snow Milder --
TMilder@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP, Thomas Kayes --
tk@kellerlenkner.com -- , Keller Lenkner LLC, pro hac vice, Travis
Lenkner, Keller Lenkner LLC, pro hac vice & Warren D. Postman --
wdp@kellerlenkner.com -- Keller Lenkner, pro hac vice.

Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, Rasier-CA, LLC, Uber USA, LLC
& UATC, LLC, Defendants, represented by Brian C. Rocca --
brian.rocca@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kent
Michael Roger -- kent.roger@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Minna L. Naranjo -- minna.naranjo@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis and Bockius & Sujal Shah -- ujal.shah@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Keller Lenkner LLC & Warren Postman, Defendants, represented by
Thomas Kayes, Keller Lenkner LLC.

Lyft, Inc., 3rd party defendant, represented by R. James Slaughter
-- rslaughter@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP.


UNIQLO CALIFORNIA: Judgment with Prejudice in Rivera Suit Entered
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John A. Kronstadt of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California has entered judgment of the case, AZARIAH
RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UNIQLO CALIFORNIA, LLC, FAST RETAILING USA,
INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-2848
JAK (JPRx) (C.D. Cal.), with prejudice.

On Dec. 17, 2018, the Court issued a minute order granting the
Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Order Finally Approving Class
Action Settlement and Motion for Entry of Order Finally Approving
Attorney's Fees and Litigation Costs.  On Dec. 21, 2018, the Court
issued a separate and more detailed order granting the Plaintiff's
Motions.  

Having finally approved the parties' Settlement, Judge Kronstadt
ordered that the capitalized terms used in his Order that are not
otherwise defined therein will have the meaning assigned to them in
the Settlement Agreement.

Having found that each of the elements of Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) are satisfied, for purposes of
settlement only, he certified the Settlement Class pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of the class of all
persons employed by UNIQLO as non-exempt hourly employees at a
UNIQLO store in California during all or part of the time period
from Jan. 12, 2013 through July 18, 2018 (the date of preliminary
approval).  The Claims asserted on behalf of Class Members, as
defined in the Settlement Agreement, are certified.

The Parties are ordered and directed to effectuate the Settlement
according to its terms.  The Judge ordered the Settlement
Administrator to distribute the Settlement funds as approved in the
Court's Dec. 21, 2018 Order, and in accordance with the provisions
of the Settlement Agreement.

Judge Korstadt entered judgment of the entire Action, with
prejudice, for the reasons set forth and in the Court's Dec. 17,
2018-minute order and Dec. 21, 2018 order, and upon the terms set
forth in the Settlement Agreement.  The Action and the Claims
alleged therein are ordered dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 11, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/OO4M7x from Leagle.com.

Azariah Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Hallie Von Rock --
hallievonrock@yahoo.com -- Aiman Smith and Marcy, Brent Alan
Robinson , Aiman-Smith and Marcy, Carey A. James, Aiman Smith and
Marcy, Randall B. Aiman-Smith -- ras.asm@gmail.com -- Aiman Smith
and Marcy & Reed W.L. Marcy -- rwlm@asmlawyers.com -- Aiman Smith
and Marcy.

Uniqlo California, LLC & Fast Retailing USA, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Matthew Bryan Riley -- mriley@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson PC, Elliot R. Wilson -- ewilson@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson PC & Julie A. Dunne -- jdunne@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson PC.

Does, 1-50 inclusive, Defendant, represented by Matthew Bryan
Riley, Littler Mendelson PC.


UNITED STATES: ACLU Pursues Title IX Class Action Against DOE
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Ako, writing for KITV4, reports that the fight to put women
and men on an equal playing field -- literally starts on the field.
Some experts say, girls who play sports are more likely to become
leaders in their professional lives. ACLU lawyers say that's one of
the reasons they filed a lawsuit against the state's Department of
Education.

What these young women do here, could likely lead them to success
later, at work and in life. Jayma Meyer is an attorney in the
Litigation Department at Simpson Thacher Bartlett, LLC, and says,
"Playing sports leads to more self confidence, self worth, self
esteem, and purpose. Girls who play sports learn life skills such
as resilience and teamwork."

A federal law passed in 1972 called Title IX directs public schools
across the nation to give boys and girls equal resources and
opportunities in sports. The ACLU says Hawaii's state public school
system isn't doing that. That's why, on December 6, it filed a
lawsuit on behalf of two female students.

ACLU of Hawaii's legal director Mateo Caballero says, "Half a
century after Title IX was passed, our clients and their peers at
Campbell High School have not received this type of treatment."

The DOE has until December 28 to respond. It told us it couldn't
comment on pending litigation.

The lawsuit cites issues like: Campbell High's female athletes
going a mile away from school to change at a fast food restaurant,
or using the bathroom in the bushes, because they have no locker
rooms nearby.

Elizabeth Kristen, Director of the Gender Equity & LGBT Rights
Program at Legal Aid at Work, says, "It's with some disappointment
that we find these problems remain persistent."

ACLU lawyers quote a 2015 Ernst & Young/ESPN-W study, Where Will
You Find Your Next Leader?, that looked at how athletics affected
Fortune 500 women leaders. Meyer cites the study as saying, "Ninety
three percent of those women played sports in high school. Most of
those women attribute their success to having played sports."

When denied the chance to play, the opposite happens. Ms. Meyer
continues, "When opportunities are inequitable, girls feel degraded
and marginalized."

That report also estimates women's success would have a massive
impact on the world economy. It says "if women were to participate
in the labor markets identically to men, this would add an
additional US$28 trillion, or 26%, to annual global GDP in 2025.
This impact is about the size of the combined US and Chinese
economies today."

