CAR_Public/190130.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, January 30, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 22

                            Headlines

22ND CENTURY GROUP: Bull Sues Over  Share Price Drop
7M EGROUP CORP: Carmack Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
ADVANCE STORES: Josie Badger Seeks to Certify ADA Class
ALABAMA: Says Making Progress in Addressing Mental Health Issues
ALLERGAN PLC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action

ALLIED INTERSTATE: Briggs Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Aversa Sues Over False Company Reports
ARRIS INT'L: Settlement Reached in Acquisition-Related Suits
ASCENDA USA: Charlot Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
AT&T MOBILITY: Averts Lawsuit Over iPhone Data Speed

BANK OZK: Wood Suit Transferred to Eastern District of Arkansas
BARCLAYS BANK: Ex-Currency Trader Sues XL in Rigging Case
BMW: Barun Law Firm Prepares Class Action Over Sedan Fires
BMW: Faces Criminal Probe in South Korea Over Engine Fires
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Estate Says Not Entitled to Redo of Trial

BY THE RIO: Larry Rice Sues over No-Poach Policy at Carl's Jr.
CHINA TECH: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
CITIGROUP INC: Euribor Settlement Hearing Scheduled for May 17
CODILIS MOODY: Class Certification Sought in Meyer Suit
COMMUNITY CARE: Wilson Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA

CUSTOM ROOFING: Abrego Suit Seeks Damages under FLSA
DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Stempien Seeks Unpaid Wages for Instructors
DISNEY: Appeals Court Won't Revive Shareholder Suit Against Board
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in SPF Case
EMBRAER: Brazil Court Revokes Injunction Following Class Action

EMERGENCY SITE: Does Not Pay Security Personnel Overtime Wages
EQHEALTH SOLUTIONS: Underpays Technical Coordinators, Suit Claims
FORTRESS SYSTEMS: Sharkey Bid for Class Certification Denied
FOUR PARTNERS: Howard's Bid to Certify Denied; Hearing on Mar. 19
GARDNER DENVER: Purcell Julie Investigates Fiduciary Breach

GENERAL MOTORS: Must Face Breach of Contract Class Action
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Forex Currency Rigging Lawsuit
GOOGLE INC: Settlement Parties Split Over Article III Standing
GROSSE POINTE, MI: 2016 Flooding Class Action Settled
GUILIANO ENVIRONMENTAL: Vargas Seeks Unpaid Wages for Workers

HSBC BANK USA: Removes Antonicic et al. Suit to N.D. Illinois
INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Fixed ICE LIBOR Rates, Suit Claims
IQVIA INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in TCPA Class Action
ISRAEL ELECTRIC: Electricity Rate to Rise After Settlement
JFE INC: Does Not Properly Pay Construction Workers, Suit Says

JR ENGINEERING: James Roberts Seeks Overtime Compensation
KELLOGG COMPANY: Smith Moves to Certify Class of RSRs Under FLSA
LACI TRANSPORT: Stingley Bid to Certify Class Dropped
LAMPS PLUS: Rumberger Kirk Attorney Discusses Arbitration Issue
LEXINGTON LAW: Must File Judgment Bid by March 18 in Rosales Suit

LOWE'S HOME: Court Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration
MANTECA, CA: Homeless Man Challenges Anti-Camping Ordinance
MARIN COUNTY, CA: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Perez et al. Suit
MARRIOT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Esquerra Suit in Maryland
MARRIOTT INT'L: Reinsurers Speculate over Nature of Cyber Loss

MASTERGAS USA: Lantieri Seeks Overtime Pay for Cashiers
MDL 2741: Garrison vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Ottinger vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Peabody v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Scott v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2873: Battisti vs. 3M Company over AFFF Products Consolidated
MENZGOLD: Consultant Calls for Liquidation, Class Action Mulled
MINDBODY INC: Johnson Fistel Investigates Proposed Sale
MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Kennedy Alleges Mislabeling of Graham Crackers
MONSANTO COMPANY: Binghams Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Campbell Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Garner Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Herr Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Ledvina Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Salamone Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Stewart Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
NEINSTEIN LLP: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
OASIS OUTSOURCING: Isha Smith Seeks Unpaid Wages
PACIFIC COAST: Faces Garcia Suit in Sacramento, California
PANDORA MEDIA: Faces 8 Suits over Sirius XM Merger

PFIZER INC: Al Haj Class Certification Bid Continued to March 6
PLASTIPAK PACKAGING: Class Cert. Bid in Hernandez Suit Denied
POWERLINE FUNDING: Benitez Files Suit Asserting TCPA Violation
R.J. REYNOLDS: Removes Kec Suit to C.D. California
REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS: Class Certification Sought in Reince Suit

RELIANT CAPITAL: Certification of Class Sought in Kasper Suit
RENT-A-CENTER: May 3 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
RONALD ERDOS: Gallant Seeks to Certify Class
RUBY IV LLC: Two Classes Certified Under FLSA in Kidwell Suit
SACRAMENTO, CA: Judge Set to Rule on County Jail Class Action

SPACE EXPLORATION: Burke Suit Asserts FCRA Violation
STEARNS LENDING: Solarski & Schaeg Seek to Certify Class
SYNCHRONY BANK: McMullen Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
TAKATA CORP: Court Approves $300MM Airbag Class Action Settlement
TAMPA BAY OPERATIONS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Suit Alleges

TARGET CORP: Averts Cashier Class Action in Minnesota
TOKYO ELECTRIC: Prosecutors Say Execs Fail to Safeguard Plant
TRANS WORLD: Class Cert. Bid in Spack et al. Suit Granted in Part
TRUSTMARK NATIONAL: Files Motion to Disqualify 2 Attorneys
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Offers Settlement to Drivers Prior to IPO

UNIQUE CAMERA: Tyler Singleton Seeks Minimum Wages
UNITED KINGDOM: Sued Over "State-Sponsored Discrimination"
WELLMONT HEALTH: Jury Rules in Favor of Highlands Physicians
WEST VIRGINIA: Obtains Favorable Ruling in I/DD Waiver Case
WINCO FOODS: Faces Petersen Suit in Sacramento, California

WM MORRISON: Field Law Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
YALE UNIVERSITY: Vellali et al. Seek to Certify Beneficiaries Class
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Rolfe et al. Sue over Silver Pool Scam
[*] Department of Education to Implement "Borrower Defense" Rule
[*] Employers Brace for Fair Credit Reporting Act Class Actions

[*] TruthinAdvertising.org Sees Spate of Fake White Chocolate Cases

                            *********

22ND CENTURY GROUP: Bull Sues Over  Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Bull, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano
III, and John T. Brodfuehrer, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00409
(E.D. N.Y., January 21, 2019) is a class action on behalf of
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded 22nd Century securities between February 18, 2016 and
October 25, 2018, inclusive. Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

By 2013, 22nd Century announced a partnership with British American
Tobacco ("BAT"), granting BAT access to 22nd Century's "patented
technology which alters levels of nicotinic alkaloids in tobacco
plants." But on September 26, 2017, the Winston-Salem Journal
reported that BAT was ending its partnership with 22nd Century to
develop low nicotine cigarettes in order to pursue "more beneficial
options available to us going forward".

According to a February 2, 2018 Seeking Alpha article by Fuzzy
Panda Research, 22nd Century's stock price had been inflated
through various paid stock promotion articles from 2014 through
2017, some of which had disclosed the paying party and amount, and
others which did not. On this news, shares of 22nd Century fell
$0.35 per share or over 11% to close at $2.73 per share on February
2, 2018.

Then, on October 25, 2018, Fuzzy Panda Research disclosed in
another Seeking Alpha article that its Freedom of Information Act
("FOIA") requests from the SEC for "all 22nd documents in the
possession of SEC that pertain to investigations regarding Century
Group (XXII) for the time period January 1, 2016 through July 16,
2018" had been denied. On this news, shares of 22nd Century fell
$0.11 per share or over 4% to close at $2.45 per share on October
25, 2018. As a result of Defendants' wrongdoing, 22nd Century
investors have been damaged.

The Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants 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 SEC; and (3)
consequently, 22nd Century's public statements were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times, says the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased 22nd Century securities during the Class Period
and was economically damaged thereby.

22nd Century provides technology that increases or decreases the
nicotine levels and other nicotinic alkaloids in tobacco plants,
and cannabinoids in hemp/cannabis plants through genetic
engineering and plant breeding. 22nd Century is incorporated in
Nevada. Its principal place of business is in Williamsville, New
York. 22nd Century's shares trade on the New York Stock Exchange
("NYSE") under the ticker symbol "XXII".

Henry Sicignano III has served as the Company's Chief Executive
Officer ("CEO") since March 3, 2015. He also served as the
Company's Chief Operating Officer ("COO") from October 25, 2014 to
March 3, 2015.

John T. Brodfuehrer has served as the Company's Chief Financial
Officer ("CFO") since March 2013 and serves as the Company's
Treasurer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 686-1060
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
            lrosen@rosenlegal.com


7M EGROUP CORP: Carmack Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jake Carmack, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The 7M EGroup Corp., doing business as
"Dynasty Toys", Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00099 (C.D. Cal.,
January 21, 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 text messages sent by Defendant to the numbers of the members
of the Class constituted "advertisements" and/or "telemarketing"
material within the meaning of the applicable TCPA regulations.
Neither Plaintiff nor any members of the proposed Class ever
provided their "prior express written consent" or any other form of
consent to Defendant or any affiliate, subsidiary, or agent of
Defendant to transmit text messages to any of the Class's telephone
numbers using an "automatic telephone dialing system", says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is a resident of San Jose, California.

The Defendant maintains its corporate headquarters at 4881 Main
Street, Yorba Linda, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
     HEDIN HALL LLP
     1395 Brickell Ave, Ste 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, Ste 1400
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 766-3534
     Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
     Email: dhall@hedinhall.com


ADVANCE STORES: Josie Badger Seeks to Certify ADA Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSIE BADGER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
ADVANCE STORES COMPANY, INC. d/b/a ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, Case No.
2:16-cv-01872-MPK (W.D. Pa., Jan. 15, 2019), the Defendant, the
Plaintiff moves the Court for an order certifying the lawsuit as a
class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and seeks certification of the class
defined as:

   "all persons with qualified mobility disabilities who, due to
   Defendant's failure to comply with the ADA's accessible parking

   and path of travel requirements, have experienced or will
   experience slope-related injuries that occur within the parking
   facilities at all locations within the United States for which
   Defendant owns and/or controls the parking facilities."[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
          Bryan A. Fox, Esq.
          Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5 th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15221
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
                  bfox@carlsonlynch.com
                  eavery@carlsonlynch.com

ALABAMA: Says Making Progress in Addressing Mental Health Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Alabama prison officials contend
they are making "substantial progress" in increasing mental health
staff and have asked a federal judge to not find the state in
contempt of court.

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson had scheduled a Jan. 7 hearing
on whether the Alabama Department of Corrections should be found in
contempt of a court order to increase mental health staffing
numbers to minimum levels.

The department wrote in a Dec. 21 court filing acknowledged that
Wexford Health Sources, the contractor hired to provide health
care, had not been able to meet staffing targets but said "both are
making all efforts to increase staffing as quickly as possible."

"In sum, the state is not contending that it has fulfilled every
requirement of the staffing remedial order. But it has made in good
faith all reasonable efforts to do so, and those efforts have
resulted in substantial progress," the filing stated.

Attorneys for the inmates have asked the judge to find the prison
system in contempt, arguing the prison system is "woefully short"
of a requirement to fill 263 full-time mental health positions.

"Defendants' contempt is placing prisoners with serious
mental-health needs at a substantial risk of serious harm every
day. Their failures are most evident when looking at staffing
levels for mental-health staff with advanced training, specifically
psychiatrists, CRNPs, psychologists, and registered nurses,"
lawyers for inmates wrote earlier in December.

Elaine Gedman, chief administrative officer and executive vice
president for Wexford Health Sources, disputed that
characterization. She wrote in a declaration with the court filing
that they had provided 227 full-time equivalent positions.

The prison system wrote that there has been difficulty in
recruiting staff because of a shortage of health professionals in
the state, particularly in rural areas. They also said compliance
should be measured by "hours of service" provided, instead of just
positions filled.

Thompson in 2017 ruled that mental health care was "horrendously
inadequate" in state prisons and created unconstitutional
conditions. The ruling came after the Southern Poverty Law Center
and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program filed a class-action
lawsuit over health care in state prisons.

The first inmate to testify at the trial killed himself days after
describing past suicide attempts and a lack of psychiatric
treatment while in state custody. [GN]


ALLERGAN PLC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockesq.com), a securities litigation
firm representing investors nationwide, on Dec. 21 disclosed that
it has filed a securities fraud class action against Allergan plc.
("Allergan" or the "Company") (NYSE: AGN) and certain of its
officers and directors. The firm encourages shareholders to contact
Block & Leviton LLP ahead of the February 19, 2019 lead plaintiff
deadline.

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Cook v. Allergan plc et
al., Case No. 18-cv-12089, alleges that between May 9, 2017, and
December 19, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that
throughout the Class Period Allergan concealed from investors the
fact that the Company's CE Mark for its textured breast implants
and tissue expanders was expiring in Europe. On December 19, 2018,
Allergan announced that it had suspended sales of textured breast
implants and that it was withdrawing any remaining supply from the
European markets. The withdrawal decision followed a compulsory
recall request from Agence Nationale de Securite du Medicament
(ANSM), the regulatory authority in France.

Following this news, Allergan's stock price dropped from $146.76 at
close on December 18, 2018, to $136.56 at close on December 19,
2018.

If you have purchased or otherwise acquired Allergan securities and
have questions about your legal rights, or possess information
relevant to this matter, you are encouraged to contact Block &
Leviton LLP at (617) 398-5660, (888) 868-2385, by email at
info@blockesq.com, or by visiting http://shareholder.law/allergan.

Block & Leviton LLP was recently ranked 4th among securities
litigation firms by ISS for recoveries in 2017. The firm represents
many of the nation's largest institutional investors and numerous
individual investors in securities litigation throughout the
country. Indeed, its lawyers have recovered billions of dollars for
its clients.

The case, Cook v. Allergan plc, et al., No. 18-cv-12089, is pending
in the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York,
NY 10007. [GN]


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Briggs Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Christopher D. Briggs, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Allied Interstate LLC, Resurgent Capital
Services, LP, and LVNV Funding LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-01958 (E.D.
Wis., December 11, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants issued false statement to
influence the unsophisticated consumer's decision to pay debt.

The Plaintiff was a citizen of, and resided in, the City of
Appleton, Outagamie County, Wisconsin.

The Defendants are in the business of collecting debts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis R. Greene, Esq.
      Philip D. Stern, Esq.
      Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
      STERN THOMASSON LLP
      150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Springfield, NJ 07081
      Tel: (973) 379-7500
      E-mail: Philip@SternThomasson.com
              Andrew@SternThomasson.com
              Francis@SternThomasson.com


ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Aversa Sues Over False Company Reports
---------------------------------------------------------
Philip Aversa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 18CV339231
(Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., December 11, 2018), seeks to
pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

This is a class action on behalf of persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Arlo pursuant
and traceable to the Company's false and misleading Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
August 3, 2018 initial public offering (the "IPO" or the
"Offering").

The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement was
materially false and misleading and omitted to state that there was
a quality issue with certain batteries used in Arlo's new flagship
wire-free security camera system, Arlo Ultra; that quality issues
could delay the commercial launch of Arlo's Ultra product; and that
the quality issues with the Arlo product jeopardized Arlo's ability
to launch the product in time for the crucial holiday season.

The Plaintiff Philip Aversa purchased Arlo securities pursuant and
traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with
the Company's IPO.

The Defendant Arlo is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located at 350 East Plumeria Drive, San Jose,
California 95134. Arlo purportedly operates a cloud-based platform
that enables users to monitor their environments and engage in
real-time with their families and businesses from any location with
internet connection. Its products include Wi-Fi- and LTE-enabled
cameras, advanced baby monitors, and smart security lights. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 201-9150
      Fax: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: info@glancylaw.com


ARRIS INT'L: Settlement Reached in Acquisition-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
ARRIS International PLC said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 18, 2019, that the
company has entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs
in the lawsuits over CommScope Holding Company, Inc.'s acquisition
of the company.

In connection with a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU")
regarding the settlement of certain previously disclosed litigation
related to, among other things, the Bid Conduct Agreement (as it
may be amended from time to time, the "Acquisition Agreement"),
dated as of November 8, 2018, by and between ARRIS International
plc ( "ARRIS"), and CommScope Holding Company, Inc. ("CommScope"),
pursuant to which, CommScope has agreed to acquire all of the
issued and to be issued ordinary shares of ARRIS (the
"Acquisition") for $31.75 in cash per ordinary share.

In connection with the Acquisition, on December 6, 2018, an alleged
ARRIS shareholder filed an action against ARRIS and its directors,
captioned Uzun v. ARRIS Int'l plc, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-05555-WMR (the "Uzun Action"), in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the "Northern
District of Georgia").

The lawsuit generally alleges that ARRIS and its directors violated
the federal securities laws by issuing allegedly misleading
disclosures in connection with the Acquisition and seeks, among
other things, to enjoin the shareholder vote scheduled for February
1, 2019 at which ARRIS shareholders will vote on a proposal to
adopt the Acquisition Agreement (the "Shareholder Vote").

On December 11, 2018, a substantively identical second lawsuit,
captioned Kent v. ARRIS Int'l plc, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-01960-MN (the :Kent Action") was filed as a putative class
action against ARRIS, its directors and CommScope in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware.

After ARRIS filed its Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A in
connection with the Acquisition (the "Proxy Statement"), another
putative class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York in an action
captioned Agnes-Sampson v. ARRIS Int'l plc, et al., 1:18-cv-12205
(NRB) (the "Agnes-Sampson Action").

On December 27, 2018, the plaintiff in the Agnes-Sampson Action
filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin the
Shareholder Vote. On January 11, 2019, the Court in the
Agnes-Sampson Action entered an order transferring the case to the
Northern District of Georgia. ARRIS and its directors believe the
allegations in all of the lawsuits against them lack merit.

On January 18, 2019, after arm's-length discussions and
negotiations concerning a possible resolution of the litigation,
counsel for the parties in the Uzun Action and Agnes-Sampson Action
(collectively, the "Actions") entered into the MOU, in which they
agreed on the terms of a settlement of the Actions, including the
dismissal with prejudice of the Actions as well as a release of all
claims that have been or could have been asserted against all of
the defendants in the Actions, the Kent Action, or any other
proceeding, concerning, among other things, any claims arising out
of or related to the matters alleged in the Actions and the Kent
Action, the Acquisition Agreement, the Acquisition, the Proxy
Statement, or any other disclosures made regarding the Acquisition.


The proposed settlement is conditioned upon, among other things:
(i) certification of a non-opt-out class for settlement purposes
only; (ii) final approval of the proposed settlement by the
Northern District of Georgia, including a final order and judgment
by the Court dismissing the Actions with prejudice on the merits
and providing for a release of all claims against defendants; and
(iii) the consummation of the Acquisition. If approved, the
proposed settlement also would extinguish the claims asserted in
the Kent Action.