Ms. Meyer concludes, "We need to empower the girls at Campbell."
ACLU lawyers say it's a win-win: helping girls now, will help the
global community in the future.

The ACLU of Hawaii filed this as a class action lawsuit. If you or
someone you know is a Hawaii student who feels like you haven't
been treated equally in school, you can contact the ACLU of Hawaii
confidentially to see if you qualify to join. Just go to
acluhi.org. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Fed. Cl. Dismisses 3rd Amended Big Oak Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BIG OAK FARMS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED
STATES, Defendant, Case No. 11-275L (Fed. Cl.), Judge Nancy B.
Firestone of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted the United
States' motion filed on March 29, 2018 to dismiss the claims of
over 120 Plaintiffs ("additional Plaintiffs") on the grounds that
their claims, identified for the first time in the Third Amended
Complaint filed on March 16, 2018, are time-barred under 28 U.S.C.
Section 2501.

The case was initially filed on May 3, 2011 on behalf of 34
Plaintiffs and an unidentified class of additional Plaintiffs.  In
the original complaint, the Plaintiffs claimed that they were
bringing the action on behalf of themselves and an alleged class
following flooding that began at approximately 10 p.m. on May 2,
2011 when the United States Army Corps of Engineers intentionally
breached the Birds Point levee and inundated approximately 130,000
acres of Mississippi and New Madrid Counties, Missouri with flood
waters from the Mississippi River.  Some of the original 34
Plaintiffs had granted easements to the Corps to allow for their
land to be flooded during certain conditions and received payments
for their easement.  The Plaintiffs who had granted these easements
to the Corps also alleged that, to the extent the easements were
enforceable, that the Corps had exceeded the scope of its
easements.

The government moved to dismiss the takings claims set forth in the
initial March 3, 2011 complaint on Sept. 9, 2011 for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted  under Rule 12(b)(6)
of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims.  On May
4, 2012, the Court granted the government's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' takings claims.  However, shortly thereafter the
Supreme Court issued its decision in Arkansas Game & Fish
Commission v. United States, and after additional briefing on the
Supreme Court's decision, the Court reinstated the Plaintiffs'
takings claims on July 23, 2013 and the parties began discovery.

After fact discovery was completed in 2016, the parties filed
cross-motions for partial summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
taking claims.  The Court denied summary judgment on March 17, 2017
stating that there were disputed issues of fact regarding whether
the property damage suffered from activation of the Floodway was
the same as would have occurred had the government not breached the
levee or, if the flooding was greater than would have occurred
without the breached levee, whether the benefits the Plaintiffs
have received from operation of the levee system outweighed the
harm caused by the breach of the Birds Point Levee.

In a joint status report filed on Nov. 21, 2017, the Plaintiffs
informed the Court that despite having earlier agreed to seek class
certification after the Court's ruling on summary judgment, the
Plaintiffs decided not to seek class certification.  Instead, they
informed the Court that they had decided to amend their complaint
to remove the request for class certification and instead to amend
their complaint to name additional individual Plaintiffs.

On March 16, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed what is now their Third
Amended Complaint.  The Third Amended Complaint includes the claims
of the original Plaintiffs as set forth in the Second Amended
complaint but does not include allegations to support a class
action and now also adds the claims of over 120 additional parties
seeking just compensation under the Fifth Amendment based on the
Corps' breach of the Birds Point Levee on May 2, 2011.

On April 27, 2018, the government filed the pending motion to
dismiss the claims of the additional Plaintiffs for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1) on the grounds that their
claims, which were filed more than six years after the Corps
breached the Birds Point levee, are barred by the six-year statute
of limitations in 28 U.S.C. Section 2501 (ECF No. 125).
The Plaintiffs argue in response that the claims of the added
Plaintiffs relate back to the original complaint filed on May 3,
2011 under RCFC 15(c)(1)(B).  They also argue that because the
initial complaint included allegations regarding a claim for a
class action, the statute of limitations was tolled for the period
of time the Plaintiffs had maintained a claim for class
certification and thus the claims of the additional Plaintiffs are
timely.

Judge Firestone finds that the majority of factors for allowing
relation back weigh against the Plaintiffs and thus she finds that
the claims of the additional Plaintiffs first identified in the
Third Amended Complaint are barred by the statute of limitations in
28 U.S.C. Section 2501 unless tolling of the statute of limitations
applies.

The Judge agrees with the government.  Whereas the Plaintiffs never
moved for ruling on their request for class certification in their
prayer for relief, there was nothing more than a class complaint
pending before the Court and under the holding in Bright a class
complaint is not sufficient to toll the statute of limitations.  If
by simply filing a class action complaint a party could
unilaterally toll the statute of limitations and then have new
parties join the litigation as though the new parties were opting
into a class action without any court ruling on class
certification, why would any party seek class certification before
the Court.  The Plaintiffs' approach, if adopted, would create a
major jurisdictional loophole and is thus rejected.

Judge Firestone concludes that the claims of the additional
Plaintiuffs do not relate back to the original May 3, 2011
complaint and that a claim for a class action does not toll the
statute of limitations where the Court has never ruled on or has
been asked to rule on class certification.  Therefore, she granted
the government's motion to dismiss.

The parties will file a proposed draft order dismissing the
additional Plaintiffs whose claims are time-barred by the statute
of limitations and file a joint status report proposing a schedule
for next steps for resolving the litigation.  The Plaintiff will
also file a Fifth Amended Complaint that reflects the Court's
ruling in the Opinion and identifies the remaining Plaintiffs.  The
aforementioned draft order, joint status report, and amended
complaint will be filed by Jan. 18, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 11, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/eqeH15 from Leagle.com.