In addition, in connection with the proposed settlement and as
provided in the MOU, the parties contemplate that Plaintiffs'
counsel will seek an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, costs,
and expenses as part of the settlement. There can be no assurance
that the settlement conditions will be met and, if they are not
met, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU would
become void.

ARRIS believes that the claims asserted in all of these lawsuits
against the defendants are without merit and that no supplemental
disclosure is required under applicable law. The defendants have
agreed to the terms of the proposed settlement described above
solely to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties inherent
in further litigation, including the risk of delaying or adversely
affecting the Acquisition, and to terminate all claims that were or
could have been asserted against the defendants in connection with
the Acquisition Agreement and the Acquisition contemplated thereby,
including the Proxy Statement related thereto. Neither the MOU, the
settlement contemplated thereby, nor this Current Report on Form
8-K will affect the consideration to be paid to ARRIS shareholders
in connection with the Acquisition or the timing of the Shareholder
Vote. ARRIS’s board of directors continues to recommend that you
vote “FOR” all of the proposals presented in the Proxy
Statement.

ARRIS International plc, together with its subsidiaries, provides
entertainment, communications, and networking technology and
solutions worldwide. It operates through three segments: Customer
Premises Equipment, Network & Cloud, and Enterprise Networks. The
company was formerly known as ARRIS Group, Inc. and changed its
name to ARRIS International plc in January 2016. ARRIS
International plc was founded in 1969 and is headquartered in
Suwanee, Georgia.


ASCENDA USA: Charlot Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Charlot, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ascenda USA, Inc. d/b/a 24-7
InTouch, An Arizona Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00333-SMB (D. Ariz., January 21, 2019) was brought
individually and on behalf of all current and former non-exempt
call-center employees who worked for Defendant at any time from
January 21, 2016 through the final disposition of this matter, to
recover compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Although Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members routinely worked
in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Plaintiff and the Putative
Class Members have not been paid overtime of at least one and
one-half their regular rates for all hours worked, asserts the
complaint.

Plaintiff Samantha Charlot was employed by 24-7 InTouch within the
relevant time period.

Ascenda USA, Inc. d/b/a 24-7 InTouch is a for profit corporation
whose corporate headquarters are located in Aurora, Colorado.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq.
     Corey R. Feltre, Esq.
     Stanley Lubin, Esq.
     LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C.
     349 North Fourth Avenue
     Phoenix, AZ 85003-1505
     Phone: (602) 234-0008
     Facsimile: (602) 626-3586
     Email: nick@lubinandenoch.com

          - and -

     Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
     Clif Alexander, Esq.
     ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
     819 North Upper Broadway
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Phone: (361) 452-1279
     Fax: (361) 452-1284
     Email: austin@a2xlaw.com
            clif@a2xlaw.com


AT&T MOBILITY: Averts Lawsuit Over iPhone Data Speed
----------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that AT&T Mobility
LLC convinced a state appeals court Dec. 24 to toss a consumer suit
over iPhone data speed.

The company's service agreement bars the customers from assigning
their claims to third party CrowdSuit LLC to resolve them on a
collective basis, Judge Francis J. Connolly of the Minnesota Court
of Appeals wrote in an unpublished opinion.

CrowdSuit sues cell phone companies on behalf of customers who are
barred from bringing collective action against the companies by the
class action waivers in their customer service agreements.

Customers assign their claims against the companies to CrowdSuit,
which donates half of any money it receives in court to charities
picked by the customers.

Here, seven AT&T customers assigned their claims to CrowdSuit to
challenge the company's practice of limiting data speed on plans
with unlimited data.

AT&T moved to dismiss arguing CrowdSuit's case was barred by the
ban on aggregate litigation in its customer agreement.

The district court denied the motion, but the appeals court
reversed.

"Nothing in the wireless customer agreement indicates that the
parties to it intended disputes to be resolved collectively, or by
third parties, or both," the court said.

Judges Heidi S. Schellhas and Peter M. Reyes Jr. joined the
opinion.

Robins Kaplan LLP represented CrowdSuit.

Ballard Spahr LLP and Mayer Brown LLP represented AT&T.

The case is CrowdSuit, LLC v. AT & T Mobility, LLC, 2018 BL 476420,
Minn. Ct. App., No. A17-1733, 12/24/18. [GN]


BANK OZK: Wood Suit Transferred to Eastern District of Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, RYAN A. WOOD, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, ther Plaintiff, vs. BANK OZK, GEORGE GLEASON,
and GREGORY MCKINNEY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10800, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York to the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of
Arkansas (Little Rock) on Jan. 17, 2019. The Eastern District of
Arkansas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-00042-BSM to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge Brian S.
Miller.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Bank OZK securities between February 19, 2016
through October 18, 2018, both dates inclusive. The Plaintiff seeks
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, against the Company
and certain of its top officials.

Bank OZK is a bank headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas with more
than 255 locations in Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Alabama,
North Carolina, South Carolina, California, New York and
Mississippi and $20.77 billion in assets as of September 30, 2017.
It is the largest bank in Arkansas.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

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

Attorneys for George Gleason and Gregory McKinney:

          Robert A. Jaffe, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          100 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 332-1120
          Facsimile: (646) 747-8234
          E-mail: Robert.Jaffe@KutakRock.com

BARCLAYS BANK: Ex-Currency Trader Sues XL in Rigging Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Bill Heltzel, writing for Westfair, reports that a former currency
trader from Purchase who has been implicated in a massive market
manipulation scandal is suing XL Insurance Co. for refusing to
defend him.

The Federal Reserve wants to permanently bar Peter Little from the
banking business and fine him $487,500 for allegedly engaging in
collusive trading when he was head of a currency trading desk for
Barclays Bank PLC.

Mr. Little said he is innocent, but XL Insurance of London has
refused to pay for his defense, claiming he is not covered under a
corporate liability policy.

So far, Mr. Little said in the complaint, he has run up $1.1
million in expenses to defend himself and he estimates his costs
will total more than $5 million.

Mr. Little sued XL Insurance on Dec. 18 in federal court in White
Plains to compel the company to pay unspecified damages and to
cover his costs up to the limits of Barclays' insurance policy.

An XL Insurance spokeswoman based in Chicago did not respond to a
voicemail message requesting comment.

Barclays hired Mr. Little in 2010 to head the spot trading desk in
New York City, to primarily trade Euros and U.S. dollars. He was
fired in February 2013.

The Fed's Board of Governors accused him earlier in 2018 of
engaging in unsafe and unsound practices and breaches of fiduciary
duties. He allegedly rigged currency benchmarks with competitors,
failed to supervise other traders who also were manipulating
currency rates and disclosed confidential client information to
competitors.

For instance, the Fed alleges, he and his traders participated in
electronic chat rooms with competitors where they rigged currency
rates.

One of the chat rooms was referred to as schadenfreude -- joy
derived from the misfortune of others. Another was called "the
cartel."

Little benefited, the agency said, because his bonus compensation
and position as head of the trading desk were affected by Barclays'
profits.

In 2015, Barclays consented to a Fed order charging it with unsafe
and unsound practices, based in part on the conduct by Little's
trading desk. It also faced regulatory actions by the New York
Department of Financial Services, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading
Commission and United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority.

Barclays has paid $2.4 billion in criminal and civil fines and has
settled a class action lawsuit for $384 million, according to the
Fed.

Mr. Little asserts that his innocence was reinforced in October
when a federal jury in Manhattan acquitted three traders, including
one who worked for him, on criminal charges of fixing prices on the
foreign exchange market.

Barclays paid Mr. Little's legal expenses before the Fed formally
charged him in 2018. But after the regulatory action was filed, the
complaint states, the bank directed Mr. Little's attorney to
contact XL Insurance for coverage.

An XL attorney replied in a June 20 letter that Mr. Little did not
qualify, under the policy, as an insured individual.

Mr. Little has demanded a copy of the insurance policy, the
complaint states, but Barclays and XL have refused to give him one.
The bank did share excerpts of the policy in June, containing two
of seven sections about who is insured, with Little's attorney.

The excerpts, according to the complaint, demonstrate that Little
does qualify as an insured employee.

Then on Dec. 5, XL allowed Mr. Little's attorney to review the
policy at the offices of Barclays' attorney. When he arrived,
Little's attorney was told that he was not permitted to reproduce
the document or take notes.

"Having reviewed the policy under the conditions that it was made
available," the complaint states, "it is clear that Mr. Little is
an insured under the policy and that there are no other policy
terms and conditions that would bar coverage for Mr. Little."

Mr. Little is represented by Kenneth H. Frenchman and Alexander M.
Sugzda of McKool Smith PC of Manhattan. [GN]


BMW: Barun Law Firm Prepares Class Action Over Sedan Fires
----------------------------------------------------------
Kim Jee-Hee, writing for Korea JoongAng Daily, reports that things
aren't looking good for beleaguered German automaker BMW, with yet
another vehicle reported to have burst into flames on Christmas
Day.

A BMW 520 sedan caught fire at around 6 p.m. on Dec. 25 in Gongju,
South Chungcheong.

Earlier that day at 1 a.m., the driver of a BMW 5GT sedan saw black
smoke coming out of the back of their vehicle while driving on a
highway bound for Pohang, North Gyeongsang. The car, subject to
recall, had already gone through safety checks.

The driver said the car was moving at 110 kilometers per hour (68
miles per hour) on cruise mode, but it started slowing down even
though it was moving downhill and then smoke came out the back. The
car didn't burst into flames as the driver immediately pulled over
and called the police.

There were no casualties caused by either incident, but the news
stoked fears over the safety of BMW vehicles. Just one day earlier,
on Dec. 24, a BMW 320d sedan caught fire in Gwangju.

The burnt 320d was a 2009 model not included in the 65 models
currently subject to recall.

A public-private investigation team under the Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure and Transport had already raised the need of an
additional recall for defective designs in exhaust gas
recirculation (EGR) system when it released its examination report
on BMW fires on Dec. 24.

The team confirmed that the major cause of the fires was a leaky
EGR module, the same conclusion that the German carmaker came to,
but disputed BMW's claims that changing the faulty hardware
resolves the issue. The team said there may be a fundamental
problem with the EGR design and a simple replacement may not
completely resolve that.

"We spotted coolant boiling within the EGR cooler, and we think the
boiling is due to a faulty design of the EGR," the joint
investigation team said in a statement. "If boiling continues, this
could lead to a crack in the EGR cooler, [making them leaky.]"

"New EGR systems won't lead to fires right away, but the team found
that after several years of constant driving heating up the EGR
cooler, a similar fire could reoccur as long as the design stays
the same," a spokesperson from the Land Ministry said in a phone
call on Dec. 26. "We demanded that BMW come up with an explanation
regarding EGR design."

The joint team also said the intake manifold connected to the leaky
EGR coolant should be recalled as well after check-ups if it has
been polluted or weakened by a mixture of leaked coolants and
engine oil sticking to pipes. The team has delivered its research
findings to the carmaker, which has to consult with its German
headquarters and come up with a recall plan.

In the meantime, an increasing number of BMW car owners are signing
up to file a suit against the company. Barun Law, which is
currently preparing for a class action suit against the carmaker,
has collected around 1,000 car owners who would like to take part
in the suit as of Dec. 26. The Korea Consumer Association is also
preparing for a separate suit and has gathered roughly 2,000
participants. [GN]


BMW: Faces Criminal Probe in South Korea Over Engine Fires
----------------------------------------------------------
Song Jung-a, writing for The Financial Times, reports that BMW is
facing a criminal probe in South Korea after the transport ministry
said the German carmaker concealed defects that resulted in dozens
of engine fires in 2018, and delayed recalls.

The ministry on Dec. 24 asked prosecutors to investigate the fire
hazards of BMW cars and the company's alleged delay in recalling
22,670 vehicles. It also fined the carmaker Won11.2bn ($10m) for
the alleged delay.

BMW said it would cooperate with the investigations, but denied any
design defects and said it had recalled affected models in a timely
manner. "We embarked on recall measures without hesitation at the
time when the root cause of fires was confirmed," its South Korean
unit said on Dec. 24.

Government investigators, who launched the official probe in
August, said on Dec. 24 that they had concluded the engine fires
were sparked by a faulty design in BMW's Exhaust Gas Recirculation
(EGR) system. The transport ministry will decide whether to order
more recalls.

The development is another setback for the Munich-based carmaker,
which is also facing a class-action lawsuit in South Korea from BMW
buyers. The carmaker's sales and reputation have taken a pounding
in the country, where 52 of its vehicles have caught fire in 2018.

BMW's unit sales in South Korea fell nearly 10 per cent to 47,569
vehicles in the first 11 months of the year, while overall sales of
imported cars increased 13 per cent in the same period. Its net
profit plunged 24 per cent in the third quarter, and recalls in
South Korea were among five major headwinds cited by the carmaker.

The company was forced to recall 172,080 vehicles and issue an
apology after videos of the German luxury cars engulfed in flames
went viral.

BMW said it first acknowledged that there was a problem with the
EGR unit in July, but the government said the company had been
aware of the issue since 2015. Seoul added that, while BMW recalled
106,317 vehicles in July, it did not recall an additional 65,763
vehicles that used the same engines until October.

Globally, the carmaker has recalled 1.6m vehicles over the issue.

If found guilty of hiding defects and delaying recalls, BMW
officials responsible could face up to 10 years in prison and a
fine of up to Won100m under South Korea's transportation law.

BMW is South Korea's second-largest foreign car brand after
Mercedes-Benz, accounting for about a quarter of the imported car
segment. The country is a relatively small market, ranking 11th in
global car sales, but has been a crucial market for luxury
vehicles.

Facing criticism over BMW's delayed recalls, Seoul plans to
strengthen penalties on carmakers that cover up manufacturing
defects and expand punitive damages for consumers affected by
delayed recalls. [GN]


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Estate Says Not Entitled to Redo of Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Steinberg, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Boehringer
Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. isn't entitled to a redo of a trial
that ended in a $1.25 million jury award to the family of a woman
who died from gastrointestinal bleeding after using its blood
thinner Pradaxa, the family said in a new court filing.

Evidence supports the jury's finding that Boehringer is liable for
fraud because it hid safety information from doctors and patients
in the U.S., Betty Knight's estate told the court. [GN]


BY THE RIO: Larry Rice Sues over No-Poach Policy at Carl's Jr.
--------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY RICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BY THE RIO, LLC, a Colorado Limited
Liability Company, CARL'S JR. RESTAURANTS, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00129-STV (D. Colo, Jan. 15, 2019), seeks millions of
dollars in lost wages, plus triple damages, and interest, caused by
Defendants' long-standing and illegal mutual non-solicitation
agreements (i.e., agreements that Carl's Jr. franchisees could not
solicit for employment the managerial-level employees of Carl's Jr.
and/or of other Carl's Jr. franchisees) and no-hire agreements
(i.e., agreements that Carl's Jr. franchisees could not hire the
managerial-level employees of Carl's Jr. and/or other Carl's Jr.
franchisees) that were all entered into by Carl's Jr. franchises
throughout Colorado for decades and that had the intended and
actual effect of significantly reducing Class Members' wages and
salaries. The genesis of the no-hire and non-solicitation
agreements at issue were franchise agreements between Carl's Jr.
and its franchisees, and between its franchisees, including, upon
information and belief, By The Rio.

The alleged illegal conspiracy among and between Defendants and
other Carl's Jr. franchisees to not employ, seek to employ, or to
recruit one another's employees, in order to thereby suppress their
wages, was not known to Plaintiff and the Class Members until July
12, 2018, when the Washington State Attorney General revealed as
part of its then-pending investigation into illegal behavior by
some of the largest fast food franchises in Washington State and
the United States, including Carl's Jr., that Carl's Jr. would no
longer enforce provisions in its franchise agreements that
prevented managerial-level workers from being hired or solicited by
other Carl's Jr. franchisees. In sum, the Defendants engaged in per
se violations of the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992 and the Sherman
Act by entering into no-hire and non-solicitation agreements for
the express purpose of depressing and/or reducing market-based
wages and benefit increases for Class Members that are typically
associated with the active recruitment of employees and workers in
a competitive industry. While protecting and enhancing their
profits, the Defendants, through their no-hire and non-solicitation
agreements, robbed Class Members of millions of dollars-worth of
wages for which Plaintiff and the Class now seek relief, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Brian W. Denlinger, Esq.
          Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          2602 North Proctor Street, #205
          Tacoma, WA , 98406
          Telephone: (253) 507-4619
          Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
          E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com
                  bd@ackermanntilajef.com

               - and -

          India Lin Bodien, Esq.
          INDIA LIN BODIEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW*
          2522 North Proctor Street, No, 387
          Tacoma, WA 98406-5338
          Telephone: (253) 212-7913
          Fascimile: (253)276-0081
          E-mail: india@indialinbodienlaw.com

CHINA TECH: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 26
disclosed that it is investigating potential securities claims on
behalf of shareholders of China TechFaith Wireless Communication
Technology Limited (NASDAQ:CNTF) resulting from allegations that
China TechFaith may have issued materially misleading business
information to the investing public.

On December 20, 2018, before the market opened, China TechFaith
reported that in connection with its sale of a subsidiary, China
TechFaith had recognized "an impairment loss of US$62.2 million
under net loss from discontinued operations for the first half
period ended on June 30, 2018." On this news, the price of China
TechFaith securities fell $0.59 per share or more than 35% to close
at $1.07 per share on December 20, 2018, thereby injuring
investors.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by China TechFaith investors. If you purchased
China TechFaith securities, please visit the firm's website at
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1483.html to join the class
action. You may also contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen
Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

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


CITIGROUP INC: Euribor Settlement Hearing Scheduled for May 17
--------------------------------------------------------------
If you transacted in Euribor Products1 between June 1, 2005 and
March 31, 2011, inclusive ("Class Period"), then your rights will
be affected and you may be entitled to a benefit.

The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of your rights in
connection with the proposed settlement with Settling Defendants
Citigroup Inc. and Citibank, N.A. (collectively "Citi") and
JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (collectively,
"JPMorgan") in the action titled Sullivan, et al. v. Barclays plc,
et al., 13-cv-2811 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y.).  The settlement with Citi and
JPMorgan (the "Settlement") is not a settlement with any other
Defendant and thus is not dispositive of any of Plaintiffs' claims
against other Defendants.

The Settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit
concerning the alleged manipulation of the Euro Interbank Offered
Rate ("Euribor") and the prices of Euribor Products during the
Class Period.  The Settlement provides a total of $182.5 million to
pay claims from persons who transacted in Euribor Products during
the Class Period.  If you qualify, you may send in a Proof of Claim
and Release form to potentially get benefits, or you can exclude
yourself from the Settlement, or object to it.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007-1312) authorized this
Notice.  Before any money is paid, the Court will hold a Settlement
Hearing to decide whether to approve the Settlement.

Who Is Included?

You are a "Settlement Class Member" if you purchased, sold, held,
traded, or otherwise had any interest in Euribor Products during
the Class Period, and during the Class Period were either domiciled
in the United States or its territories or, if domiciled outside
the United States or its territories, you transacted Euribor
Products in the United States or its territories during the Class
Period. "Settlement Class Members" include, but are not limited to,
all persons who during the Class Period traded CME Euro currency
futures contracts, all persons who during the Class Period
transacted in NYSE LIFFE Euribor futures and options from a
location within the United States, and all persons who during the
Class Period traded any other Euribor Product from a location
within the United States or its territories.

Contact your brokerage firm to see if you purchased, sold, held, or
traded or otherwise had any interest in Euribor Products. If you
are not sure you are included, you can get more information,
including the Settlement Agreement,2 Mailed Notice, Plan of
Allocation, Proof of Claim and Release, and other important
documents, at www.EuriborSettlement.com ("Settlement Website") or
by calling toll free 800-492-9154.

What Is This Litigation About?

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, during the Class Period,
conspired to manipulate and manipulated Euribor and the prices of
Euribor Products.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendants did so by
using several means of manipulation.  For example, Plaintiffs
allege that panel banks that made daily Euribor submissions to
Thomson Reuters, falsely reported banks' costs of borrowing in
order to financially benefit their Euribor Products positions.
Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants requested that other
Defendants make false Euribor submissions on their behalf to
benefit their Euribor Products positions.

Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants continuously conspired to
fix the prices of Euribor Products in the over-the-counter market
to financially benefit their own Euribor Products positions.  In
addition to coordinating Euribor submissions and agreeing on where
to price Euribor Products, Plaintiffs allege that in order to
effectuate their alleged manipulations of Euribor and Euribor
Products during the Class Period, Defendants engaged in "pushing
cash," transmitted false bids and offers, used derivative traders
as submitters, and rigged bids and offers for Euribor Products.

Plaintiffs have asserted legal claims under various theories,
including the Sherman Act, the Commodity Exchange Act, the
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and common
law.

Settling Defendants have consistently and vigorously denied
Plaintiffs' allegations.

What Does the Settlement Provide?

Under the Settlement, Citi and JPMorgan agreed to pay a total of
$182.5 million into the Settlement Fund.  If the Court approves the
Settlement, potential Settlement Class Members who qualify and send
in valid Proof of Claim and Release forms may receive a share of
the Settlement Fund after it is reduced by the payment of certain
expenses.  The Settlement Agreement, available on the Settlement
Website, describes all of the details about the proposed
Settlement.  The exact amount each qualifying Settlement Class
Member will receive from the Settlement Fund cannot be calculated
until (1) the Court approves the Settlement; (2) certain amounts
identified in the full Settlement Agreement are deducted from the
Settlement Fund; and (3) the number of participating Class Members
and the amount of their claims are determined.  In addition, each
Settlement Class Member's share of the Settlement Fund will vary
depending on the information the Settlement Class Member provides
on their Proof of Claim and Release form.

The number of claimants who send in claims varies widely from case
to case. If less than 100% of the Settlement Class sends in a Proof
of Claim and Release form, you could get more money.

How Do You Ask For a Payment?

If you are a Settlement Class Member, you may seek to participate
in the Settlement by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release to the
Claims Administrator at the address in the Settlement Notice
postmarked no later than July 31, 2019.  You may obtain a Proof of
Claim on the Settlement Website or by calling the toll-free number
referenced above.  If you are a Settlement Class Member but do not
file a Proof of Claim and Release, you will still be bound by the
releases set forth in the Settlement Agreement if the Court enters
an order approving the Settlement Agreement.

If you timely submitted a Proof of Claim and Release pursuant to
the class notice dated November 29, 2017, related to the $94
million settlement with Defendants Barclays plc, Barclays Bank plc,
and Barclays Capital Inc. (collectively, "Barclays"); the $45
million settlement with HSBC Holdings plc and HSBC Bank plc
(collectively, "HSBC"); and the $170 million settlement with
Deutsche Bank AG and DB Group Services (UK) Ltd. (collectively,
"Deutsche Bank") (the "2017 Notice"), you do not have to submit a
new Proof of Claim and Release to participate in the Settlement
with Citi and JPMorgan.  Any member of the Settlement Class who
previously submitted a Proof of Claim and Release in connection
with the 2017 Notice will be subject to and bound by the releases
set forth in the Settlement Agreement with Citi and JPMorgan,
unless such member submits a timely and valid request for
exclusion, explained below.

What Are Your Other Options?

All requests to be excluded from the Settlement must be made in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice
and must be postmarked to the Claims Administrator no later than
April 12, 2019.  All requests for exclusion must comply with the
requirements set forth in the Settlement Notice to be honored.  The
Settlement Notice, available at the Settlement Website, explains
how to exclude yourself or object. If you exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, you will not be bound by the Settlement Agreement
and can independently pursue claims at your own expense.  However,
if you exclude yourself, you will not be eligible to share in the
Net Settlement Fund or otherwise participate in the Settlement.

The Court will hold a Settlement Hearing in this case on May 17,
2019, to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request
by the lawyers representing all Settlement Class Members (Lowey
Dannenberg, P.C. and Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP) for an
award of attorneys' fees of no more than nineteen percent (19%), or
$34,675,000, of the Settlement Fund for investigating the facts,
litigating the case, and negotiating the settlement, and for
reimbursement of their costs and expenses in the amount of no more
than approximately $1,300,000.  The Plaintiffs may also request no
more than $400,000 from the Settlement Fund as reimbursement of
their own expenses and compensation for their time devoted to this
litigation.  The lawyers for the Settlement Class may also seek
additional reimbursement of costs and expenses in connection with
services provided after the Settlement Hearing.  These payments
will also be deducted from the Settlement Fund before any
distributions are made to the Settlement Class.

You may ask to appear at the Settlement Hearing, but you do not
have to.  For more information, call toll free 800-492-9154 or
visit the website www.EuriborSettlement.com.

1 "Euribor Products" means any and all interest rate swaps, forward
rate agreements, futures, options, structured products, and any
other instrument or transaction related in any way to Euribor,
including but not limited to, New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE")
London International Financial Futures and Options Exchange
("LIFFE") Euribor futures contracts and options, Chicago Mercantile
Exchange ("CME") Euro currency futures contracts and options, Euro
currency forward agreements, Euribor-based swaps, Euribor-based
forward rate agreements, and/or any other financial instruments
that reference Euribor.

2 The "Settlement Agreement" means the agreement between
Plaintiffs, Citi and JPMorgan, entered into on November 21, 2018,
and filed with the Court in this action.


CODILIS MOODY: Class Certification Sought in Meyer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Meyer moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit entitled BONNIE MEYER, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CODILIS MOODY & CIRCELLI
P.C., Case No. 2:19-cv-00096-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that
the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant
the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules
setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and
supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


COMMUNITY CARE: Wilson Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled MONETTA WILSON and
PATRONELLA HOLMES, on Behalf of Themselves and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. COMMUNITY CARE SERVICES, INC., Case
No. 3:18-cv-01186-TAD-KLH (W.D. La.), seeks to maintain this
litigation as a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and to give notice of the lawsuit to those similarly
situated employees, who worked for CCS as a domestic service
employee during any workweek between September 10, 2015, to the
present.

As reflected in their Original Collective Action Complaint, the
Plaintiffs contend that CCS violated the FLSA by failing to pay
them and all other non-exempt domestic service workers appropriate
overtime wages when they worked more than 40 hours in a workweek,
and also failed to pay them for all hours worked.

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to issue an order directing
the Defendant to promptly provide their counsel with the Class List
in electronic format no later than January 30, 2019.  The Class
List will identify the full name of each Class Member with his/her
last known mailing address, e-mail address, and telephone number.
Once received, the Plaintiffs' counsel will promptly send (i.e.
within 7 days after receiving the Class List) a Class Notice Letter
and Notice of Consent form to the putative class members.  The
notice period requested is 70 days from the date that the Defendant
provides the Class List.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net

               - and -

          Edward B. Cloutman, III, Esq.
          CLOUTMAN & CLOUTMAN, L.L.P.
          3301 Elm Street
          Dallas, TX 75226-1637
          Telephone: (214) 939-9224
          Facsimile: (214) 939-9229
          E-mail: ecloutman@lawoffices.email

One of the Plaintiff's attorneys certifies that notice was sent to
this attorney of record:

          Victor H. Sooter, Esq.
          SOOTER & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          934 Third Street, Suite 601
          Alexandria, LA 71301
          Telephone: (318) 448-8301


CUSTOM ROOFING: Abrego Suit Seeks Damages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------
Pedro Abrego, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Custom Roofing and Coatings, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00242 (N.D.
Fla., December 11, 2018), seeks to recover compensatory and
liquidated damages for Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges he typically worked between 50 and 60 hours
per week and despite working as many as 70 hours per week, the
Plaintiff was never paid overtime. The Defendant would take illegal
deductions from the Plaintiff's pay. For example, if a roof that
the Plaintiff worked on did not pass inspection, the Plaintiff
would have to perform additional work on that roof without pay.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant for approximately seven
years as a roofer regularly handling shingles and sealants that
moved in interstate commerce. He last worked for the Defendant in
or around October 2018.

The Defendant was a Florida corporation, with its principal place
of business in Ocala, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew W. Birk, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF
      MATTHEW BIRK, LLC
      309 Northeast First Street
      Gainesville, FL 32601
      Tel: (352) 244-2069
      Fax: (352) 372-3464
      E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com


DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Stempien Seeks Unpaid Wages for Instructors
-------------------------------------------------------------
LISA STEMPIEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DEVRY UNIVERSITY, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. RG19002623 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Jan. 15, 2018), seeks damages for unpaid wages, unpaid premium pay,
unreimbursed business expenses, penalties, interest, and other
equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated individuals adjunct instructors or in a similar
capacity from four years prior to the filing of this Complaint
through to the trial date. The Plaintiff and Class Members were
non-exempt employees and were paid on a piece-rate basis or "Course
Rate" -- a set amount for each course taught during an academic
quarter. However, the Defendant failed to pay Class Members at
least minimum wage for non-productive work outside the classroom
teaching time in violation of Labor Code.

DeVry University is a for-profit college based in the United
States. The school was founded in 1931 by Herman A. DeVry as
DeForest Training School and officially became DeVry University in
2002.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Julian Hammond, Esq.
          Polina Brandler, Esq.
          Ari Cherniak, Esq.
          HAMMONDLAW,P.C.
          1829 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 410
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (310) 601-6766
          Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
          E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
                  pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com
                  acherniak@hammondlaw.com

DISNEY: Appeals Court Won't Revive Shareholder Suit Against Board
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that the
Ninth Circuit affirms dismissal of a complaint alleging breach of
fiduciary duties in the face of agreements suppressing wages for
animation workers.

A federal appeals court won't revive a shareholder lawsuit brought
against Bob Iger and other members of Disney's board for allegedly
participating in a conspiracy to enact illegal anti-competitive
agreements in the animation industry. On Dec. 26, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the lawsuit because
plaintiffs had failed to properly make a demand upon the board to
take action.

The lawsuit addressed industry-wide pacts to keep the cost of labor
low. All the way back in the mid-1980s, George Lucas sold his
company's computer division to Steve Jobs. At the time, the two
agreed to restrain competition for skilled labor at both Pixar and
Lucasfilm. Over time, more companies, including Sony and Fox's Blue
Sky Studios, were said to have joined into "gentleman's agreements"
not to cold call each other's animation employees, provide
notifications when providing job offers and make no counteroffers.

That led to an investigation by the U.S. Justice Department, and in
2010, a settlement wherein Apple, Google, Intel, Adobe and Pixar
agreed to stay away from anti-poaching pacts. Then came the
class-action lawsuits, and further settlements.

Finally, in 2015, Eugene Towers brought a stockholder-derivative
complaint on behalf of Disney that targeted Iger and others
including Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey (who joined Disney's board in
2013), Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg (on Disney's board since 2009),
and former Starbucks CEO Orin Smith (since 2006).

The lawsuit failed at the district court upon the judge's
conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to establish sufficient facts
regarding the Disney board's knowledge of any conspiracy.

On appeal comes discussion of a rule for stockholder-derivative
suits that requires plaintiffs state their efforts to obtain a
desired action from board directors or at least show such action
would be futile. Towers admitted not making a demand on the board,
and the appeals court emphasizes that he must therefore plead bad
faith by alleging with particularity that a majority of directors
knowingly violated fiduciary duties or consciously disregarded such
duties.

Mr. Towers pointed to key Disney officers actively participating in
the conspiracy, but the appeals court deems it insufficient.

"[W]e cannot assume that members of the Board had knowledge of the
conspiracy simply because other individuals at Disney -- even other
Board members -- knew," states the opinion. "Instead, Plaintiff
would need to demonstrate a clear line of communication and
knowledge between the implicated officers and the Board. Here,
Plaintiff did allege that [former Disney Studios chairman Richard]
Cook and [Disney Animation Studios Ed] Catmull communicated with
the Board, particularly during discussions of the Pixar
acquisition, but he did not allege with particularity that
information regarding the conspiracy was ever transmitted to the
Board by these or other officers."

The rest of the opinion (read here) then rejects alternative
arguments for futility, including that the board was serving while
Cook was allegedly orchestrating the conspiracy as well as
employment compensation issues coming up during Disney's
acquisition of Pixar. The appeals court offers that plaintiffs
needn't trot out a "smoking gun," but on the other hand, "something
more than speculative, conclusory allegations is required."

"Ultimately, the allegations in Plaintiff's amended complaint do
not constitute particularized facts demonstrating demand futility,"
writes Ninth Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. "Whether the Board's
alleged misconduct is characterized as conscious inaction or active
connivance, Plaintiff needed to demonstrate that a majority of the
Director Defendants knew of the conspiracy, and he failed to do
so." [GN]


EDGEWELL PERSONAL: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in SPF Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC on Dec. 26 disclosed that a Third Amended
Complaint was filed on Dec. 26 in the Eastern District of New York,
in a proposed nationwide class action lawsuit alleging that the
popular children's sunscreen lotion Banana Boat Kids SPF 50 does
not provide the promised level of sun protection.  The suit,
entitled In re Edgewell Personal Care Co. Litig., No. 16-cv-3371
(E.D.N.Y.), was filed after a May 2016 Consumer Reports article
revealed that, according to its own independent testing, the
product only had a sun protection factor (SPF) of 8.  The Complaint
alleges that Plaintiffs had their own FDA-compliant testing of the
product conducted by an independent laboratory, which "confirmed
that Banana Boat Kids SPF 50 sunscreen lotion had an actual SPF
substantially lower than the claimed SPF 50."  Plaintiffs' testing
revealed that the product has an SPF of only 10.4, not an SPF of 50
as represented on the product label.

Attorney Stephen DeNittis of DeNittis Osefchen Prince, who
represents Plaintiffs along with Janine Pollack of The Sultzer Law
Group; Carl Malmstrom of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz;
Salvatore Badala of Napoli Shkolnik; and others, stated:

"It's really a shame.  Defendants are marketing this sunscreen
specifically to protect kids from the adverse effects of the sun --
from getting sunburned or worse.  Unfortunately, children and
parents who buy and use Banana Boat Kids SPF 50 aren't getting
anywhere near the sun protection they think they are."  

Plaintiffs' lawsuit seeks full or partial refunds for all customers
who purchased Banana Boat Kids SPF 50 sunscreen lotion, and asks
the Court to order Defendants to stop selling the falsely-labeled
product. [GN]


EMBRAER: Brazil Court Revokes Injunction Following Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ghim-Lay Yeo, writing for FlightGlobal, reports that a Brazil
appeals court judge has struck down a second injunction issued
against the proposed commercial aviation joint venture between
Embraer and Boeing.

The move marks another legal victory for Embraer as it seeks to get
Brazilian government approval for the tie-up with Boeing, although
it remains to be seen if there will be further legal challenges
against the deal.

Embraer says it will keep shareholders and the market informed on
any developments related to the legal action.

The injunction that was revoked had been granted by a Brazilian
judge, following a class action lawsuit by Embraer's labour union
against the proposed partnership between Embraer and Boeing.

Earlier in December, another injunction was granted after a group
of lawmakers opposed the deal. But this injunction was also
overturned days later by an appeals court.

Boeing and Embraer announced on 17 December that they had agreed to
terms of their proposed partnership, which they plan to close by
end-2019. Boeing will acquire 80% of Embraer's commercial aviation
division for $4.2 billion, with Embraer retaining the remaining 20%
share.

The new company formed from the deal will be controlled by Boeing,
but based in Brazil with a chief executive and president.

Brazil's government, which has a golden share in Embraer, has the
right to veto the planned tie-up. President-elect Jair Bolsonaro,
who assumes office on 1 January, has indicated he is in favour of
the deal. The tie-up is also subject to approvals from regulatory
authorities and the companies' shareholders. [GN]


EMERGENCY SITE: Does Not Pay Security Personnel Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Josue Alvarez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Emergency Site Protection, LLC, Gryphon Oilfield
Solutions, LLC, and Sanchez Oil & Gas Corporation, Case No.
5:18-cv-01298 (W.D. Tex., December 11, 2018), seeks to recover
minimum wages, overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants improperly classified the
Plaintiff and the class as independent contractors. Although the
Plaintiff and the class members routinely worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek, they were not paid overtime, it adds.

The Plaintiff Josue Alvarez was employed by the Defendants as a
security/gate guard from approximately March 2018 until October
2018.

The Defendants Gryphon and ESP provided and continue to provide
security services to their clients, including oil and gas producers
like the Defendant Sanchez, at Sanchez's well sites throughout the
State of Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
      Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
      Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
      George Schimmel, Esq.
      ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
              lauren@a2xlaw.com
              cgordon@a2xlaw.com
              carter@a2xlaw.com
              geordie@a2xlaw.com


EQHEALTH SOLUTIONS: Underpays Technical Coordinators, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA RUSSELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EQHEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00005-SDD-EWD (M.D. La., Jan. 7, 2019) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Plaintiff Russell was employed by the Defendant as technical
coordinator.

eQHealth Solutions, Inc. provides population health management and
healthcare IT solutions. eQHealth Solutions, Inc. was formerly
known as Louisiana Health Care Review, Inc. and changed its name to
eQHealth Solutions, Inc. in July 2009. The company was founded in
1986 and is based in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Mahone, Jr., Esq.
          THE MAHONE FIRM LLC
          5190 Canal Blvd., Suite 102
          New Orleans, LA 70124
          Telephone: (504) 564-7342
          Facsimile: (504) 617-6474
          E-mail: mike@mahonefirm.com

               - and -

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          2820 McKinnon, Suite 5009
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 790-4454
          E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz

               - and -

          Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
          THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
          5438 Rutherglenn Drive
          Houston, TX 77096
          Telephone: (512) 417-5716
          E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com


FORTRESS SYSTEMS: Sharkey Bid for Class Certification Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE E. SHARKEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. FORTRESS SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/b/a FORTRESS
MOBILE, and ZHONG SU individually also known as Jack Su, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00019-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon.
Judge Frank D. Whitney entered an order on Jan. 15, 2019:

   1. denying Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and
      judicial notice:

      "all current and former contractors as independent
      contractors, depriving them of regular pay and overtime
      premium pay to which they are entitled under the Fair Labor
      Standards Act";

   2. granting in part and denying in part Parties' joint motion
      to amend scheduling order:

      Motion to Amend Pleadings:       March 1, 2019
      Discovery Completion:            May 10, 2019
      ADR:                             May 24, 2019
      Dispositive Motions (filed):     June 7, 2019
      Dispositive Motions (hearing):   August 5-16, 2019
      Pretrial Submissions:            7 calendar days before FPC
      Final Pretrial Conference (FPC): To be determined
      Trial Setting:                   Term beginning September 3,
                                       2019[CC]

FOUR PARTNERS: Howard's Bid to Certify Denied; Hearing on Mar. 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on January 16, 2019, in the case
titled Christopher Howard v. Four Partners Petroleum, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:18−cv−00572 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held
before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Motion to certify class is denied without prejudice;

   -- Deadline for amending pleadings and adding parties is
      March 31, 2019;

   -- Discovery is ordered closed by May 17, 2019; and

   -- Status hearing is set for March 19, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.[CC]


GARDNER DENVER: Purcell Julie Investigates Fiduciary Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP, a class action law firm dedicated to
representing shareholders nationwide, is investigating a potential
breach of fiduciary duty claim involving the board of directors of
Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: GDI).