BIG OAK FARMS, INC., MT. LEVEL FARMS, CO., STALLINGS BROTHERS
FARMS, BURKE LAND CO., EMMITT BURKE, BRAD HEQUENBOURG FARMS, BRAD
HEQUENBOURG, SUSAN HEQUENBOURG, TERRY HEQUENBOURG, JUDY
HEQUENBOURG, WOLF ISLAND FARMS, INC., MARK DUGAN, REBECCA DUGAN, M
& M AG FARMS, INC., MIKE HUTCHISON, MARTY HUTCHISON, JENNIFER T.
BAKER TRUST, LINDSAY GOODIN, MONICA GOODIN, JOHN GOODIN, CLYDA
GOODIN, STEPHEN and JANETTE STORY FARMS, INC., SHEW and PRESSON
FARMS, INC., ROY PRESSON, RAY PRESSON, STORY LAND, INC., STORY
FARMS, INC. & SUNBURST PLANTATION, INC., Plaintiffs, represented by
J. Michael Ponder -- mponder@cbpw-law.com -- Cook, Barkett, et al.

USA, Defendant, represented by Sean Christian Duffy, U.S.
Department of Justice.


UPLAND CASCADE: Ct. Reverses Dismissed Defendants' Atty Fees Award
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY SCHERMER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
UPLAND CASCADE, L.P. et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No.
D072997 (Cal. App.), Judge Patricia D. Benke of the Court of
Appeals of California for the Fourth District, Division One,
reversed the Aug. 25, 2017 order awarding the dismissed Defendants
attorney fees.

The Plaintiffs appeal from an order awarding attorney fees to
Defendants Upland Cascade, L.P., Carbon Canyon, Ltd., Park
Contempo, Ltd., RF Group, L.P., Beaumont Investments, Ltd., Indio
Investments, Inc., Tokay Manor, Ltd., MHP-Bolsa, L.P., Hamner Park
Associates, Brookside Investments, Ltd., Del Prado Mobilehome Park,
L.P., Orangewood Investments, L.P., and Hermosa Investments, L.P.
("dismissed Defendants").

These 13 dismissed Defendants were "single purpose" business
entities that were named in the Plaintiffs' class action brought
against 18 such entities and the alleged owner-operators of these
entities, Thomas T. Tatum, Jeffrey A. Kaplan, and their management
company, Mobile Community Management Co.  The class action alleged
that the Plaintiffs and the class were subjected to uniform
unconscionable lease agreements and leasing practices by the
Defendants.

In Schermer et al. v. Tatum et al. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 912
(Schermer I), the Court upheld an order sustaining the demurrer of
the Defendants without leave to amend to the class allegations
only, concluding the court properly determined there was no
reasonable possibility the Plaintiffs could satisfy the community
of interest requirement for class certification because common
questions of law and fact did not predominate.

On remand, the instant case became a direct action by the
Plaintiffs against (all 21) the Defendants.  In June 2016, the
Defendants moved for an award of attorney fees and costs they
incurred in connection with their successful defense of the
Plaintiffs' appeal in Schermer I.  The Plaintiffs opposed the
request.  The trial court (Judge Joel M. Pressman) in its Oct. 7,
2016 minute order denied the Plaintiffs' motion to tax costs, and,
as relevant to the instant appeal, also denied the Defendants'
motion for an award of attorney fees in connection with Schermer
I.

In so doing, the Court's October 7 order provided the Defendants'
Motion for Attorney Fees is denied without prejudice.  While the
Court of Appeal ordered that costs were to be awarded in the
Defendants' favor for the appeal, the attorney fees must be
allowable pursuant to contract or statute.  The motion is premature
as the Court only ruled on the class action allegations in the
case.

The dismissed Defendants alone moved for judgment on the pleadings
pursuant to section 438, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(ii)1 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.  The Plaintiffs did not directly oppose the motion
for judgment on the pleadings, but instead claimed they would be
filing a third amended complaint, either by stipulation or through
a motion seeking leave to do so, in which they would not name any
of the dismissed Defendants.

The trial court (i.e., Judge Pressman) agreed with the dismissed
Defendants, and issued a minute order dated Jan. 6, 2017, directing
the dismissed Defendants to prepare the judgment.   Key to the
instant appeal, the court (i.e., Judge Pressman) on Feb. 17, 2017,
entered judgment for the dismissed Defendants.

Following entry of the February 17 judgment, which was not
appealed, the dismissed Defendants in March 2017 moved for an award
of fees and costs against the Plaintiffs, despite the fact the
February 17 judgment expressly provided the dismissed Defendants
were entitled to "$0" attorney fees and costs, as noted.  The
renewed motion was heard by Judge Gregory Pollack.

The court on Aug. 25, 2017 issued a minute order finding dismissed
defendants were entitled to an award of attorney fees of
$155,182.50 from the Plaintiffs.  Surprisingly, from the Court's
review of the record it does not appear either the Plaintiffs or
the dismissed Defendants in their briefing to Judge Pollack
referenced the February 17 judgment, which had "awarded" dismissed
defendants "$0" in attorney fees.  In granting the fee award, the
court in its August 25 order noted the Plaintiffs did not contest
the reasonableness of the claimed hourly rates or the total hours
spent.

The Plaintiffs argued the February 17 judgment "awarding" the
dismissed Defendants "$0" in attorney fees prevented the court on
August 25 from entering a new or different order regarding such an
award.  The dismissed Defendants, however, argued the February 17
judgment "served as the basis" for the Court to award them fees,
and in no way affected the propriety of the August 25 order.