If you are a shareholder of Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc. and are
interested in obtaining additional information regarding this
investigation, free of charge, please visit us at:
http://pjlfirm.com/gardner-denver-holdings-inc/

You may also contact Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq. either via email at
rl@pjlfirm.com or by telephone at 212-725-1000.  One of our
attorneys will personally speak with you about the case at no cost
or obligation.

Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP -- http://www.pjlfirm.com-- is a law
firm exclusively committed to representing shareholders nationwide
who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty and
other types of corporate misconduct. [GN]


GENERAL MOTORS: Must Face Breach of Contract Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that a federal
judge has declined to dismiss a breach of contract class action
against General Motors over the deadline of a securities issue in
2016.

In his 15-page order issued Dec. 20, U.S. District Court Judge
Stephen R. Bough, on the bench in Missouri's Western District,
declined General Motors' motion to dismiss three counts in the case
and any non-Missouri members of the class. Judge Bough turned aside
claims that his court lacked "personal jurisdiction" in the case
and that class members, led by lead plaintiffs Hayden Harrison and
Billy James, had failed to state a claim.

"The Court must accept all facts alleged in the complaint as true
when deciding a motion to dismiss," Judge Bough said in his order.
"However, allegations that are legal conclusions or formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action may properly be set
aside."

The plaintiffs' allegations in the class action stem from General
Motors' 2016 issue of securities instruments called "series A
warrants" that holders could use to obtain common stock in the
company, according to the background portion of the order. Under
the warrant agreement that came with the securities, the warrants
would expire July 10, 2016 but, as July 10 was a Sunday and a
non-trading day, the warrants were effectively expired two days
earlier.

General Motors issued a press release on June 27, 2016 to remind
warrantholders about the approaching deadline but the New York
Stock Exchange suspended trading on the warrants on July 1, 2016.

Plaintiffs claim that they couldn't to exercise their warrants
prior to July 10, 2016 and the expiration date could be modified
only by consent of all warrantholders. In their lawsuit, plaintiffs
claim breaches of contract and unjust enrichment, saying General
Motors violated the warrant agreement by accelerating the
expiration date. Plaintiffs also claim General Motors didn't follow
procedures outlined in the warrant agreement and took no steps to
protect warrantholders.

General Motors asked Judge Bough to dismiss all counts in the
complaint for failure to state a claim and for dismissal of all
claims by putative class members who don't live in Missouri.

In its request to dismiss based on whether a class member is a
Missouri resident, General Motors cited the U.S. Supreme Court case
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, decided
in 2017. Based on the Bristol-Myers case, General Motors argued
that the district court lacked "personal jurisdiction" over the
claims of non-resident putative class members.

Judge Bough declined to apply the Bristol-Myers case in the way
General Motors interpreted it, saying "it is unclear whether
Bristol-Myers even applies to federal courts" or even if it would
apply to a plaintiff injured in one state sought to represent a
nationwide class.

"While Defendant cites district court cases applying Bristol-Meyers
to unnamed members of a putative class action in federal court,
these cases are -- as plaintiffs argue -- the minority," Judge
Bough said in his order. [GN]


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Forex Currency Rigging Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Jacob Maslow, writing for Legal Scoops, reports that currency
rigging claims have again been levied against some of the largest
banks in the world. After some class action litigation suits
results in billions of dollars of settlements and fines, a group of
several institutional investors has formed its own lawsuit and
seeks millions more in payouts.

The allegations stem from alleged actions between 2003 and 2013
that certain banks worked together to rig currency within the
foreign exchange (Forex) market. Previous investigations have found
both banks and individual traders guilty of sharing information
about orders and trades that helped influence the market, including
closing rates. The Forex market experiences about $5.1 trillion per
day in trade volume, and currency rigging or volatility can lead to
tremendous amounts of investments being impacted.

In previous lawsuits, courts and mediators have enabled more than
$2.31 billion in settlements to be extracted from 15 of the 16
alleged conspirator banks. In addition, the United States
government has levied an additional $10 billion in fines against
several of the institutions and jailed individuals working for
those organizations.

Individuals and organizations have the right to opt out of class
action lawsuits if they believe they will be able to achieve a
better result standing on their own. This can be very tough when
small figures stand against large financial corporations. However,
since many billions in fines and settlements has already occurred,
these bodies stand to gain even more if their allegations and
demonstrations of negative impact stand up in court.

The sixteen banks or financial institutions that stand accused of
Forex currency rigging include United States industry giants
Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, HSBC
and Morgan Stanley. They are joined by international financial
organizations Barclays, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, MUFG Bank of
Japan, the Royal Banks of Scotland and Canada, BNP Paribas, UBS,
Standard Chartered and Societe Generale.

Further litigation is planned in Europe on behalf of markets there
as well. The plaintiffs, who invest in Forex trading, include
smaller banks like Norges Bank of Norway, pension funds including
the California State Teachers' Retirement System, and investors
BlackRock Inc. and the Allianz Pacific Investment Management
Company. All allege financial loss due to the underhanded dealings
of the financial giants they are going after. This current suit
will be tried in the United States District Court in Manhattan, New
York. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Settlement Parties Split Over Article III Standing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Google,
consumers and others involved in an $8.5 million privacy settlement
continue to argue over whether the suit should be before the U.S.
Supreme Court.

The class and a settlement objector, in supplemental reply briefs
filed Dec. 21, argue the consumers suffered sufficient harm by
Google's practice of sharing their search terms with third parties
to have standing to sue.

But Google and the federal government say the consumers can't show
they suffered a concrete injury from the disclosures.

Objector Ted Frank argues Google and the government confuse
weakness on the merits with lack of Article III standing. Their
arguments would lead to an "unprecedented shift in power from the
legislature to the judiciary and from the federal government's
ability to regulate interstate commerce to the states," he says.

The class argues Google and the government aren't focused on the
scope of judicial power as envisioned by the Framers of the
Constitution. "Their submissions read as if injury-in-fact depends
not on judicial practice from the era of muskets but on causes of
action developed coincident with bell-bottom jeans and moon
landings," the class says.

Google says the class has no historical evidence that disclosure of
search terms creates concrete harm. Instead, the class and Frank
use "inapt analogies between the routine browser function at issue
here and the publication of private letters" to establish standing,
it says.

The government agrees with Google that disclosure of search terms
isn't a concrete injury. Invasion of privacy can't be analogized
with historical examples involving loss of property for standing
purposes, the government says.

Standing dominated oral argument Oct. 31 in the case that was
brought to the justices on the appropriateness of using cy pres in
class settlements.

Cy pres is the practice of distributing settlement funds to
charitable organizations in a way that indirectly benefits class
members because it isn't feasible to compensate them directly.
Frank says the lower courts erred in allowing all the proceeds of
the settlement to go to charity.

The request for additional briefing signals the court may find it
doesn't have jurisdiction to get to that question.

The court has three options if it decides standing prevents it from
getting to the cy pres question: It can write an opinion addressing
standing, remand the case for the lower court to reconsider the
issue, or dismiss the case as improvidently granted.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute Center for Class Action
Fairness represents the objectors.

Nassiri & Jung LLP and MoloLamken LLP represent the class. Mayer
Brown LLP and O'Melveny & Myers LLP represent Google.

The case is Frank v. Gaos, U.S., No. 17-961, supplemental reply
briefs filed 12/21/18. [GN]


GROSSE POINTE, MI: 2016 Flooding Class Action Settled
-----------------------------------------------------
Anthony Viola, writing for Grosse Pointe News, reports that the
2016 flooding class action lawsuits against the Park and City have
been settled, pending approval by the court.

Monday, Dec. 17, City city council voted unanimously to approve a
$1 million settlement and the Park's insurance carrier agreed to a
settlement of $2,725,000.

John Gillooly, the attorney representing the City, said there will
be two $500,000 lump-sum payments made, then the plaintiffs'
attorney will work to distribute the money.

Peter Dame, City city manager, said the money will come from the
city's water and sewer fund.

"We will pay from our water and sewer fund reserves in the amount
of approximately $950,000 and the insurance will cover the rest,"
Dame said.

The first lump-sum payment will be made by the end of the year and
the second in 2019, said Mr. Gillooly. According to
Mr. Gillooly, affected houses will receive on average approximately
$5,000, but it is dependent on the amount of damage reported at the
time.

"Residents are required to file claims forms with the city within a
certain period of time," Mr. Gillooly said. "If you did not file
claims forms a couple years ago, you will not receive money."

Residents should receive notices from their attorneys soon,
Mr. Gillooly said.

The lawsuit in the City stemmed from a flooding event in August
2016. Approximately 180 homes and a few businesses saw basements
flooded with sewage during a heavy rain. The plaintiffs' attorneys,
Liddle & Dubin, argued the sewage system was improperly maintained
and caused excessive rainwater inflow and infiltration, which
ultimately overloaded the system.

"As I told the city council nearly two years ago, these types of
lawsuits don't make a ton of sense to me," Mr. Gillooly said. "And
the reason they don't make sense to me is because the residents are
suing themselves. There's no insurance covering the City of Grosse
Pointe for this event, certainly a very unfortunate event. Nobody
likes to have water in their basements. It affects a lot of
people's lives. It takes time away from the things we like to do.
However, the residents are suing themselves. Really the only ones
that make any money are the attorneys and specifically the
plaintiffs' attorney."

Park City Manager Dale Krajniak echoed Mr. Gillooly's sentiments.

"For the community itself, it's difficult when you're undertaking
litigation with your own residents," said Mr. Krajniak. "It really
doesn't suit anyone's best interest."

The law firm of Liddle & Dubin has overseen more than $7 million in
flooding settlements from three Grosse Pointes in the last few
years. In 2017, it settled a $4 million suit against the Farms for
a 2011 flood and now the two settlements from the City and Park.

Steven Liddle did not return multiple requests for comment.

In the Park, the city's insurance carrier -- Tokio Marine --
handled the suit and according to Mr. Krajniak will bear the cost
of the settlement, except for the city's $10,000 deductible.

The 2016 flood in the Park affected more than 500 homes. It was
caused when the city was forced to shut off its pumps in the pump
station as water levels threatened to damage transformers.

Since the flood, Mr. Krajniak said the city has invested
approximately $500,000 in upgrades to the system, including raising
the transformers to a mezzanine level.

"A lot of it was bringing up to speed the equipment, likewise the
automatic controls," he said. "Everything is automated now. It was
changed as far as the upgrades included relocating transformers
from where they were originally placed in the '60s to a higher
level, a mezzanine level, so the threat of flooding within the
building itself can be avoided."

Mr. Krajniak also said pumps were upgraded and a number of parking
lots still connected to the sewer system were separated.

"Once more, requesting residents disconnect downspout connections
where they are connected," Mr. Krajniak said. "I would say the
majority of residents have been very responsive in undertaking that
step and there are exceptions where, in some cases, it is not
practical. But that is another item we'll continue to pursue."

Mr. Krajniak said the increased severity and frequency of storms --
with 100-year events more and more common -- have been
problematic.

"I think it's a good settlement for all parties just to move
forward," Mr. Krajniak said. "We'll continue to undertake upgrades
or any steps which will further assist us. But, again, the concern
has been the nature of these storms that we've experienced over the
last three years have really been problematic. But the best we can
do is to continue to invest in the infrastructure and continue to
dry out the system."

Mr. Gillooly also recommended residents make sure downspouts are
disconnected. He also said residents should have their lateral
sewer lines televised and snaked from their house to the street
every year.

"And," Mr. Gillooly said, "install a backflow preventer. . . . A
couple hundred dollar fix can prevent sometimes thousands of
dollars in clean up costs and hassles." [GN]


GUILIANO ENVIRONMENTAL: Vargas Seeks Unpaid Wages for Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD VARGAS, and similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff,
vs. GUILIANO ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC, and all other affiliated Entities
and/or Joint Employers, CHRISTOPHER GUILIANO, individually, and
ROBERT FISTER, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00513
(D.N.J., Jan. 15, 2019), seeks to recover statutory wage and
overtime payments, payment for unpaid supplemental benefits that
Plaintiff and the members of the putative class were statutorily
and contractually entitled to receive for work they performed on
numerous privately financed projects and publicly financed projects
pursuant to contracts with various government entities, under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law,
and the New Jersey State Prevailing Wage Act.

The action is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and a putative class
of individuals who worked as roofers, demolition laborers, and
other construction-related trades, and snow removal laborers, for
Guiliano and/or any other entities affiliated with, controlling, or
controlled by the Defendants. The Government Entities include, but
are not limited to, the following: Union County, New Jersey, and
Bergen County, New Jersey, as well as the State of New Jersey.  The
publicly financed projects were undertaken and performed by the
Defendants in accordance with the terms and conditions of certain
"Public Works Contracts" entered into with the Government Entities
between January 2013 and the present, the lawsuit says.

Guiliano Environmental is in the cargo loading and unloading
services business.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, No. 306
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: Aglenn@JaffeGlenn.com
                  Jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com

HSBC BANK USA: Removes Antonicic et al. Suit to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of CHRISTOPHER J. ANTONICIC; and
ANASTASIA ANTONICIC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Defendant,
filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the
State of Illinois, County of DuPage (Case No. 2018 L 001443) to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
January 4, 2019. The clerk of court for the Northern District of
Illinois assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00101. The case is assigned to
Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr.

HSBC Bank USA, National Association provides personal and business
banking products and services. HSBC Bank USA, National Association
was formerly known as HSBC Bank USA and changed its name to HSBC
Bank USA, National Association in November 2017. The company was
founded in 1850 and is based in Mclean, Virginia. HSBC Bank USA,
National Association operates as a subsidiary of HSBC USA Inc.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arthur C. Czaja, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ARTHUR C. CZAJA
          7521 N. Milwaukee Ave.
          Niles, IL 60714
          Telephone: (847) 647-2106
          E-mail: arthur@czajalawoffices.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Alan Berman, Esq.
          Patrick J. Solberg, Esq.
          ANDERSON WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: jberman@andersonwanca.com
                  psolberg@andersonwanca.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bruce Robert Van Baren, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          10 S. Wacker Dr., 40th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 207-2442
          E-mail: bvanbaren@reedsmith.com


INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Fixed ICE LIBOR Rates, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against InterContinental Exchange, Inc., and
several entities concerns financial benchmark ICE LIBOR (TM) ("ICE
LIBOR"), which, from February 1, 2014, through the present, has
been "the world's most widely used benchmark for short term bank
borrowing rates," and which, since that date, has been collusively
set at artificially low levels by Defendants, to the detriment of
investors in financial instruments indexed to the benchmark, such
as Plaintiff and members of the Class.

According to the complaint, the Defendants combined and conspired
to, and did, unreasonably restrain trade by fixing, rigging,
depressing, and otherwise manipulating USD ICE LIBOR and financial
instruments indexed to USD ICE LIBOR, in violation of the Sherman
Antitrust Act. The Defendants engaged in a horizontal price-fixing
conspiracy. The Plaintiff and members of the Class have been
injured in their business and property by reason of Defendants'
violation of the Sherman Act, the lawsuit says.

The case is captioned as PUTNAM BANK, on Behalf of Itself and All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. INTERCONTINENTAL
EXCHANGE, INC., INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE HOLDINGS, INC., ICE
BENCHMARK ADMINISTRATION LIMITED (f/k/a NYSE EURONEXT RATE
ADMINISTRATION LIMITED), ICE DATA SERVICES, INC., ICE PRICING AND
REFERENCE DATA LLC, BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA
N.A., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC., CITIGROUP INC.,
CITIBANK, N.A., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., JPMORGAN CHASE &
CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC,
BARCLAYS PLC, BARCLAYS BANK PLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., BNP PARIBAS
SA, BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP., CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A., CREDIT
AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK; CREDIT AGRICOLE SECURITIES
(USA) INC., CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA) LLC, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES
INC., HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK PLC, HSBC BANK USA, N.A., HSBC
SECURITIES (USA) INC., LLOYDS BANK PLC, LLOYDS SECURITIES INC.,
MUFG BANK, LTD., THE BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI UFJ LTD., MITSUBISHI
UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP INC., MUFG SECURITIES AMERICAS INC., THE
NORINCHUKIN BANK, COÖPERATIEVE RABOBANK U.A., ROYAL BANK OF
CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC,
ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK PLC, NATWEST
MARKETS SECURITIES INC. (f//k/a RBS SECURITIES, INC.), SOCIETE
GENERALE S.A., SG AMERICAS SECURITIES, LLC, SUMITOMO MITSUI BANKING
CORPORATION, SUMITOMO MITSUI FINANCIAL GROUP INC., SUMITOMO MITSUI
BANKING CORPORATION EUROPE LTD., SMBC CAPITAL MARKETS, INC., UBS
GROUP AG, UBS AG, and UBS SECURITIES LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00439 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2019).[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

          David R. Scott, Esq.
          Deborah Clark-Weintraub, Esq.
          Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
          Thomas K. Boardman, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com
                  dweintraub@scott-scott.com
                  pbarile@scott-scott.com
                  tboardman@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq.
          156 South Main Street
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-5537
          Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
          E-mail: alawrence@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          George A. Zelcs, Esq.
          Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 641-9750
          Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
          E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
                  rewing@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Berezney, Esq.
          Michael E. Klenov
          505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-4844
          Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
          E-mail: sberezney@koreintillery.com
                  mklenov@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          Geoffrey M. Horn, Esq.
          Christian Levis, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone.: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
                  ghorn@lowey.com
                  clevis@lowey.com

               - and -

          Randi D. Bandman, Esq.
          Steve Jodlowski, Esq.
          Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          30 Vesey Street, Suite 200
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 693-1058
          Facsimile: (212) 693-7423
          E-mail: randib@rgrdlaw.com
                  sjodlowski@rgrdlaw.com
                  vpatc@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Undlin, Esq.
          Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq.
          Geoffrey H. Kozen, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: 612-349-8500
          Facsimile: 612-339-4181
          E-mail: tundlin@robinskaplan.com
                  sslaughter@robinskaplan.com
                  gkozen@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Hollis Salzman, Esq.
          David B. Rochelson
          399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 980-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
          E-mail: hsalzman@robinskaplan.com
                  drochelson@robinskaplan.com

IQVIA INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in TCPA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Christine M. Reilly, Esq. -- creilly@manatt.com -- and A. Paul
Heeringa, Esq. -- pheeringa@manatt.com -- of Manatt Financial
Services, report that a recent decision from the U.S. Supreme Court
continues to work in favor of Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) defendants, with an Illinois federal court judge striking
the plaintiff's class definition with regard to members outside the
state.

Two faxes were sent to the office of Florence Mussat, M.D., an
Illinois corporation, by IQVIA, Inc., a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. The medical office
alleged that IQVIA violated the TCPA by sending junk faxes to
recipients across the country and sought to represent the putative
class without geographic restriction.

U.S. District Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the Northern District of
Illinois certified the class. But after another Illinois federal
court applied Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of
California to a TCPA action, IQVIA moved to strike Mussat's class
definition.

In Bristol-Myers Squibb, a group of plaintiffs brought product
liability actions against the company in California state court,
claiming that a prescription drug damaged their health. After the
California Supreme Court found it had specific jurisdiction to hear
the cases, the Supreme Court reversed last June, holding that the
defendant has the burden of proof as to whether a court has
personal jurisdiction.

The due process clause, "acting as an instrument of interstate
federalism, may sometimes act to divest the State of its power to
render a valid judgment," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the
majority. Noting that the plaintiffs were nonresidents and did not
claim that they suffered harm in California—and that all conduct
giving rise to the nonresident claims occurred elsewhere—the
justices held that the court lacked jurisdiction over the case.

IQVIA argued that the Illinois court lacked personal jurisdiction
over it with respect to the unnamed putative class members who were
not Illinois residents.

Judge Kendall agreed, granting the motion to strike the
non-Illinois class members.

"The focus of the personal jurisdiction inquiry . . . is the
defendant's relationship to the forum state, and because Mussat's
lawsuit does not arise out of or relate to IQVIA's contacts with
this forum, the Court grants its motion to strike Mussat's class
definition," the court wrote.

Mussat argued that IQVIA forfeited its personal jurisdiction
defense by not raising it sooner, in its initial motion to dismiss.
But the court had little troubling finding that the defense was not
available when the defendant filed its motion in March 2018.

On its face, Bristol-Myers Squibb did not apply to class actions,
and no court had applied the opinion's holding or reasoning to a
TCPA class action until two days before IQVIA filed its motion to
dismiss. When that decision was issued, IQVIA timely amended its
responsive pleading just nine days later.

Even if IQVIA did forfeit its defense, Judge Kendall said she would
exercise her discretion to excuse it, noting that other courts that
have considered the issue in this context have excused the
forfeiture.

Moving to the merits of the personal jurisdiction defense, "this
Court joins the litany of other courts in this District and
elsewhere to hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment precludes the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a
defendant in a putative class action where nonresident, absent
members seek to aggregate their claims with an in-forum resident,
even though the defendant allegedly injured the nonresidents
outside the forum," the court wrote.

The TCPA does not authorize nationwide service of process, leaving
the court to look to Illinois law and the Due Process Clause for
the applicable limits on its exercise of personal jurisdiction. As
IQVIA is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Pennsylvania, the court found it lacked general
jurisdiction over the defendant.

While the court had specific jurisdiction with regard to IQVIA
based on Mussat's allegations that it received two junk faxes in
Illinois, Bristol-Myers Squibb holds that due process requires the
defendant be subject to specific jurisdiction also as to the absent
class members' claims.

"Indeed, 'the mere fact' that Mussat received two faxes in Illinois
'does not allow' for an exercise of 'specific jurisdiction over the
nonresidents' claims' with respect to faxes received outside of
Illinois because those absent class members' claims do not relate
to IQVIA's contacts with Illinois," the court wrote. "It follows,
then, that exercising specific jurisdiction over IQVIA with respect
to the nonresidents' claims would violate IQVIA's due process
rights. Therefore, the Court must strike the class definition to
the extent it asserts claims of nonresidents."

Following the Supreme Court's lead in Bristol-Myers Squibb and
applying its core reasoning, Judge Kendall held that due process
required a connection between the forum and the specific claims at
issue. "This recognition bars nationwide class actions in fora
where the defendant is not subject to general jurisdiction," the
court said. "Whether it be an individual, mass, or class action,
the defendant's rights should remain constant."

Why it matters: The Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers
Squibb has been beneficial for class action defendants in all types
of cases, including TCPA actions, with federal courts in Illinois
leading the way by applying the justices' ruling to cases filed
under the statute. However, the case law in this area is far from
uniform, and many of the defendant-favorable decisions have come
out of the Northern District of Illinois. [GN]


ISRAEL ELECTRIC: Electricity Rate to Rise After Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Sonia Gorodeisky, writing for Globes, reports that following the
canceling of the excise tax on fuel purchased by Israel Electric
Corporation (IEC) and compensation in the framework of a class
action lawsuit, the electricity rate for home consumers will go up
2.9% starting on January 1, and the average rate will rise by 2%,
the Public Utilities Authority (electricity) announced. The
decision was taken a short time ago, following a public hearing by
the Authority.

Early in December, the Public Utilities Authority (electricity)
announced that following prices rises in the basket of fuel, the
shekel depreciation against the dollar, and the substantial
increase in renewable energy, the electricity rate would be raised
by an average of 6% and by 7.3% for households. The announcement
was succeeded by strong public criticism and protests throughout
Israel, because higher electric rates will cause prices rises
throughout the economy. Indeed, several days after the
announcement, water rates were raised, and several major food
manufacturers announced price hikes.

The Public Utilities Authority (electricity) stated in its
announcement that the lower increase in the electricity rate had
become possible when the Ministry of Finance announcement a
postponement of an additional excise tax amounting to NIS 57 per
ton to the beginning of 2021. This measure will save electricity
consumers a cumulative NIS 715 million, amounting to 2.4% of the
rate for household consumers. This amount will be subtracted from
the rate for 2019. If the measures for exempting coal from excise
tax are not completed by February 28, 2019, the electricity rate
will be revised accordingly.

In addition, in the framework of arbitration concerning an IEC
auction for the purchase of GIS equipment, for a sub-station, it
was recently announced that IEC would probably receive NIS 465
million in compensation during 2019. The bulk of this sum will be
returned to electricity consumers. Half of the compromise amount
will be recognized in the rate for 2019, equivalent to 0.8% of the
rate for home consumers. The balance of the sum will be returned to
consumers in the following years. [GN]


JFE INC: Does Not Properly Pay Construction Workers, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ponciano Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JFE Inc., JFE of Connecticut Inc., Jose Trinidad
Espinoza, Edward A. Fucci (deceased), and Chris Fucci, Case No.
7:18-cv-11554 (S.D. N.Y., December 11, 2018), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wage compensation and unpaid overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants knowingly and willfully
failed to pay Plaintiff at least the minimum wage for all hours
worked and overtime compensation at one and one-half times his
regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 hours in a given
work week.

The Plaintiff Ponciano Garcia was employed by the Defendants to
work as a construction/demolition worker for JFE Inc., and JFE of
Connecticut, Inc.

The Corporate Defendants operate a demolition/construction business
with its headquarters located in Westchester, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael G. Santangelo, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF
      MICHAEL G. SANTANGELO, PLLC
      75 South Broadway - Suite 4-54195
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Tel: (914) 304-4242
      E-mail: mgsesq@msn.com


JR ENGINEERING: James Roberts Seeks Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------
James Roberts, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JR ENGINEERING, INC. c/o Statutory
Agent Louis P. Bilinovich Sr., the Defendant, Case No.
5:19-cv-00110-SL (N.D Ohio, Jan. 15, 2019), seeks overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The case is a collective action instituted by Plaintiff as a result
of Defendant's practices and policies of not paying its hourly,
non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated employees, overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all of the
hours they worked over 40 each workweek, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant employed Plaintiff as a
polisher at Defendant's Norton, Ohio facility between September
2017 and October 2018. Other similarly-situated employees were
employed by Defendant manufacturing employees at one or both of
Defendant's Ohio facilities. The Defendant paid Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated manufacturing employees an hourly wage. The
Defendant classified Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
manufacturing employees as non-exempt employees, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant manufactures automobile parts and operates two
manufacturing facilities. One facility is located in Barberton,
Ohio and the other facility is located in Norton, Ohio.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          920 Rockefeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: 216 696-5000
          Facsimile: 216 696-7005
          E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com

KELLOGG COMPANY: Smith Moves to Certify Class of RSRs Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled as BRIAN SMITH; and ROSEANN
MIRACOLA, SCOTTY POARCH, and MARK YOUNG, on behalf of themselves
and those similarly situated persons v. KELLOGG COMPANY and KELLOGG
SALES COMPANY, Case No. 1:18-cv-01341-PLM-RSK (W.D. Mich.), move
the Court for an order conditionally certifying a collective action
under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and
to authorize that notice of the action be issued to putative
collective action members and for other miscellaneous relief to
effectuate the mailing and e-mailing of notice to putative
collective action members.

The FSLA collective action class is defined as:

     All persons who have worked for Kellogg in the Snacks
     division at any time in the three years prior to the filing
     of the complaint in this case and were required to move
     snack products from the storeroom to the store shelf and who
     were paid on a salary basis without compensation at the rate
     of time and one-half for all hours worked over 40 in a
     workweek.  Job positions within this class include without
     limitation Retail Sales Representatives, Territory Managers,
     Kellogg Sales Representatives, and Retail Sales Managers
     (collectively, "RSRs").

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to require Kellogg to provide
them with putative class members' names, last known addresses,
employer ID numbers, e-mail addresses, and, for class members whose
notice is undeliverable, partial Social Security Numbers and birth
dates, and to approve their forms of notice and reminder postcard
to putative class members.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matt Dunn, Esq.
          Lesley Tse, Esq.
          Meagan Rafferty, Esq.
          GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC
          260 Fair Street
          Kingston, NY 12401
          Telephone: (845) 255-9370
          Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
          E-mail: mdunn@getmansweeney.com
                  ltse@getmansweeney.com
                  mrafferty@getmansweeney.com


LACI TRANSPORT: Stingley Bid to Certify Class Dropped
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Renee Stingley, et al.,
the Plaintiff, vs. Laci Transport, Inc., et al., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18−cv−06221 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Sara L.
Ellis: entered an order withdrawing, without prejudice, the motion
to certify class.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on Jan. 15, 2019, a
motion hearing was held on Jan. 15, 2019.  The Motion to certify
class is withdrawn without prejudice.  A Motion to stay is denied
as moot.  The Court entered a briefing schedule on the Defendant's
motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's response is due by Feb. 5, 2019.
Defendants' reply is due by Feb. 26, 2019. Statute of limitations
tolled through May 31, 2019. Next status date is set for May 21,
2019 at 9:30 a.m.[CC]

LAMPS PLUS: Rumberger Kirk Attorney Discusses Arbitration Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Dietzen, III, Esq. -- ldietzen@rumberger.com -- of
Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell, in an article for JDSupra, reports that
mandatory arbitration long has been a fixture in many employment
agreements but there has been confusion over whether this includes
the right to bring claims by a class. The consequences are immense
because once class certification is granted, settlements almost
always follow with plaintiffs' lawyers pocketing millions of
dollars in fees while their class clients get pennies and coupons.
You might think of class certification as the poison pill of
arbitration.

But relief for employers may be forthcoming. I believe the U.S.
Supreme Court is about to close the door on class arbitration in a
potentially groundbreaking case, Lamps Plus v. Varela. The high
court heard arguments in the case Oct. 29, 2018, and a decision is
expected in the spring of 2019.

Hacked W-2s led to employee claim

Lamps Plus, a California lighting manufacturer and retailer, was
the victim of a phishing attack in 2016 in which a hacker obtained
copies of employees' W-2 forms. Frank Varela, an employee, filed a
claim against the company in U.S. District Court in California and
sought class certification for employees affected by the breach.
Lamps Plus told the court that Varela had signed an employment
contract where he agreed that all disputes with his employer would
be decided in arbitration, which the company interpreted as
individual, or bilateral, arbitration.

The legal problem is that Varela's arbitration agreement was silent
on whether employees have the right to class or collective
arbitration. As the District Court saw it, that silence amounted to
ambiguity and under California law any ambiguity must be construed
against the drafter of an agreement. An arbitration agreement that
does not expressly prohibit class actions is presumed to allow it,
the court ruled. Subsequently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court and in April 2018 the
U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

The question before the Supreme Court then is whether the Federal
Arbitration Act – which never contemplated class actions when it
was passed in 1925 – forecloses a state law interpretation of an
arbitration agreement that would authorize class arbitration based
solely on general language commonly used in arbitration agreements.
The FAA imposes certain rules on arbitration while generally
deferring to state law for interpretation of such agreements. One
fundamental aspect of the FAA is that arbitration must be a matter
of consent by both parties. Lamps Plus argues that means
affirmative consent, not inferred consent.

Another point of contention is the meaning of a phrase of legalese
in Varela's arbitration agreement that said "arbitration shall be
in lieu of any and all lawsuits or other civil legal proceedings
relating to my employment." As Varela and the Ninth Circuit see it,
that means that arbitration should include any remedies available
in court, such as class action. Again, it is reading a lot into the
agreement to interpret that phrase as inferring that any procedure
available in court should be available in arbitration.

The case has far-reaching implications. There likely are tens of
thousands of employment agreements in force where the drafters
failed to consider the possibility of a class. If the California
interpretation holds sway, every one of those agreements can be
inferred as authorizing a class.

Precedent suggests court will issue business-friendly decision

While it's always risky to predict the mind of the Supreme Court, I
can say that precedent heavily supports a business-friendly
decision in favor of Lamps Plus. A line of decisions reinforces the
principle that arbitration is between individuals or between an
employee and employer. Other U.S. circuit courts have said
repeatedly that arbitration waivers must be explicit, not inferred.
Prior decisions also have resisted arguments that "adhesion"
employment contracts – agreements that are signed as a condition
of employment – coerce employees to sign, reasoning that they are
free not to take the job.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court firmly nixed the argument that
federal labor laws trump arbitration waivers. In May 2018, the high
court said in Epic Systems v. Lewis that businesses can enforce
employee agreements that explicitly waive the right to class
arbitration. The Epic court dismissed arguments that arbitration
waivers can't be enforced because they run afoul of the National
Labor Relations Act. Instead, said the court, an agreement should
be enforced according to its terms.

Several other precedents seem to favor the Lamps Plus position. In
Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., the Supreme
Court ruled in 2010 that the FAA does not allow the imposition of
class arbitration on nonconsenting parties. In AT&T Mobility LLC v.
Concepcion -- another case from the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme
Court ruled in 2011 that the FAA preempts state laws that make
class action waivers unenforceable. In light of these precedents,
it would be remarkable if the Supreme Court created a right to
class arbitration where the parties' agreement was silent on the
topic. .

Even if the high court rules against Lamps Plus, I believe
businesses will come away with a win. The court likely will lay
down clear guidelines on class arbitrations, and we can then write
agreements that follow the court's instructions.

What employers can do now

In the meantime, employers should be certain that new employee
agreements state explicitly that employees waive the right to class
arbitrations. A reading of the Epic decision offers clear
instructions on the language to use. In Florida, I also like to add
a clause that says nothing in the agreement gives preference for or
against the drafter – the employer – because the Lamps Plus
case rests on the legal maxim that any ambiguity has to be
interpreted against the drafter of the agreement. A waiver preempts
that presumption.

I also recommend that companies audit existing agreements to see
whether they are explicit in waiving class arbitration. But if the
Supreme Court follows its prior ruling that an agreement means
exactly what it says, that won't be necessary. Regardless of which
way the court goes, employers will gain clarity in writing
agreements going forward. The court is likely to lay down clear
guidelines on class arbitrations and employers will be able to
write agreements that avoid costly litigation. [GN]


LEXINGTON LAW: Must File Judgment Bid by March 18 in Rosales Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart issued an order in
the lawsuit titled EUGENE ROSALES, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. JOHN C. HEATH, Attorney at Law, doing
business as Lexington Law, Case No. 8:17-cv-00087-RFR-CRZ (D.
Neb.), directing the Defendant to file on or before March 18, 2019,
its anticipated motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether
the Plaintiff consented to receipt of text messages and, therefore,
has no cognizable claim against Lexington Law.

Discovery is permitted solely as to the limited issue of whether
the Plaintiff consented to receive text messages from Lexington Law
during the time frame alleged in the complaint "[s]tarting in
2016", and if so, whether Plaintiff rescinded or revoked that
consent and when this rescission/revocation occurred.  Such
discovery shall be completed on or before February 28, 2019.

The parties' unopposed motion to extend deadlines is denied as
moot.

According to the Order, on November 9, 2018, the Court conferred
with counsel regarding a discovery dispute.  The Plaintiff was
requesting the identity of all persons, nationwide, who "received
on their cellular telephone at least one unauthorized text message"
from Defendant Heath, doing business as Lexington Law ("hereinafter
"Lexington Law"), advertising its credit repair services.  The
Plaintiff further requested "all documents showing prior express
written consent from any putative class member;" and the
identification of each individual who is not a customer of
Lexington Law to whom Lexington Law sent an advertising text
message.[CC]


LOWE'S HOME: Court Grants Motion to Compel Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Laney, Esq. -- sterling.laney@wbd-us.com -- of Womble Bond
Dickinson, reports that a recent case from the Northern District of
California, Alvarado v Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, 2018 WL 6697181
(N.D. CA. Dec. 20, 2018), highlights the importance of drafting
employment arbitration agreement language to specifically include
FCRA claims.

In Alvarado, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant between
June 2015 and February 2018.   Plaintiff signed an agreement to
arbitrate disputes as part of her employment contract when she was
hired.  The arbitration agreement by its terms covered any
controversy between Plaintiff and Defendant arising out of
Plaintiff's employment or the termination of Plaintiff's
employment.  After her employment ended, Plaintiff brought a
putative class action lawsuit alleging the Defendant conducted
background checks during the hiring process without making proper
disclosures.  Defendant moved to compel arbitration including
Plaintiff's FCRA claims based upon the allegedly improper
background check.   Plaintiff argued her FCRA claims should not be
subject to the Arbitration Agreement because they may have taken
place prior to the arbitration agreement being executed. Plaintiff
argued specifically that because neither side presented evidence of
when the background check was conducted, the Court should assume it
was performed before she signed the arbitration agreement.
Plaintiff further argued that the Arbitration Agreement could not
be applied retroactively to these claims because the agreement did
not unambiguously state it has retroactive effect.