Judge Benke finds that the record clearly shows the court, in
granting on January 6 the motion of the dismissed Defendants for
judgment on the pleadings, also "awarded" the dismissed Defendants
"$0" attorney fees.  The record further shows the court directed
the dismissed Defendants to "prepare the judgment."  Once the
judgment was entered on February 17, the trial court in the instant
action lost its unrestricted power to change the judgment.  By
extension, it also lost its "power" to issue an order postjudgment
that conflicted with the terms of the February 17 judgment.  Nor
did the trial court in the instant case have some inherent
"independent power" to issue an order in direct conflict with the
February 17 judgment.

In sum, the Judge holds that it was up to the dismissed Defendants
--and not, as they argue, to the Plaintiffs -- to use the limited
statutory means available to them either to attack the February 17
judgment in the trial court or to file an appeal from the judgment,
both of which required the dismissed Defendants to take those steps
within specified time periods, and none of which they did.  She
thus concludes that he court lacked the authority to award attorney
fees to the dismissed Defendants following the February 17 judgment
"awarding" such fees in the amount of "$0."

For these reasons, Judge Benke reverse the Aug. 25, 2017 order
awarding the dismissed Defendants attorney fees.  In the interests
of justice, the parties will bear their respective costs on
appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 11, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/AQGvem from Leagle.com.

Robbins Arroyo, Brian J. Robbins -- brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com --
George C. Aguilar -- gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com -- and Steven M.
McKany -- mckany@robbinsarroyo.com; Allen, Semelsberger & Kaelin,
George H. Kaelin, III , James C. Allen, David Semelsberger and
Jessica S. Taylor -- jtaylor@asklawgroup.com ; Law Office of George
W. Cochran and George W. Cochran, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Cooksey, Toolen, Gage, Duffy & Woog, Phil Woog --
pwoog@cookseylaw.com -- and Matthew R. Pahl -- mpahl@cookseylaw.com
-- for Defendants and Respondents.


VEHI-SHIP LLC: Drivers Claim Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Ronald Johnson and Janet Barnes, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Vehi-Ship, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00050 (N.D. Tex., January 7, 2019), seeks
to recover minimum compensation, overtime wages, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Vehi-Ship, LLC provides vehicle logistical services for the
automobile industry throughout the United States where Johnson and
Barnes worked as drivers. They claim that they did not receive
overtime compensation at the required rate of time-and-one-half for
all hours worked over 40 each workweek. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
      Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
      Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
      Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq,
      George Schimmel, Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
             lauren@a2xlaw.com
             carter@a2xlaw.com
             austin@a2xlaw.com
             geordie@a2xlaw.com


VILLAGE OF ELMWOOD: G. Pruiett Suit Remanded to Ohio State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARY PRUIETT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VILLAGE OF
ELMWOOD PLACE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-643 (S.D.
Ohio), Judge Timothy S. Black of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' motion to remand.

The Plaintiffs are all Ohio Residents.  Defendant Optotraffic is a
Maryland Corporation with a principal place of business in
Maryland.

The Plaintiffs filed the initial complaint in the action on Nov.
29, 2012 against Elmwood Place in the Court of Common Pleas for
Hamilton County, OH.  In the First Complaint, a group of motorist
Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment and emergency injunctive
relief to invalidate an Elmwood Place ordinance enacting a traffic
photo-enforcement program for issuing fines for speeding
violations.

Optotraffic operated the Program and received 40% of all revenue
resulting from payments of citations and related fees.
Approximately two months after commencement of the action,
Optotraffic filed a motion to intervene as a matter of right
pursuant to Ohio Civil Rule 24(A).  Optotraffic's motion was based
on the fact that if the Plaintiff's requested relief were granted,
Optotraffic's contract rights under its service agreement with
Elmwood Place would be annihilated.

The Plaintiffs opposed Optotraffic's request to intervene, filing a
brief in opposition.  The Hamilton County court denied
Optotraffic's motion to intervene, but permitted Optotraffic to
file a brief addressing the Plaintiffs' legal arguments for
injunctive and declaratory relief as an amicus curiae.

On March 9, 2013, the Hamilton County court issued an injunction
invalidating the Elmwood Place Program on constitutional grounds.
Subsequently, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on
June 23, 2013 that added a restitution claim and class action
allegations.  The Hamilton County court granted class certification
on Oct. 23, 2013, and named Plaintiff Michael Cutcher as the class
representative.

Elmwood Place appealed the order granting class certification.  On
Jan. 23, 2014, the Hamilton County court granted summary judgment
on Mr. Cutcher's individual restitution claim of $108.95 and found
that if the class certification were upheld on appeal, the class
would be entitled to $1,760,859.18 and any amounts obtained by
Optotraffic for convenience fees for online payments.

On June 20, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the
Hamilton County court impose a constructive trust "over all fees
and other charges" collected under the Elmwood Place Program.
Elmwood Place opposed the motion and noted that the Elmwood Place
only received 60% of the money collected by Optotraffic under the
Program and therefore its potential liability was limited to 60% of
what the class members paid.

On July 28, 2014, in response to the Village's opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion for a constructive trust, the Plaintiffs moved
for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint that would add
Optotraffic as a party for the sole and limited purpose of allowing
plaintiffs to assert constructive trust and unjust enrichment
theories against it.  Optotraffic filed an opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint
which would have added Optotraffic as a Defendant.  On Aug. 2,
2016, the Hamilton County court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
imposition of constructive trust and motion for leave to file
Second Amended Complaint, but denied the Plaintiffs' motion to add
Optotraffic as a Defendant in the action.

On Aug. 6, 2018, pursuant to a settlement between the Plaintiffs
and Elmwood Place, the Hamilton County court entered judgment
against Elmwood Place and in favor of the Class  for a total
restitution of $1,305,905.16.  Based on a stipulation between the
Plaintiffs and Elmwood Place, the Plaintiffs filed the Third
Amended Complaint and Supplemental Complaint on Aug. 9, 2018.  The
Third Amended Complaint added Optotraffic as a Defendant.
PlaintiffThe s claim that Optotraffic was unjustly enriched by
collecting fees under the Program.  On Sept. 13, 2018, Optotraffic
removed the action to the Court based on diversity jurisdiction.