The Court disagreed with Plaintiff's theory and granted the
Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration. In doing so the Court
held, "the Court need not decide when a FCRA cause of action
accrues, because Plaintiff expressly agreed to arbitrate all
disputes, 'including but not limited to those arising out of
federal and state statutes and local ordinances, such as…the Fair
Credit Reporting Act' [emphasis added] at the time she signed the
Arbitration Agreement.  Whether Plaintiff knew that any such claim
had accrued at that time is irrelevant, because the Agreement is
not limited to claims that have not yet accrued."

The specific detail of including "all disputes" and then
specifically mentioning that claims under the FCRA were included
was persuasive to the Court and serves as a good reminder for us
all to take care when drafting arbitration agreements. [GN]


MANTECA, CA: Homeless Man Challenges Anti-Camping Ordinance
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ennis Wyatt, writing for Manteca Bulletin, reports that Norman
Moore is not a happy camper.

First he contends his day in court was denied when charges against
him were dismissed.

Now he says the City of Manteca is violating his Fourth Amendment
rights including being secure in his house, his papers, and
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Mr. Moore is the 71-year-old homeless man who wanted to challenge
the legality of Manteca's anti-camping law in court when he was
cited for violating it by camping in a field in the 100 block of
Pacific Road of West Yosemite Avenue on Sept. 29, 2017.

He was given a citation for illegal camping under a city ordinance.
It was the third time he was ordered by Manteca Police to leave an
illegal campsite that month.

The citation carries a $1,210 fine. Moore receives $805 a month in
Social Security retirement.

Moore made his displeasure with the city known at the Dec. 18
council meeting during public comments.

His latest beef centers around being forced by police to leave "a
farmer's field" located within the city limits. Mr. Moore told
Mayor Ben Cantu and the council that no one complained about him
being there. (The ordinance as written regarding illegal camping on
private property is not complaint driven.)

He argued that when police posted the camp in advance as required
by court rulings that they intended to clear it out for being
illegal, that had they done so before he was able to move his
belongings they would have put his "papers" consisting of extensive
correspondence with government officials in the garbage thus
violating his Fourth Amendment.  That said, Mr. Moore told the
council he was able to retrieve his papers before that happened.

What Mr. Moore really wants is a jury trial to argue the city's
anti-camping ordinance is illegal.

The city carefully crafted the anti-camping ordinance to make sure
it complied with court decisions and existing law after four
homeless men filed a class action suit arguing the ordinance as
previously worded violated their rights.

The current anti-camping ordinance applies to everyone regardless
if they live in a dwelling or on the street.

Essentially the courts have ruled everyone has the right to sleep.
If they lack a place to do so or for whatever reason they wish
regardless of their living quarters status anyone can sit or lie on
public property as long as it doesn't break other existing laws or
create a safety hazard such as sleeping in the street. The
ordinance states a person can sit or lie on public property between
the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.

At the same time a camping ordinance that has been in place for a
number of years prohibits camping on private property except for as
noted in certain conditions in a residential area.

Basically anyone can sit or lie on public property between 11 p.m.
and 6 p.m. unless other laws are being violated. As an example,
almost all city parks are closed to everyone from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Breaching areas secured with fencing is trespassing. Not providing
adequate passage on a sidewalk could violate the Americans with
Disabilities Act. In addition the city has declared some public
property off limits such as the Manteca Transit Center and the
Manteca Veterans Center on Moffat Boulevard.

Given that still leaves plenty of options for people to lie down or
sit from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. on public property the City of Manteca
believes how they enforce the anti-camping as well as sleeping on
public property passes legal muster. [GN]


MARIN COUNTY, CA: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Perez et al. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VERONICA PEREZ; ALICIA
BALENCIA; CLARISSA CHUI; JOLIE CLARK; SARAH COLTON; DIELLY DIAZ;
LAURA ESTRADA-SHEPHERD; CHELSEA GEYER; ANDREA GONZALEZ; ROSIE
HERNANDEZ; TERESA HIGUERA-TABASSI; ALANA KAPUST; LORRY KRONE; ERIN
LYNCH; JILL MAIER; MILA MALDONADO; DULCE McALLISTER; SASHA CHELSEA
McGOWAN; HALEY MEARS; TONY MILANI; MOLLY MILLER; LOREN ROTHBERRY;
KRISTIN SHORE; DAVID SLOTTERBACK; DANIEL SOLIS; and TRACY VEGA, the
Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF MARIN; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
the Defendant, Case 3:18-cv-04938-EDL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Elizabeth D. Laporte entered an order on Jan. 15, 2019:

   1. conditionally certifies three-opt in classes defined as:

      Class A:

      "all persons employed by the County of Marin in the
      following classifications after August 14, 2015, who were in

      positions classified as exempt under the Fair Labor
      Standards Act, and who were not compensated for overtime
      worked: Child Welfare Worker I, Child Welfare Worker I
      Bilingual, Child Welfare Worker II, and Child Welfare Worker

      II Bilingual";

      Class B:

      "all persons employed by the County of Marin in the
      following classifications after August 14, 2015, who were in

      positions classified as exempt under the Fair Labor
      Standards Act, and who were not compensated for overtime
      worked: Social Service Unit Supervisor in the Department of
      Health and Human 19 Services, Social Services Division,
      Children & Family Services Program"; and

      Class C:

      "all persons employed by the County of Marin in the
      following classifications after August 14, 2015, who were in

      positions classified as exempt under the Fair Labor
      Standards Act, and who were not compensated for overtime
      worked: Senior Support Services Worker and Senior Support
      Services Worker Bilingual in the Department of Health and
      Human Services, Social Services Division, Children & Family
      Services Program"; and

   2. directing the The County of Marin to provide the names, last

      known mailing and email addresses, dates of employment and
      job classifications for all class members within ten days of

      the issuance of this order.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          David W. Kesselman, Esq.
          Trevor V. Stockinger, Esq.
          Kara McDonald, Esq.
          KESSELMAN BRANTLY STOCKINGER LLP
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 690
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 307-4555
          Facsimile: (310) 307-4570
          E-mail: dkesselman@kbslaw.com
                  tstockinger@kbslaw.com
                  kmcdonald@kbslaw.com

               - and -

          Michael D. McLachlan, Esq.
          Edward M. Chavez, Esq.
          McLACHLAN LAW, APC
          2447 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 100
          Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
          Telephone: (310) 954-8270
          Facsimile: (310) 954-8271
          E-mail: mike@mclachlan-law.com
                  edward@mclachlan-law.com

MARRIOT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Esquerra Suit in Maryland
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marriott
International, Inc. The case is captioned as ANDREA DURKEE; and
NATHAN ESQUERRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARRIOT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 8:19-cv-00047-GJH (D. Md., Jan. 4, 2019). The case is referred
to Judge George Jarrod Hazel.

Marriott International, Inc. operates, franchises, and licenses
hotel, residential, and timeshare properties worldwide. Marriott
International, Inc. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in
Bethesda, Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARRIOTT INT'L: Reinsurers Speculate over Nature of Cyber Loss
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Gallin, writing for Reinsurance News, reports that following
the major cyber attack and resulting data breach of one of the
Marriott hotel chain's reservation systems, Reinsurance News spoke
with the Co-Head of Property Claim Services (PCS), Tom Johansmeyer,
about the nature of the event and expected industry loss.

The breach, announced on November 30th, led the insurance and
reinsurance industry to expect a sizeable cyber risk loss, with PCS
later designating the breach under its PCS Global Cyber product.

AIR estimates that the event could result in an insurable loss of
between $200 million and $600 million, a broad range which
highlights the uncertainty about the data stolen, as well as the
inherent complexity when estimating the potential insurable loss
from a large cyber event.

"The global reinsurance market is busy speculating as to what the
biggest question is around this cyber loss. Some point to the
potential for third-party losses to affect the program. Others
suggest that this could be a test of whether GDPR and other fines
and penalties could be covered. Those are important concerns, but
it's still too soon.

"For now, I'd focus on whether the consumer notification process
will be sufficient. Email notification and push to an online
presence is certainly low cost, which would affect the claim.
However, the process for registering for monitoring requires a
phone call. And with the number of records affected and timeframe
involved, there could be issues with whether any of the email
addresses used with the hotel chain by customers are now secondary
accounts. If they aren't actively used, one could miss the
notification, affecting take-up rates, and thus leading to
questions about the effectiveness of the approach," said
Mr. Johansmeyer.

Another issue surrounding the Marriott breach concerns the security
and reissuance of passports, which, Mr. Johansmeyer explains might
not be as bad as initially thought.

"Some countries only issue passports for five years. Given how long
the breach went on before discovery, many may not be valid any
longer. Even for passports issued for ten years, the duration of
the breach suggests that a decent number of them expired. Any extra
costs or risk associated for the need for reissuance (particularly
in the context of third-party) might be mitigated as a result,"
said Mr. Johansmeyer.

Regarding the potential for third-party impacts to extend the tail
risks of this event, Mr. Johansmeyer said that while the global
reinsurance market is abuzz about the class action litigation that
looms, this might not be the case for this affirmative cyber loss.

"Given the number of people affected -- even if de-duping brings it
down -- notification could become more expensive if the current
approach isn't deemed sufficient, or if there's disproportionately
and unexpectedly high monitoring take-up. That could turn it all
into a first-party loss and potentially shorten the tail
considerably," said Mr. Johansmeyer.

While uncertainty remains, some in the global reinsurance industry
have suggested that the Marriott breach might well be a test
whether GDPR fines and penalties could be covered, but
Mr. Johansmeyer said that with this event, it might not be the GDPR
learning curve that some had suggested.

"As with the potential for third-party to affect the loss, if
first-party is sufficient, then GDPR wouldn't get the opportunity
to factor into this event. Based on the market intelligence we
collected to develop our initial industry loss estimate, PCS
figures that this will be a loss without the GDPR learning
opportunity the sector craves," said Mr. Johansmeyer.

This event certainly has the potential to be the largest standalone
or affirmative cyber insurance loss ever, and if there's any
spillover into other policies it might well become another large
market-wide cyber loss, which could ultimately impact reinsurance
players. [GN]


MASTERGAS USA: Lantieri Seeks Overtime Pay for Cashiers
-------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE LANTIERI, an individual, ALFRED CASTILLO, an individual,
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MASTERGAS
USA, INC., a Florida profit corporation, and OSVALDO RABELO FILHOS,
an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-60128-KMW (S.D.
Fla., Jan. 15, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under Florida law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, within the past three years, the
Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as cashiers or store clerks at
a Chevron-branded gas station operated by Defendants and located at
2750 Sheridan Street, Hollywood, Florida 33020, and their supposed
pay rate was $9 per hour. The Defendants managed and operated the
gas station, employed Plaintiffs, and made all significant
decisions regarding the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs'
employment, including but not limited to, hiring Plaintiffs and
deciding their rates of pay, their schedules, their hours, their
job duties, and their benefits.

In the course of their employment with Defendants, the Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated employees worked the number of hours
required of them and regularly were required by Defendants to work
in excess of 40 hours per workweek but did not receive time and
one-half their regular hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 per
week. Instead, the Defendants would pay the Plaintiffs cash
payments at their regular rates of pay for all hours over 40 per
week. As a result, the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated are
owed a half-time rate for all overtime hours worked, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Jacob K. Auerbach, Esq.
          GALLUP A. UERBACH
          4000 Hollywood Boulevard
          Presidential Circle-Suite 265 South
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: 954 894-3035
          Facsimile: 954 894-8015
          E-mail: jauerbach@gallup-law.com
          Web: http://www.gallup-law.com


MDL 2741: Garrison vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled RICHARD GARRISON, the Plaintiff, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, BAYER CORPORATION, and BAYER AG, Defendants, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00752, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Jan. 17, 2019.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.:
3:19-cv-00280-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
          WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
          865 S. Dixie Dr.
          Vandalia, OH 45377
          Telephone: 937 435-7500
          Facsimile: 937 435-7511
          E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com

MDL 2741: Ottinger vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled NINA OTTINGER, the Plaintiff, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01370, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco) on Jan. 16, 2019. The Northern District
of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.: 3:19-cv-00274-VC to
the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Russell W. Lewis IV, Esq.
          Kori Westbrook, Esq.
          JOHNSON LAW GROUP
          1019 16th Avenue South
          Nashville, TN 37212
          Phone: (615) 200-1122
          Facsimile: (866) 902-8647
          E-mail: rlewis@johnsonlawgroup.com
                  kwestbrook@johnsonlawgroup.com

MDL 2741: Peabody v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled RICKEY PEABODY, the Plaintiff, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00318 (Dec. 26,
2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for Eastern
District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on Jan. 17, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.:
3:19-cv-00276-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Mason Lee Boling, Esq.
          Sean T. Keith, Esq.
          KEITH, MILLER, BUTLER,
          SCHNEIDER & PAWLIK, P.L.L.C.
          224 South Second Street
          Rogers, AR 72756
          Telephone: (479) 621-0006
          E-mail: mboling@arkattorneys.com
                  skeith@arkattorneys.com

MDL 2741: Scott v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled SHERRIE SCOTT, the Plaintiff, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00522 (Dec. 12,
2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for Eastern
District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on Jan. 17, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.:
3:19-cv-00296-VC  to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Russell W. Lewis IV, Esq.
          Kori Westbrook, Esq.
          JOHNSON LAW GROUP
          1019 16th Avenue South
          Nashville, TN 37212
          Telephone: (615) 200-1122
          Facsimile: (866) 902-8647
          E-mail: rlewis@johnsonlawgroup.com
                  kwestbrook@johnsonlawgroup.com

MDL 2873: Battisti vs. 3M Company over AFFF Products Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, DAVID BATTISTI; REGINA SAUERACKER; MARY ANN BENSON; SUSAN
SCHELL; CAROL SMITH and GERALD SMITH, her husband; and ANITA
PRINGLE and DAVID PRINGLE, her husband; for themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.); TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS L.P., as successor-in-interest to THE ANSUL COMPANY;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC. (f/k/a CHUBB NATIONAL FOAM, INC. f/k/a
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.), individually and as successor in interest to
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC. (f/k/a WILLIAMS US INC. f/k/a
WILLIAMS HOLDINGS, INC.), individually and as successor in interest
to NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC. (f/k/a FENWAL INC.),
individually and as successor-in-interest to NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE
INTERLOGIX, INC.), individually and as successor-in-interest to
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-00642, was
removed from the U.S. District Court for the  Middle District of
Florida, to the the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina (Charleston) on Jan. 16, 2019. The District of South
Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00143-RMG to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Honorable Richard M
Gergel. The lead case is Case No. 2:18-mn-02873-RMG.

The Plaintiffs bring this cause of action for medical monitoring
and property damage as a result of their exposure to water
contaminated with toxic chemicals resulting from Defendants'
harmful and defective products, aqueous firefighting foams ("AFFF")
and other materials containing perfluorochemicals (PFCs) including
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related fluorochemicals
that can degrade to perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") or PFOS, which
were released onto the ground, into the environment and infiltrated
the groundwater and Plaintiffs' drinking/potable water.

The Battisti case is being cosolidated with MDL 2873 in RE: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation.

3M Company, is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, health care, and consumer
goods.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          James L. Ferraro, Esq.
          Janpaul Portal, Esq.
          James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
          THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
          Brickell World Plaza
          600 Brickell Avenue, 38 th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone (305) 375-0111
          Facsimile (305) 379-6222
          E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
                  jpp@ferrarolaw.com
                  jjr@ferrarolaw.com

MENZGOLD: Consultant Calls for Liquidation, Class Action Mulled
---------------------------------------------------------------
GhanaWeb reports that a financial consultant Charles Mensah has
called for the liquidation of the assets of gold dealership firm,
Menzgold to pay aggrieved customers.

The financial advisor believes that it's the surest way to get
funds to settle customers who have been demonstrating for their
investments to be paid.

But for the timely intervention by the police, Dec. 24 there would
have been a mass suicide by Menzgold clients on one of Accra's
major highways (N1 Highway).

Police had been deployed to the headquarters of Menzgold to offer
protection to property as well as persons, after customers whose
funds are locked up with the firm, massed up to protest the failure
of the company to pay back their funds.

Director of Operations at the Accra Regional Police Command, Supt.
Kwesi Ofori, told Joy News the angry Menzgold customers rushed onto
the road to carry out their plan, defying the high-speed at which
vehicles were approaching.

Speaking in an interview with Evans Mensah on Newsnite on Joy FM,
Mr Charles Mensah said the right action to take now is to request
for the liquidation of the company because of what is happening.

"The Registrar General can request for liquidation of the company
by virtue of what is happening," he said and added that, "they can
have a class action [approach] the court to ensure that there is a
compulsory liquidation to the extent that the liabilities of the
company cannot be met so they can liquidate."

He explained that when that happens the "assets of Menzgold, the
directors' personal assets they can lift the veil of incorporation
and sell those assets and then they begin to distribute to…those
who have invested.

He cautioned that it was a high-risk venture because as long as one
is earning high returns, the downside is that there is a high-risk
venture and "they've lost."

Mr Charles Mensah wondered how the government would come in and
help salvage the situation.

In a country where there are regulations, the Financial consultant
noted, "anybody who invests in a venture where they are not
regulated in itself is a challenge and I was thinking that it was a
signal for people to pull out" but that did not happen.

Thousands of customers of the gold dealership firm have for months
now, are unable to access their investments after the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) ordered its closure, due to its
unregulated business model.

Menzgold had earlier in the month, asked its staff to proceed on
leave following increasing threats to its properties as well as
staff of the company.

The December 4 statement also added that the company has been
advised by the authorities to halt both online and offline trading
to enable the authorities to assess the system and present a final
say to the public and the company.

But SEC has said its directives to the company do not in any way
stop it from paying monies they had taken from the clients. [GN]


MINDBODY INC: Johnson Fistel Investigates Proposed Sale
-------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP has launched an
investigation into whether the board members of MINDBODY, Inc.
(NASDAQ:MB) ("MINDBODY") breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed sale of the Company to Vista Equity
Partners ("Vista").

On December 24, 2018, MINDBODY announced that it had signed a
definitive merger agreement with Vista. Under the terms of the
merger agreement, Vista will acquire all outstanding shares of
MINDBODY common stock for $36.50 in cash per share of MINDBODY
common stock.

The investigation concerns whether the MINDBODY board failed to
satisfy its duties to the Company shareholders, including whether
the board adequately pursued alternatives to the acquisition and
whether the board obtained the best price possible for MINDBODY
shares of common stock. Nationally recognized Johnson Fistel is
investigating whether the proposed deal represents adequate
consideration, especially given that one Wall Street analyst has a
$45.00 price target on the stock, and analysts' projections for
future earnings and revenue growth. The 52-week high for MINDBODY
was $45.50.

If you are a shareholder of MINDBODY and believe the proposed
buyout price is too low or you're interested in learning more about
the investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please contact
lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If
emailing, please include a phone number.

                    About Johnson Fistel, LLP:

Johnson Fistel, LLP -- https://www.johnsonfistel.com -- is a
nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in
California, New York, and Georgia. The firm represents individual
and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and
securities class action lawsuits. [GN]


MONDELEZ GLOBAL: Kennedy Alleges Mislabeling of Graham Crackers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Kennedy individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Mondelez Global LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00302 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 15. 2019), contends that the
Defendant' s label of its Honey Maid brand Graham crackers is
misleading and deceptive, and creates an erroneous impression that
graham flour is the predominant or exclusive flour component, as
opposed to white flour.  The lawsuit says the main ingredient in
the Products is not graham flour but white flour -- unbleached
enriched flour -- indicated on the ingredient list in miniscule
font below the nutrition facts on the side panel.

The Honey Maid brand has existed for almost 100 years and is
synonymous with graham crackers, similar to other well-known
consumer brands like Kleenex (facial tissues) and Vaseline
(petroleum jelly). The common front label representations include
"Honey Maid," "Made with Real Honey," "8g of Whole Grain per 31g
serving," "No High Fructose Corn Syrup," the flavor variety, if
any, and a statement of identity that the Products are "Grahams."
Graham flour is a type of coarse-ground whole wheat flour, made
from the whole grain.  Consumers increasingly seek flours made from
whole grain for its numerous health benefits compared to refined
white flour, also referred to as unbleached enriched flour.

The lawsuit claims the practice of passing off refined white flour
mixed with small amounts of coarser bran (whole wheat) flour is a
practice which has existed for over 100 years. While the form of
the misleading practice has changed, deceptive representations of
the amount of graham flour in products has not. Excluding tax, the
Products cost no less than $2.99, a premium price compared to other
similar products, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

               - and -

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          1 Penn Plaza, Suite 2527
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 792-0046
          E-mail: joshua@levinepstein.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Binghams Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR BINGHAM and CAROLYN BINGHAM HIATT, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00059 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 15, 2019), seeks to recover damages
suffered by the 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 Plaintiffs say that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jessica L. Richman, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone: (516) 723-4627
          Facsimile: (516) 723-4727
          E-mail: jrichman@yourlawyer.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Campbell Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID CAMPBELL, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00084 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 16, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by the 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 says 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's 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 the 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:

          Russell W. Lewis IV, Esq.
          Kori Westbrook, Esq.
          JOHNSON LAW GROUP
          1019 16th Avenue South
          Nashville, TN 37212
          Telephone: (615) 200-1122
          Facsimile: (866) 902-8647
          E-mail: rlewis@johnsonlawgroup.com
                  kwestbrook@johnsonlawgroup.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Garner Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES GARNER, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00051 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 15, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by the 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 says 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's 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 the 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:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC.
          9500 Nall Ave., Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207-2950
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
          Telephone: (913) 451 3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839 0567

MONSANTO COMPANY: Herr Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Herr, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00056-SPM (E.D. Mo., Jan. 15, 2019), seeks to
recover damages suffered by the 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 says 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's 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 the 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:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC.
          9500 Nall Ave., Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207-2950
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
          Telephone: (913) 451 3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839 0567

MONSANTO COMPANY: Ledvina Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD LEDVINA, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00048-PLC (E.D. Mo., Jan. 15, 2019), seeks to
recover damages suffered by the 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 says 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's 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 the 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:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC.
          9500 Nall Ave., Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207-2950
          Telephone: (913) 451 3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839 0567
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Salamone Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
PHYLLIS SALAMONE, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00058 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 15, 2019), seeks
to recover damages suffered by the 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 says 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's 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 the 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:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Stewart Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM STEWART, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00060 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 16, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by the 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 says 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's 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 the 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:

          Eric D. Holland, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314-241-8111
          Facsimile 314-241-5554
          E-mail: eholland@allfela.com

               - and -

          Jessica L. Richman, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone: (516) 723-4627
          Facsimile: (516) 723-4727
          E-mail: jrichman@yourlawyer.com

NEINSTEIN LLP: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
Reuters reported that a judge approved a settlement in a certified
class action that alleged a breach of the Solicitors Act, according
to Neinstein LLP, the firm named in the case, Hodge v. Neinstein.

While it is unclear how many clients will actually make claims, the
firm could pay up to $4 million, a figure yielded by an estimate
submitted for court approval Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul
Perell, says Greg Neinstein, managing partner at the firm. Duncan
Embury, a partner at the firm, says it is impossible to know how
much the firm will ultimately pay out.

The case centered on whether there was a breach of the Solicitors
Act, which says that a contingency fee agreement should not include
a payment to the lawyer resulting from a costs award or settlement
costs, according to a 2017 Court of Appeal decision on the matter.

The dispute was the "canary in a coal mine" of the confusion in the
profession around the wording and interpretation of the Solicitors
Act, which has since been clarified by the Law Society of Ontario
and the provincial government, Neinstein says.

"When there was obvious confusion, we acted immediately and we are
proud of that," says Embury.

"We continue to believe that access to justice is one of the most
fundamental rights in our society and its important it be achieved
in an open and transparent way." [GN]


OASIS OUTSOURCING: Isha Smith Seeks Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------
ISHA SMITH, and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, vs. OASIS OUTSOURCING INC., the Defendant(s), Case No.
9:19-cv-80055-DMM (S.D. Fla., Jan. 15, 2019), seeks damages
exceeding $15,000 excluding attorneys' fees or costs resulting from
Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff performed work for
Defendant from on or about May 27, 2018 to on or about August 11,
2018 as a manager. The Plaintiff was paid $10.00 hourly and
bi-weekly in the form of a check.  The Plaintiff's hours were
recorded by digit entering and the Plaintiff always clocked in and
out of work. The Plaintiff worked about a total of 40 hours per
week. The Plaintiff would usually stay to cover other employees
after her own shift, but would not get compensated for her time.
The Plaintiff's hours compensated for never aligned with her actual
hours worked. The Plaintiff complained about these discrepancies,
but was also presented with excuses as to why they did not pay
her.

The Plaintiff contends she is owed between about 40-50 hours, about
$400.00 to $500.00 in unpaid wages. Once Plaintiff realized that
was owed that amount and that she would not be compensated, she
quit the company (Checkers Fast-Food Restaurant), the lawsuit
says.

Oasis Outsourcing Holdings Inc. operates as a professional employer
organization that provides workforce solutions for businesses in
the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Rainier Regueiro, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Comeau Building
          319 Clematis Street, Suite 606
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 225-1970
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: rregueiro@rgpattorneys.com

PACIFIC COAST: Faces Garcia Suit in Sacramento, California
----------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
JOSE GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PACIFIC COAST SUPPLY LLC; and DOES 1-100,
Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00247748-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., Jan. 4, 2019)

Pacific Coast Supply, LLC, through its subsidiaries, markets and
distributes building materials. The company was founded in 1960 and
is based in North Highlands, California. Pacific Coast Supply, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of Pacific Coast Building Products, Inc.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Douglas Han, Esq.


PANDORA MEDIA: Faces 8 Suits over Sirius XM Merger
--------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 18, 2019, that the
company is facing eight purported class action suits related to its
merger agreement with Sirius XM Holdings Inc.

On September 23, 2018, Pandora Media, Inc. ("Pandora") entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger
Agreement") with Sirius XM Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation
("Sirius XM"), and White Oaks Acquisition Corp., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sirius XM ("Merger
Sub").

On October 25, 2018, Sirius XM Radio Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Sirius XM ("Sirius XM Radio"), Billboard Holding
Company, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pandora ("New Holding
Company"), and Billboard Acquisition Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of New Holding Company ("Holdco Merger Sub") entered
into a joinder agreement to become parties to the Merger
Agreement.

Following the announcement of the Merger Agreement, eight purported
class action complaints have been filed on behalf of Pandora's
stockholders against Pandora and its directors and one complaint
has been brought by an individual holder of Pandora common stock;
six of these matters in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, two in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware, and one in the Superior Court
of California for the County of Alameda.

The complaints are captioned as follows: Kapela v. Pandora Media,
Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal.); Knapp v. Pandora Media, Inc., et al.
(N.D. Cal.); Gallant v. Pandora Media, Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal.);
Thompson v. Pandora Media, Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal.); Dawson v.
Pandora Media, Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal.); Raul v. Pandora Media,
Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal.); Sciabacucchi v. Pandora Media, Inc., et
al. (D. Del.); Staab v. Pandora Media, Inc., et al. (D. Del.); and
Irvin v. Pandora Media, Inc., et al. (Cal. Sup. Ct.).

The Kapela, Sciabacucchi, and Dawson matters also name Sirius XM
and Merger Sub as defendants. The Irvin matter has been dismissed
without prejudice. The company refers to these nine actions
collectively as the "Merger Litigation".

Pandora believes that the claims asserted in the Merger Litigation
are without merit and supplemental disclosures are not required or
necessary under applicable laws. However, in order to avoid the
risk of the Merger Litigation delaying or adversely affecting the
transactions and to minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties
inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or
wrongdoing, Pandora is voluntarily supplementing the Proxy
Statement. In consideration for these supplemental disclosures,
plaintiffs in the actions have agreed to voluntarily dismiss the
actions.

Pandora and the other named defendants deny that they have violated
any laws or breached any duties to Pandora's stockholders. Pandora
and the other named defendants are providing these supplemental
disclosures solely to eliminate the burden and expense of
litigation and to avoid any possible disruption to the merger that
could result from further litigation.

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

The supplemental disclosures will not affect the merger
consideration to be received by stockholders of Pandora in
connection with the transactions or the timing of the special
meeting of the stockholders of Pandora scheduled for January 29,
2019, at 9:00 a.m. Pacific time, at Cathedral of Christ the Light
Event Center, Conference Room AB, 2121 Harrison St., Oakland, CA
94612. The Pandora board of directors continues to recommend that
Pandora stockholders vote "FOR" the merger agreement proposal and
"FOR" the other proposals being considered at the special meeting.

Pandora Media, Inc. provides music discovery platform services in
the United States and internationally. The company offers streaming
radio and on-demand music services, which enable the listeners to
create personalized stations and playlists, as well as search and
play songs and albums on-demand. Pandora Media, Inc. was founded in
2000 and is headquartered in Oakland, California.


PFIZER INC: Al Haj Class Certification Bid Continued to March 6
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Karmel Al Haj, et al., the
Plaintiff, vs. Pfizer Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06730
(N.D. Ill.), Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman entered an order continuing
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of class
counsel to March 6, 2019.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on Jan. 15, 2019,
status hearing held and continued to March 6, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. The
Plaintiff's motion to intervene is withdrawn. Joint oral motion to
extend time to respond to summary judgment motion is granted. The
Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant's summary judgment motion by
Feb. 1, 2019; and reply due is by March 1, 2019. For the reasons
stated on the record, Plaintiff's motion for class certification
and appointment of class counsel is entered and continued to March
6, 2019 at 9:00 a.m., with no briefing schedule set at this
time.[CC]

PLASTIPAK PACKAGING: Class Cert. Bid in Hernandez Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HECTOR HERNANDEZ, on his
own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. PLASTIPAK PACKAGING, INC., a foreign profit
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-02826-JSM-SPF (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge James S. Moody entered an order on Jan. 15,
2019, denying Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify Fair
Labor Standards Act Collective Action and facilitate notice to
potential class of:

   "all current and former Maintenance Mechanics employed by
   Plastipak Packaging, Inc., nationwide, within in [sic] three
   year period preceding November 22, 2017 (Putative Class), who
   worked over 40 hours in one or more workweeks and who were paid

   a shift differential in one or more such workweeks".

The Court, having reviewed the motion, response, and being
otherwise advised in the premises, concludes that Plaintiff's
motion should be denied because he has not established that
similarly situated employees desire to opt-in this action.[CC]

POWERLINE FUNDING: Benitez Files Suit Asserting TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mariano Benitez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Powerline Funding, LLC, a New York limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00098 (C.D. Cal.,
January 21, 2019) seeks to: (1) stop Defendant's practice of
placing calls using an "automatic telephone dialing system"
("ATDS") and/or using an "artificial or prerecorded voice" to the
cellular telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior
express written consent, (2) enjoin Defendant from continuing to
place autodialed and/or prerecorded telephone calls to consumers
who have elected to opt-out of receiving them, and (3) obtain
redress for all persons injured by Defendant's conduct. Plaintiff
also seeks an award of statutory damages to the members of the
Classes, plus court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

By making unauthorized prerecorded and/or autodialed calls,
Powerline has caused consumers actual harm, says the complaint.
This includes the aggravation, nuisance and invasions of privacy
that result from the placement of such calls. Furthermore, the
Defendant made the calls knowing they trespassed against and
interfered with Plaintiff and the other class members' use and
enjoyment of, and the ability to access, their cellphones,
including the related data, software, and hardware components, adds
the complaint.

Plaintiff Mariano Benitez is a natural person over the age of 18
who resides in Anaheim, Orange County, California.

Powerline Funding LLC is a limited liability company organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Aaron D. Aftergood, Esq.
     THE AFTERGOOD LAW FIRM
     1880 Century Park East, Suite 200
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 550-5221
     Facsimile: (310) 496-2840
     Email: aaron@aftergoodesq.com

          - and -

     Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
     Taylor T. Smith, Esq.
     WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
     3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
     Denver, CO 80210
     Phone: (720) 213-0675
     Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
     Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
            tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com


R.J. REYNOLDS: Removes Kec Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of NICHOLE KEC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. R.J. REYNOLDS
TOBACCO COMPANY; REYNOLDS AMERICAN, INC.; STACI MEYER; WILLIAM
ROTH; DANIEL HARRINGTON; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants,
filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Orange (Case No.
30-2018-01031808-CU-OE-CXC) to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on January 4, 2019. The clerk of
court for the Central District of California assigned Case No.
8:19-cv-00020-DOC-DFM. The case is assigned to Judge David O.
Carter and referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company manufactures and markets cigarettes
for adult tobacco consumers in the United States. The company was
founded in 1875 and is based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company operates as a subsidiary of R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Holdings, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Natalie Mirzayan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NATALIE MIRZAYAN
          26632 Towne Centre Drive Suite 300
          Foothill Ranch, CA 92610
          Telephone: (949) 285-3550
          E-mail: mirzayanlaw@outlook.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Steven M Zadravecz, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          3161 Michelson Drive Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612-4408
          Telephone: (949) 851-3939
          Facsimile: (949) 553-7539
          E-mail: szadravecz@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Allison Elizabeth Crow, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 California Street 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 626-3939
          Facsimile: (415) 875-5828
          E-mail: acrow@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Liat Yamini, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 South Flower Street 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 489-3939
          Facsimile: (213) 243-2539
          E-mail: lyamini@jonesday.com


REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS: Class Certification Sought in Reince Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Reince moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit captioned LINDA REINCE, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS
INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00095-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks
that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to
grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules
setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and
supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


RELIANT CAPITAL: Certification of Class Sought in Kasper Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Kasper moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit styled CARA KASPER, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. RELIANT CAPITAL
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00098 (E.D. Wisc.), and further
asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification
and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the
Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring
briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com


RENT-A-CENTER: May 3 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

ALAN HALL AND JAMES DEPALMA,

PLAINTIFFS,

CIVIL NO. 4:16-CV-00978-ALM-CMC

v.

RENT-A-CENTER, INC., ROBERT D.
DAVIS, AND GUY J. CONSTANT,

DEFENDANTS.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES

To:      All Persons Who Purchased or Otherwise Acquired
Rent-A-Center, Inc. Publicly-Traded Common Stock During the Period
from February 2, 2015 Through October 10, 2016, Inclusive and Who
Were Allegedly Damaged Thereby (the "Settlement Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas, that Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, on behalf of itself,
additional named plaintiff City of Hollywood Employees' Retirement
Fund, and the proposed Settlement Class, and Rent-A-Center, Inc.,
Robert D. Davis, and Guy J. Constant, (collectively, the
"Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the
above-captioned action (the "Action") in the amount of $11,000,000
that, if approved, will resolve the Action in its entirety (the
"Settlement").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Amos L. Mazzant, III of
the United District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, at the
Paul Brown United States Courthouse, 101 East Pecan Street,
Sherman, TX 75090, Courtroom 208, at 10:00 a.m. on May 3, 2019 (the
"Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine whether the
Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as
provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated
December 3, 2018; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund; and (iv) approve Lead
Counsel's Fee and Expense Application.  The Court may change the
date of the Settlement Hearing without providing another notice.
You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a
distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT.  If you have not yet received a Notice and Proof
of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of
these documents by visiting the website dedicated to the
Settlement, www.RentACenterSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by
contacting the Claims Administrator at:

         Hall v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.
         Claims Administrator
         P.O. Box 3727
         Portland, OR 97208-3727
        (877) 432-3842

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for
information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead
Counsel:

         Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
         LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
         140 Broadway
         New York, NY 10005
         www.labaton.com
         settlementquestions@labaton.com
        (888) 219-6877

If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or received no later than May 2, 2019.  If
you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid
Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by
all judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether
favorable or unfavorable.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice such that it is received no later than April 12, 2019.  If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application must
be filed with the Court and mailed to counsel for the Parties in
accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are
filed and received no later than April 12, 2019.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED: January 16, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS


RONALD ERDOS: Gallant Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jeremy P. Gallant, the
Plaintiff, vs. Ronald Erdos et al, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00039-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
certify class.  Erdos is the warden at Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC).

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]

RUBY IV LLC: Two Classes Certified Under FLSA in Kidwell Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Barry W. Ashe grants the Plaintiff's motion to
conditionally certify classes and denied the motion to strike the
Elaal and Sharaf Affidavits in the lawsuit captioned TAMMY KIDWELL,
et al. v. RUBY IV, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02052-BWA-MBN
(E.D. La.).

The Court conditionally certified these classes pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act:

   (1) All hourly workers working for the Defendants between
       June 13, 2015, and the present, to whom Defendants did not
       pay overtime compensation for hours worked over forty (40)
       in a workweek, including hostesses, managers and other
       hourly workers (collectively referred to as the "Overtime
       FLSA Collective"); and

   (2) All servers (waiters/waitresses) working for the
       Defendants between June 13, 2015, and the present, who
       were not paid $7.25/hour for hours worked under forty (40)
       in a workweek and/or the minimum overtime rate of $10.88
       for hours worked over forty (40) in a workweek (the
       "Server FLSA Collective").

Judge Ashe also rules that within 14 days of the date of this Order
& Reasons, the Defendants shall provide to the Plaintiffs' counsel
the names, last-known addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone
numbers, dates of employment, and work locations (by the name of
the particular Ruby/Ruba LLC) of all putative collective action
members.

Ms. Kidwell's proposed written notice to putative collective action
members and proposed opt-in consent forms are approved with certain
changes.  Counsel for the Plaintiffs shall submit to the Court
within five days of the date of this Order & Reasons for final
approval a revised proposed written notice that incorporates the
changes.

Counsel for the Plaintiffs shall have 30 days from the date that
the Court approves the revised proposed written notice to transmit
the notice and consent forms to the putative collective action
members via first-class mail, e-mail, and text message.

Opt-in plaintiffs are granted a period of 90 days from the date
that the notice and consent forms are mailed to return their signed
consent forms to the Plaintiffs' counsel via mail, e-mail, fax, or
electronic signature service.