The Plaintiffs now move to remand.  They argue that removal was
improper because Elmwood Place was not formally dismissed at the
time of removal, and, therefore, complete diversity did not exist.


Judge Black finds that formal dismissal is not required prior to
removal.  Because there is no dispute that Optotraffic had received
notice of settlement between the Plaintiffs and Elmwood Place when
it removed the case, there was complete diversity at the time of
removal.  Thus, he finds that the amount in controversy is greater
than $75,000 and there is complete diversity between the Plaintiffs
and Optotraffic in satisfaction of Section 1332(a)(1)'s removal
requirements.

The Judge also finds that Optotraffic has failed to demonstrate by
a preponderance of the evidence that removal was appropriate.
Because he finds that Optotraffic's removal occurred over a year
after the commencement of the action, and that the Plaintiffs did
not act in bad faith, remand is required.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs seek attorney's fees pursuant to
Section 1447(c), which provides that an order remanding the case
may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses,
including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.  A
district court should award attorney's fees pursuant to Section
1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively
reasonable basis for seeking removal.  Although he finds that the
case must be remanded, the Judge finds that Optotraffic had an
objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal based on its
contention that Ohio does not permit adding parties after final
judgment has been rendered.  Therefore, Plaintiffs' request for
attorney's fees is denied.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Judge Black granted the
Plaintiffs' motion to remand.  The case is remanded o the state
court from which it was removed.  The parties will bear their own
costs and fees.  The Clerk will enter judgment accordingly,
whereupon the case is terminated on the docket of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 11, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/1oec2x from Leagle.com.

Gary Pruiett, Linda Pruiett, Jannia Warren, Marja Fernandez, Craig
Coburn, Theresa E. Eppstein, Ourl Lady of Lavang Vietnamese
Catholic Community Church, Rev. Chau M. Pham, David Downs, St.
Bernard Polishing Company & Michael Cutcher, Plaintiffs,
represented by Joshua A. Engel -- engel@engelandmartin.com -- Engel
& Martin, LLC, Paul M. De Marco -- pdemarco@msdlegal.com --
Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC & Terence Richard Coates --
tcoates@msdlegal.com -- Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC.

Village of Elmwood Place & William Peskin, Defendants, represented
by Christopher Scott Houston -- chouston@taftlaw.com -- Taft
Stettinius & Hollister LLP.

Optotraffic, LLC, Defendant, represented by John M. Alten --
jalten@ulmer.com -- Ulmer & Berne LLP & Gregory C. Djordjevic --
gdjordjevic@ulmer.com -- Ulmer & Berne.


VISA ARGENTINA: Gas Stations File Class Action to Bring Down Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MercoPress reports that The Argentine Federation of Expenders of
Naphtha of the Interior (Faeni), on Dec. 26 filed a class action
suit in the Buenos Aires courts against Visa Argentina to bring
down the abusive fees and payment terms that the latter imposes
unilaterally.

Faeni, with support from the Confederation of Entities of Trade of
Hydrocarbons (Cecha) has sued Prisma Medio de Pagos SA (the owner
of Visa credit cards in Argentina) to curb trade conditions that
put their businesses in jeopardy.

The judicial collective action is a sequel to a complaint filed
before the National Commission for the Defense of Competition and
other actions which have all been unsuccessful.

The stations argue that the aforementioned conditions with which
cards are operated, especially in times of crisis, put their
staying in business at risk and many have already either filed for
bankruptcy or simply shut down.

In similar situations in the United States, Visa and MasterCard
were also sued collectively before the Eastern District Court of
New York, forcing credit card companies to sign an agreement
whereby they accepted to return to the merchants up to 6.240
million dollars for the abusive commissions that had been charged
to them.

Also in Europe an improvement of the conditions for the businesses
that operate with credit cards was forced in 2014 when the European
Union's Court of Justice imposed a million-dollar fine on
Mastercard for the exchange rates it charged. In this context, in
the same year, the European Commission accepted Visa's commitment
to reduce fees between 40% and 60%.

The Visa offer was not spontaneous. In fact it was the way to avoid
a sanctioning process that could reach up to 10% of its global
turnover.

In 2015, the European Community issued Regulation 2015/2366 (PSD2),
which mandated the card systems of all union countries to
drastically reduce these percentages which led to a cap being
established for exchange rates of 0.2% for debit card transactions
and 0.3% for credit operations.

In Argentina, the payment terms and the commissions charged by the
cards are much higher than those in the US and Europe and in most
Latin American countries as well.[GN]


VISIONSTREAM: Class Suit Proposed to Win Chorus' Subbies Backpay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Pullar-strecker, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reported that 'sham
contracts' have deprived low-paid workers of holiday and sick pay,
law firms argues.

Auckland law firm Shine Lawyers hopes to persuade subcontractors
working on the roll-out of Chorus' ultrafast broadband network to
back a class action lawsuit over their working conditions.

The lawsuit would be against Australian company Visionstream, which
is Chorus' largest contractor, as well as against contracting
companies engaged by Visionstream.

Shine Lawyers associate Tim Gunn said he believed there were
thousands of subbies working under "really horrendous conditions"
who should be regarded as employees of Chorus' main contractor
Visionstream.

Issues included "very low pay in and around the minimum wage" and
them facing financial penalties and deductions if work did not go
to plan, he said.

The goal of the lawsuit would be to ensure subbies got any backpay
and entitlements they were due as employees, including sick pay and
holiday, he said.

Gunn described the contracts under which subbies were engaged as
independent subcontractors, through contracting firms, as "sham
contracts".

Visionstream spokeswoman Alicia Fox said it had no comment on that
claim.

It last year launched 13 lawsuits against the Earthquake Commission
in relation to allegedly botched house repairs following the 2011
earthquake and it is also looking at bringing a class action in New
Zealand in relation to PFAS (per- and poly-fluoroalkyl)
contamination at the Ohakea and Woodbourne air force bases.

Late last year, the Labour Inspectorate lodged cases against
ultrafast broadband (UFB) subcontracting firms Sunwin Technologies
and Babylon Communications, accusing them of failing to pay the
minimum wage to several staff.

It also issued infringement and improvement notices to another 19
subcontracting companies following visits to 75 firms involved in
the roll-out of UFB, during which it said it found "widespread
breaches" of employment law.

Following the Labour Inspectorate visits, Chorus and Visionstream
began investigations into largely separate allegations that
resulted from a meeting that Stuff facilitated between
whistleblowers and Chorus.

Those allegations ranged from conflicts of interest around business
interests held by some Visionstream and Chorus staff, to a
suspicion a Visionstream manager had accepted bribes for approving
linesmen to carry out work on the new broadband network.

Chorus spokesman Ian Bonnar has said some of the allegations relate
to wider concerns questioning if the overall subcontracting model
is working as intended.

Communications Minister Kris Faafoi has said the Government will be
following investigations by Chorus with interest.

Bonnar said Chorus was unlikely to comment on the possible Shine
lawsuit, noting it appeared it would not be a party to the action.

Gunn described the situation as being similar to that which
persuaded Shine Lawyers' Australian parent to launch a class action
lawsuit in Victoria in November against ISG Management.

There, it is hoping to represent up to 4500 subbies working on
Australia's National Broadband Network.

He admitted that in order to be successful, any lawsuit against
Visionstream would need to create new case law, but said that was
not something it would "shy away from" trying to achieve.

Its case that the subbies were in reality employees, would hinge on
an argument that their contracts were very prescriptive in terms of
the work they had to do, how it was undertaken and paid, and how
they had to represent themselves to the public, he said.

"The commercial reality is that Visionstream won a contract and is
in our view employing lots of people to do that work. They are just
trying to use the contractor model in a way in which it is not
supposed to be used."

He hoped Shine would be able to launch a class action on a "no win,
no fee" basis, so subbies would not to have to fork out up-front
for legal fees themselves.

Subbies would not need to reveal their identity in order to
participate in the class action, at least initially, he said.

"It would be a group led by a lead plaintiff."

The law firm would do its best to protect subbies' identity if
requested, he said.

"New Zealanders are inherently untrusting of lawyers. But for me,
there is no access to justice in New Zealand -- a person in the
street can't get justice -- the only way they can do it is by
participating in a large organisation like this," he said. [GN]


WAL-MART STORES: Judge Certifies Class of 5MM Job Applicants
------------------------------------------------------------
On January 17, 2019, a California federal judge certified a Class
of approximately five million people who applied for a job at
Walmart to pursue a class action lawsuit -- Randy Pitre v. Wal-Mart
Stores Inc. (Case No. 8:17-cv-01281-DOC-DFM) -- that claims the
retail giant added extraneous information to background check
disclosure notices issued to applicants in violation of the federal
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Walmart FCRA Class Action Lawsuit

Judge David O. Carter granted the Motion for Class Certification in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for
the class action lawsuit in which lead plaintiff Randy Pitre -- who
worked for Walmart in November 2015 -- claimed Walmart improperly
obtained background checks on applicants  and employees with a job
application that was out of compliance with the FCRA from 2012
until 2015.

According to the complaint filed in July 2017, Section 1681 b(b
)(2)(A)(i) of the FCRA requires that a "clear and conspicuous"
disclosure be made to consumers before a "consumer report" -- the
FCRA’s term for a background check report -- is procured. Also,
the disclosure that a consumer report may be obtained for
employment purposes must be made "in a document that consists
solely of the disclosure."

However, the class action lawsuit claimed Walmart's job
applications included extraneous and confusing information instead
of providing a clear and concise disclosure about the background
check in violation of the FCRA. The complaint also claimed Walmart
violated the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies
Act (ICRAA) and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies
Act (CCRAA).

In August 2017, ESR News reported that the lawsuit claimed Walmart
"failed to provide adequate notice of the consumer report as well
as failed to secure legal authorization to obtain it" by not
providing a "clear and conspicuous" disclosure and that the
background check disclosures were "embedded with extraneous
information" and "not clear and unambiguous disclosures in
stand-alone documents."

Enacted in 1970, the FCRA 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 promotes the
accuracy, fairness, and privacy of consumer information contained
in the files of consumer reporting agencies (CRAs), protects
consumers from the willful and/or negligent inclusion of inaccurate
information in their credit reports, and regulates the collection,
dissemination, and use of consumer information, including consumer
credit information.

Improper disclosures for background checks that are not a
"standalone" document and violate the FCRA can be costly. Similar
FCRA lawsuits settled for millions of dollars include Delta Air
Lines agreeing to pay $2.3 million in January 2019, Omincare paying
a $1.3 million settlement in August 2018, a subsidiary of PepsiCo
paying $1.2 million in July 2018, and Frito-Lay Inc. paying a $2.4
million settlement in April 2018.

Costly class action lawsuits involving the FCRA will not be the
only compliance concern for employers performing background checks
in an increasingly complex legal environment that includes "Ban the
Box" and salary history laws. This trend has been chosen by global
background check provider Employment Screening Resources(R)(ESR) as
one of the "ESR Top Ten Background Check Trends" for 2019. [GN]


WELBILT INC: Vincent Wong Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong disclosed that a class actions has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Welbilt, Inc.  If you
suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Welbilt, Inc. (NYSE: WBT)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 11, 2019
Class Period: February 24, 2017 and November 2, 2018

Get additional information about WBT:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/welbilt-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Telephone: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Court Dismisses S. Cummings Suit With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sharion Aycock of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Mississippi, Aberdeen Division, dismissed the case,
SANDRA CUMMINGS, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO, N.A., and HOMEOWNER'S
MORTGAGE OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No.
1:18-CV-72-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss.), with prejudice.

Cummings, individually and on behalf of all of those similarly
situated, filed suit in the Court on April 20, 2018, alleging
various claims related to the origination and servicing of a
mortgage loan entered into on March 23, 2012.  

On March 23, 2012, the Plaintiff's husband entered into a mortgage
loan with Homeowner's Mortgage of America, Inc.  The Loan was
secured by the real property located at 1200 Cummings Road, Eupora,
Mississippi 39744.  The Plaintiff's husband executed the Note as
the sole signatory, while both the Plaintiff and her husband
executed the Deed of Trust.  The Plaintiff alleges that at the time
the Loan was entered into she and her husband believed that the
Loan would contain a credit-life-insurance provision that would pay
off the balance on the mortgage-note if either of them died prior
to the term of the Loan.

On March 23, 2017, five years after executing the Loan, the
Plaintiff's husband died.  On July 11, 2017, the Plaintiff received
correspondence from Wells Fargo notifying the Plaintiff that it was
initiating foreclosure proceedings against the property.  The
Plaintiff asserts that prior to receiving the July 11
correspondence from Wells Fargo, she was unaware that the
credit-lifeinsurance provision was not included in the terms of the
Loan.

Based on these facts, the Plaintiff asserts individual and putative
class claims relating to the Loan, which she asserts she and her
late husband entered into with Homeowner's Mortgage of America,
Inc., which was later serviced by Wells Fargo.  The Plaintiff also
claims that she and her husband were provided inaccurate disclosure
documents, which failed to include the credit-life-insurance
provision and misrepresented the true term of the Loan.  Finally,
she claims that the Defendants misapplied payments from the Loan's
escrow account to the homeowner's insurance carrier, which resulted
in Wells Fargo force-placing unnecessary and overpriced homeowner's
insurance on the mortgage property.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, asserts federal claims against Wells Fargo for violations
of the: (1) Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), (2) Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), (3) Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"), and (4) Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA").  The Plaintiff also asserts various state law claims
including: (5) violations of Mississippi's S.A.F.E. Mortgage Act,
(6) numerous fraud claims, (7) violations of Mississippi Code
Section 81-19-1, (8) violations of Mississippi Code Section
8-18-55, (9) breach of implied faith and fair dealing, (10)
negligence, (11) infliction of emotional distress, and (12)
wrongful foreclosure.

On May 25, 2018, the Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss, arguing
that the Plaintiff lacks standing to bring her TILA, RESPA, and
FCDPA claims.  Similarly, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff
lacks standing to bring her S.A.F.E. Act claim because it provides
no private right of action.  Next, it argues that the Plaintiff's
fraud based claims fail as a matter of law, as the Plaintiff failed
to meet the heightened pleading standard required under Rule 9 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  As to the Plaintiff's
remaining claims, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff wholly
failed to satisfy federal pleading standards and thus failed to
state a claim for declaratory or injunctive relief.

Judge Aycock finds that the disclosure provisions set forth in TILA
are clear: creditors are only required to disclose to the person
who is obligated on a consumer lease or a consumer credit
transaction the information required under the subchapter.
Similarly, only a borrower on a loan may pursue a cause of action
under RESPA.  Finally, the FDCPA provides a cause of action to a
plaintiff who is "the object of collection activity arising from a
consumer debt.  Based upon the facts and evidence presented, and
considering the statutory construction of TILA, RESPA, and FDCPA,
the Plaintiff lacks prudential standing to bring suit pursuant to
these statutes because she is neither an "obligor" nor "borrower"
on the Loan.

Next, she finds that the Plaintiff is not obligated on the Loan and
is in no way considered a "Borrower."  The Plaintiff does not have
standing, as a third-party beneficiary or otherwise, to bring
claims pursuant to TILA, RESPA, or FDCPA and these claims are
dismissed with prejudice.

The Judge cannot also determine whether the Plaintiff's FDCPA claim
can be equitably tolled, as the Plaintiff wholly failed to provide
any facts regarding this claim.  Therefore, even if the FDCPA claim
was equitably tolled, it would be dismissed pursuant to 12(b)(6)
for failure to state a claim.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff's FDCPA
claim is dismissed with prejudice.

As the Plaintiff has agreed to voluntarily dismiss her S.A.F.E. Act
claim, said claim is dismissed with prejudice.

While detailed factual allegations are not required, a complaint
devoid of further factual enhancement must be dismissed.  Without
more, the Judge holds that the Plaintiff failed to state a claim
for relief under the FCRA that is plausible on its face.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's FCRA claim is dismissed with prejudice.

The Plaintiff's fraud claims clearly fail to meet the particularity
requirements necessary to satisfy Rule 9(b) because she has wholly
failed to provide any facts that make relief from the alleged fraud
conceivable -- much less plausible.  Thus, dismissal for failure to
comply with Rule 9(b) is warranted.  Alternatively, with no
independent federal claims surviving, however, the Judge may
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's
remaining state law claims.  Having dismissed all federal claims,
in the alternative, she declines to extend supplemental
jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiff's state law fraud claims.

Even if the Plaintiff properly addressed these claims in her
Response, with no independent federal claims surviving, the Judge
holds that the Court may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's remaining state law claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367.  Therefore, having dismissed
all federal claims, in the alternative, the Judge declines to
extend supplemental jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiff's remaining
state law claims.

Finally, given the Court's finding that the Plaintiff lacks
standing to bring her claims or has failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, the Plaintiff is disqualified as a
proper class representative and the question of whether to certify
the action as a class action is moot.  The Plaintiff has not
suffered injuries typical of all customers, as she is not in fact a
customer, Borrower, or in anyway obligated on the Loan, and
therefore would not adequately represent the class.  Accordingly,
the Plaintiff's request for class certification is dismissed
without prejudice as moot.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Aycock granted the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss and dismissed the case with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 11, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Bxw7al from Leagle.com.

Sandra Cummings, individually, and on behalf of all of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Macy Derald Hanson --
macy@macyhanson.com -- The Law Office of Macy D. Hanson, PLLC & Tom
P. Calhoun, III, TUBB, STEVENS, MORRISON & CALHOUN.

Wells Fargo, N.A., doing business as Wells Fargo Home Mortgage,
Defendant, represented by Christopher D. Meyer -- cmeyer@burr.com
-- BURR & FORMAN, LLP & Matthew T. Mitchell -- mmitchell@burr.com
-- BURR & FORMAN, LLP, pro hac vice.


WILDHORSE RESOURCE: Bushansky Challenges Sale to Chesapeake
-----------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. WILDHORSE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, JAY C.
GRAHAM, ANTHONY BAHR, BRIAN A. BERNASEK, JONATHAN M. CLARKSON,
SCOTT A. GIESELMAN, DAVID W. HAYES, STEPHANIE C. HILDEBRANDT, GRANT
E. SIMS, MARTIN W. SUMNER, and TONY R. WEBER, Case No.
1:19-cv-00381 (S.D.N.Y., January 14, 2019), seeks to enjoin the
vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which WildHorse will be
acquired by Chesapeake Energy Corporation through its wholly-owned
subsidiary Coleburn Inc.

On October 30, 2018, WildHorse and Chesapeake issued a joint press
release announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger dated October 29, 2018.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, each issued and outstanding share of WildHorse common
stock will be converted into the right to receive, at the election
of each WildHorse stockholder, either: (i) 5.336 shares of
Chesapeake common stock and $3.00 in cash ("Mixed Consideration"),
or (ii) 5.989 shares of Chesapeake common stock.

Based on the December 24, 2018 closing price of Chesapeake common
stock, the implied value of the Mixed Consideration is $12.23 per
share and the implied value of the Share Consideration is $10.36
per share.  The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately
$3.977 billion.

On December 26, 2018, WildHorse filed a Definitive Proxy Statement
on Schedule 14A with the SEC.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Proxy
Statement, which recommends that WildHorse stockholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material
information concerning, among other things, WildHorse's and
Chesapeake's financial projections relied upon by the Company's
financial advisors, Tudor Pickering Holt & Co Advisors LP and
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC in their financial analyses.

WildHorse is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Houston, Texas.  WildHorse is an independent oil
and natural gas company focused on the acquisition, exploration,
development and production of oil, natural gas and natural gas
liquids ("NGLs") in East Texas.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Chesapeake is an Oklahoma corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.  Chesapeake is an
independent exploration and production company engaged in the
acquisition, exploration and development of properties for the
production of oil, natural gas and NGLs from underground
reservoirs.  Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and a direct,
wholly owned subsidiary of Chesapeake.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


YANGTZE RIVER: Bernstein Liebhard Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, is investigating potential securities fraud claims on behalf
of shareholders of Yangtze River Port and Logistics Limited
("Yangtze River" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: YRIV) resulting from
allegations that Yangtze River and/or its executives may have
issued materially misleading business information to the investing
public.

If you purchased Yangtze River securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options, please visit Yangtze River
Shareholder Investigation or contact Daniel Sadeh toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or dsadeh@bernlieb.com.

On December 6, 2018, Hidenburg Research published a report titled,
"Yangtze River Port & Logistics: Total Zero. On-the-Ground Research
Shows Assets Appear to be Largely Fabricated." The report stated,
among other things, that "[b]ased on government-sourced documents
and interviews with local officials, we believe that at least 77%
of the company's reported assets are fabricated," and "[d]espite
the company's SEC filings, which state that there are no material
legal proceedings against the business, we found Chinese court
records showing that the company has at least 11 judgments filed
against them totaling RMB 766 million (USD $110 million)."

On this news, Yangtze River's stock fell $1.63 per share or
approximately 14% to close at $9.99 per share on December 6, 2018,
damaging investors.

If you purchased Yangtze River securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options, please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/yangtze-river-port-logistics-limited-yriv-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-104/
or contact Daniel Sadeh toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
dsadeh@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years. [GN]


YOGAWORKS INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of YogaWorks, Inc. (NASDAQ:YOGA) pursuant and/or
traceable to YogaWorks’ initial public offering commenced on or
about August 10, 2017 and closed on August 16, 2017 (the "IPO").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for YogaWorks investors under
the federal securities laws.

To join the YogaWorks class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1470.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, YogaWorks’ Registration Statement and
Prospectus made materially misleading statements regarding: (1)
YogaWorks’ studio-level economics and the adverse trends it faced
in declining studio profitability; (2) reasons for YogaWorks’
declining revenue, including increasing corporate overhead costs;
and (3) YogaWorks’ increasing corporate infrastructure costs and
inability to achieve economies of scale. As of December 27, 2018,
YogaWorks’ stock closed at $0.44 or 92% below its IPO price of
$5.50.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
25, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1470.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or 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
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***