The Defendants shall post the written notice and consent forms in
conspicuous locations at their headquarters and all of their IHOP
restaurant locations during the 90-day opt-in period.  The
Defendants and their management are prohibited from retaliating
against any individual, who exercises his or her right under the
FLSA or opts into this lawsuit.[CC]


SACRAMENTO, CA: Judge Set to Rule on County Jail Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crescenzo Vellucci, writing for Vanguard Sacramento Bureau, reports
that 'Tis the season to be jolly? Peace and goodwill to all? Well,
maybe not for some housed in Sacramento County jails.

Just days before Christmas, the Davis Vanguard was alerted that a
federal judge will soon rule on the certification of a federal
class action lawsuit against both Sacramento County jails -- the
filing charges the long-troubled facilities with "unconstitutional
and illegal treatment" of about 3,800 men and women, and has
subjected them to "dangerous, inhumane, and degrading conditions."

Details -- after the Vanguard analyzed the lawsuit describing the
treatment to inmates -- are disturbing and horrific in nature, and
unsuitable during these "happy" holidays when "peace and goodwill
to all" echoes through "the halls."

Declarations by Sacramento County Jail inmates/plaintiffs read in
large part like something prisoners of war might divulge -- wounds
not treated and allowed to rot, blindness caused by a failure of
treatment, no exposure to sunlight for months and even years, total
isolation with no access to human contact, inhumane conditions and
inhumane treatment.

A synopsis of those declarations by prisoner plaintiffs --
including some who have been incarcerated, still awaiting trials
for up to 10 years -- are available at the bottom of this story.

The lawsuit, filed last July 31, 2018, ensued after a several-year
negotiation with the County of Sacramento broke down.
https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/cases/mays-v-county-of-sacramento

The court has now signaled it's about to make a final ruling on the
certification of the suit as a class action, according to plaintiff
lawyers, Disability Rights California and the Prison Law Office. A
tentative ruling by a magistrate judge in November supported the
class action.

The downtown and Rio Cosumnes jails have long been considered to be
among the worst in the state and nation. Many organizations in
Sacramento have pushed for changes to no avail for the nearly 4,000
prisoners, the majority of which have not been convicted of a
crime.

Experts who have investigated the conditions at the Sacramento
County Jail for a decade or more said the conditions are "unlikely
to meet constitutional standards" and identified "serious
violations" of the rights of people with disabilities, according
the claims in the lawsuit.

According to the federal filing, the county fails to provide even
minimal medical care, doesn't screen for medical conditions and
does not respond in a "timely" manner to requests for medical care,
leaving prisoners at serious risk of injury or death.

"Individuals held in the county's jails have been denied essential
cancer treatment, lost their eyesight where treatment could have
prevented it, and faced needless pain and irreparable harms due to
delayed or denied care (failing) adequately screen people with
disabilities or provide them necessary accommodations, including
wheelchairs, canes, eyeglasses, hearing aids, and other items they
need to perform everyday activities," reads the lawsuit.

"The conditions that people with serious mental health needs and
disabilities face inside Sacramento County's jails are beyond the
pale," said Aaron Fischer, Litigation Counsel at Disability Rights
California.  "You don't have to take our word for it.  The County's
own consultants have condemned the jail system as dangerous,
inadequate, and dramatically out of step with contemporary
standards."

For example, Sacramento County locks up hundreds of people in
solitary confinement, where they spend all but a few hours a month
in a cell alone -- they usually don't see sunlight for months. The
suit said at least five people died by suicide in the last two
years, and hundreds of others became suicidal during that time.

The lawsuit alleges, in part: "Defendant regularly subjects people
in its custody -- the majority of whom have not been convicted of
any crime -- to harsh, prolonged, and undue isolation.  Every day,
Defendant locks up hundreds of people in solitary confinement in
dark, cramped, filthy cells for 23-1/2 hours or more per day.
While these individuals are held in isolation, Defendant deprives
them of human contact, programming, fresh air, and sunlight.  Many
people do not get outside to see the sun for weeks or months at a
time.  The extreme isolation and deprivation place people at
serious risk of profound physical and psychological harm."

"Defendant incarcerates people with serious mental illness at
dangerous and disproportionately high rates.  Defendant subjects
people with serious mental illness to extreme isolation, with
little or no mental health treatment. Defendant's failure to
provide minimally adequate mental health treatment -- combined with
the deplorable conditions of confinement in the jails --
exacerbates individuals' existing mental illnesses and increases
the likelihood that people will suffer serious decompensation or
death," further charges the complaint.

"Sacramento County is well aware of the serious problems inside its
jails," said Margot Mendelson, Staff Attorney at the Prison Law
Office.  "Our clients are entirely dependent on the jail system for
their health care and basic needs.  They are suffering needlessly
due to the County's failure to commit the resources to meet its
constitutional and legal obligations."

Disability Rights California and the Prison Law Office have
successfully litigated class action cases in jails throughout the
State regarding conditions of confinement.  "It remains our sincere
hope that this case can be resolved without the need for costly
litigation," said Aaron Fischer.  "But we are prepared to seek a
remedy in court to end the violation of our clients' rights.  Our
clients can wait no longer."

Plaintiff #1: "I am diagnosed with mastocytosis , which means that
I have chronic respiratory and allergy needs. On at least fifteen
occasions, I have been transported from the Jail to a hospital for
emergency medical care for intubations and anaphylaxis treatment. I
believe that proper treatment of my condition would have prevented
many, if not all, of my hospital emergency room visits.

"On one occasion, I told jail staff that I was experiencing hives
all over my body and shortness of breath due to an allergic
reaction. The medical staff accused me of lying and did not provide
me with the treatment I needed. I spent the night fearing that my
throat would close up entirely. And the itching was excruciating; I
scratched so much that my skin bled. When (staff) decided to
transport me to a hospital. The hospital kept me as an inpatient
for more than a month to recover from the incident.

"In 2015, medical staff told me that I need to see a glaucoma
specialist about my declining eyesight. I have reminded the Jail's
in-house ophthalmologist every time I see him, and I have submitted
numerous medical service requests about this…(three years later)
I have lost nearly all vision in my left eye. The vision in my
right eye has also deteriorated, I understand that I am at risk of
becoming permanently blind.

"I lost hope and it became difficult to cope in the isolated cell.
I felt lonely and afraid for my health. I was so stressed that I
could not take it anymore. I tried to end my life by swallowing
several pieces of metal I had found . I then created a noose out of
my bedsheets, wrapped it around my neck and attempted to hang
myself. I was told that jail staff found me unconscious on the
floor."

Plaintiff #2: "I am diagnosed with mental health disorders and take
psychotropic medications to manage my symptoms. I have struggled
with thoughts of suicide, and have attempted suicide on more than
one occasion. When I first arrived at Sacramento County
Jail…Staff placed me alone in a cell and did not permit me to
interact with other people. I received no more than thirty minutes
out of my cell every other day. This meant that I could not
communicate with my family.

"This, on top of the isolation, made me want to give up. I soon
stopped even leaving my cell during the minimal times I was
permitted. I also stopped bothering to get out of my bed for count.
I became mentally exhausted and suicidal.

"I have told staff that I felt suicidal on at least four occasions.
Each time, my clothes were taken away and I was either placed in a
cold cell or in a large classroom. The cell was a dark and bare
room with only a grate in the floor to use as a toilet. The
classroom was just as bad. It was brightly lit and surrounded by
wide windows for anyone (inmates, staff, and visitors) passing by
to see me in my most vulnerable state, with only a safety smock to
cover my body. Sometimes I would tell staff that I felt better in
order to escape the cell or the classroom, because of how
uncomfortable and humiliated I felt."

Plaintiff #3: "I am diagnosed with severe cataracts and have
limited vision. My doctor and jail medical staff have told me that
I need surgery to treat my cataracts, and that without timely
surgery, I am at risk of complete blindness (but) I have not
received such a surgery for over fourteen months. Without the
treatment that medical staff say I need, I have completely lost
vision in my right eye and the vision in my left eye continues to
get worse.

"I also experience increased and painful pressure behind my eyes.
Because of my untreated eye condition, I also often become too
dizzy to stand. Because of my limited and worsening vision, I asked
jail staff to place me in a cell on the lower tier, so that I did
not have scale the stairs to my bed. My request for this housing
accommodation was denied, and I was housed on an upper tier for
months. It was a scary journey every time I had to go down and up
the stairs for meals, medication, or other activities.

"(T)he jail held me in an isolation unit . . .  (but) I have been
diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorder,
and depressive disorder. My experience in isolation units in the
jail has aggravated my mental health symptoms in a way that I
believe will affect me the rest of my life . . . staff kept me
alone in my cell all day, except for no more than thirty minutes
every other day when staff permitted me to shower and use the
phone."

Plaintiff #4: "I was identified as a polytrauma patient, which
means I have experienced serious injuries to multiple parts of my
body, including a fractured pelvis and injuries to a network of
nerves that connect to my spinal cord. The jail refused to give me
a wheelchair when I asked for it. Instead, they gave me a walker
without wheels and that was too heavy for me to maneuver given my
condition. When I asked for a different walker that was lighter and
had wheels, medical staff did not provide one.

"As a result, I had a very difficult time getting around inside the
jail. I tripped over the walker many times. I was constantly dizzy,
in extreme pain, and exhausted. Many of the jail staff watched me
fall and even cry. I grew very tired of not being able to walk and
going through all of this, and I even considered suicide.

"In 2017, I was placed in disciplinary segregation for nearly one
month. The cell was small and filthy. The staff placed magnetic
slabs over the small window on the cell door. I could not see
outside of my cell to know the time of day or to see other people.
I had no normal interactions with other human beings. For weeks, I
was not permitted to leave my cell -- I could not take a shower,
make phone calls, or even take out the trash that was accumulating
in my cell."

Plaintiff #5: I no longer have function in the lower half of my
body, including in both of my legs. I use a wheelchair for mobility
(but) I cannot safely access many physical spaces and activities at
the jail.

"I cannot get into the confidential attorney visiting booth using
my wheelchair. The entrance to the booth is at a very sharp right
angle and is too narrow for my wheelchair. The threshold in the
doorway is also too high for my wheelchair to get over, and the
door itself is heavy and closes quickly without any way for me to
safely prop it open as I enter. Every visit from my attorney is a
harrowing experience for me.

"For each meeting, I have to leave my wheelchair outside of the
booth, which means that I have to maneuver my body into the
attorney booth in a way that is dangerous and painful. There is a
small steel stool that is anchored to the floor inside the booth,
which I cannot reach from the door without crawling across the
floor. Instead, I typically drag a plastic chair to the booth, and
heave it into the booth while I am still in my wheelchair.

"Once the plastic chair is in the room, I have to simultaneously
hold open the heavy door and hoist myself out of the wheelchair,
through the doorway, and into the plastic chair. Because the
attorney visiting booth is non-contact, my lawyer can do nothing
but watch me through the window partition while I do all of this.

"The showers in the unit where I am housed are inaccessible. There
is only one grab bar and the shower chair is old, flimsy and on
wheels. The first time I showered in the unit was a humiliating
experience. I fell out of the shower chair when it rolled and
became stuck in the drain. Without adequate supports around me, I
had to drag my body across the filthy shower floor and out of the
shower back to my wheelchair.

"I can only come out of my cell into the dayroom and watch
television. I rarely, if ever, get to go outside, and there is no
way for me to do exercises in the unit without assistance, which is
not provided. I did not have diabetes when I entered the jail, but
I do now, in part because I have no meaningful opportunities for
healthy exercise. I feel the way that I have to live, without
exercise or physical therapy, is breaking my spirit."

Plaintiff #6: (In custody, without trial, since 2010) "I have been
held in isolation…I am in a single cell and am not permitted to
have normal human interactions with other people. I am not allowed
to leave my cell for more than thirty minutes each day (and usually
much less than that).

"I rarely, if ever, get to go outside. I have not had real exposure
to sunlight for years. This has led to health problems. For
example, in 2016, I was diagnosed with a Vitamin D deficiency, a
condition I understand can be caused or worsened by inadequate
exposure to sunlight. My skin became covered in rashes and severely
itchy. The condition has kept me awake at night. Jail medical staff
have explained to me that the conditions of my confinement make me
more vulnerable to this health problem.

"Jail staff have also refused to provide the corrective lenses I
need for seeing and reading, even though I have requested this help
many times. As a result, I have had problems participating in my
court-ordered competency training, which involves reading written
materials. I have not received the assistance from jail staff that
I need to read and understand my documents.

"While an inmate at the jail, I was assaulted and suffered bad
injuries for which I did not receive the medical care I needed…my
hand was broken in several places, requiring pins to be surgically
placed in my hand to help it heal. But after the surgery, the pins
began causing me pain. I submitted several jail medical service
requests and verbally requested help…the pins even began to
pierce through my skin causing me to bleed. It developed into an
open wound. I complained and submitted medical requests for twelve
months before I finally received medical attention to address the
problem." [GN]


SPACE EXPLORATION: Burke Suit Asserts FCRA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Seymore Burke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp. dba
Space X, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00445 (C.D. Cal., January 21, 2019) challenges the actions
of Defendant with regard to Defendant's wrongful use of Plaintiff's
and the putative Class's credit reports, by failing to provide them
with copies of the findings, that caused damages.

In or about January 2017, Defendant obtained Plaintiff's consumer
credit report. The Defendants obtained Plaintiff's consumer credit
report as part of a "private investigation" it was conducting
pursuant to a background check required for employment with the
Defendant.

In the process of this private investigation, Plaintiff was not
provided any disclosures as required when Plaintiff's consumer
credit report is investigated as part of a background check for
employment. By doing so, Defendants improperly requested
Plaintiff's credit report without any permissible purpose. The
Defendant failed to provide to Plaintiff the required disclosure
for obtaining his consumer credit report for the purposes of
employment, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person, residing in the County of Orange, in
the State of California, who is a "consumer" as defined by the
FCRA.

Space X is a company located in Hawthorne, California, and
incorporated in Delaware, who conducts business in California and
is a "person" as that term is defined by the FCRA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     John R. Habashy, Esq.
     Tiffany N. Buda, Esq.
     Taryn E. Short, Esq.
     LEXICON LAW, PC
     633 W. 5th Street, 28th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (877) 529-5090
     Fax: (888) 373-2107
     Email: john@lexiconlaw.com
            tiffany@lexiconlaw.com
            taryn@lexiconlaw.com


STEARNS LENDING: Solarski & Schaeg Seek to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORI SOLARSKI and
CASSANDRA SCHAEG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. STEARNS LENDING, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01741-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal.), th Plaintiff
will move the Court on April 15, 2019, for an order:

   a. certifying a Class of:

      "all persons who had an FHA-Insured Loan secured by real
      property 28 in California that was originated between
      June 1, 1996 and January 20, 2015, where (i) Stearns was
      the mortgagee as of the date the total amount due on the
      FHA-Insured Loan was brought to zero, (ii) Stearns collected

      Post-Payment Interest on the FHA-Insured Loan during the
      applicable Limitations Period, and (iii) the borrower made a

      prepayment inquiry, request for payoff figures, or tender of

      prepayment but did not receive a Payoff Statement containing

      the verbatim Post-Payment Interest disclosure language in
      Housing Handbook, 4330.1 REV-5 Appendix 8(c) or the verbatim

      language contained in the "Payoff Disclosure" referenced in
      the Housing Handbook 7 4000.1."

      Excluded from the Class are Stearns, all officers,
      directors, and employees of Stearns, and their legal
      representatives, heirs, or assigns, and any Judges to whom
      the Action is assigned, their staffs, and their immediate
      families.;

   b. appointing Epps, Holloway, DeLoach & Holloway, LLC and
      Robins Kaplan, LLP as class counsel for the proposed Class;
      and

   c. appointing Lori Solarski as class representative.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100
          Mountain View, CA 94040
          Telephone: 650 784 4040
          Facsimile: 650 784 4041
          E-mail: mram@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Kevin E. Epps, Esq.
          Adam L. Hoipkemier, Esq.
          EPPS, HOLLOWAY, DELOACH & HOIPKEMIER, LLC
          1220 Langford Drive, Bldg. 200
          Watkinsville, GA 30677
          E-mail: kevin@ehdhlaw.com
                  adam@ehdhlaw.com

SYNCHRONY BANK: McMullen Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled VALERIE McMULLEN, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SYNCHRONY BANK, et
al., Case No. 1:14-cv-01983-JEB (D.D.C.), submits her Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Final Certification
of Class for Settlement Purposes.

Ms. McMullen informs the Court that Defendant Synchrony Bank does
not oppose her requested relief.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Salvatore J. Zambri, Esq.
          Patrick M. Regan, Esq.
          Christopher J. Regan, Esq.
          REGAN ZAMBRI LONG
          1919 M Street, NW, Suite 350
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 463-3030
          Facsimile: (202) 463-0667
          E-mail: szambri@reganfirm.com
                  pregan@reganfirm.com
                  cregan@reganfirm.com

               - and -

          Brendan J. Klaproth, Esq.
          Jesse C. Klaproth, Esq.
          KLAPROTH LAW PLLC
          406 5th Street NW, Suite 350
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 618-2344
          Facsimile: (202) 618-4636
          E-mail: bklaproth@klaprothlaw.com
                  jklaproth@klaprothlaw.com


TAKATA CORP: Court Approves $300MM Airbag Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Minnis, writing for Florida Record, reports that a federal
court judge in Florida has approved the nearly $300-million
settlement between Ford car owners and Japanese manufacturer Takata
Corp. over defective airbags motorists allege exploded when
deploying.

U.S. District Court Judge Federico Moreno signed off on the $299.1
million settlement on Dec. 20. The judge's ruling also ended a
dispute over attorney fees by stipulating that attorneys for the
plaintiffs receive $74,775,000, or 25 percent of the common fund.

The class-action suit followed one of the largest auto recalls in
history and came after the airbags in question were cited as having
caused severe injuries and even deaths in some cases.

In addition to Ford, Takata Corp. has a history of supplying
airbags to several other automakers, including Toyota and Honda.

In rendering his verdict on the issue of fees, Moreno asserted,
"The Court finds that the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable
and adequate based on the following factors, among other things:
(a) there is no fraud or collusion underlying the settlement
agreement; (b) the complexity,, expense, uncertainty and likely
duration of litigation in the action favor settlement on behalf of
the class; ( c) the settlement agreement provides meaningful
benefits to the class; and ( d) any and all other applicable
factors that favor final approval."

The Ford settlement is similar to others entered into over the
faulty airbags reached with automakers Toyota, BMW, Mazda, Subaru,
Nissan and Honda. Litigation is still pending with a list of
automakers that include GM, Fiat Chrysler, Volkswagen and
Mercedes-Benz.

Peter Prieto, a partner with the Florida based firm of Podhurst
Orseck, served as lead counsel for the plaintiffs over the duration
of the nearly two-year proceedings. [GN]


TAMPA BAY OPERATIONS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
DORRAINE COOPER-ROONEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAMPA BAY OPERATIONS, LLC; SWF
OPERATIONS, LLC; GULF COAST OPERATIONS, LLC; EM OPERATIONS, LLC;
PINE ISLAND OPERATIONS, LLC; SFDP OPERATIONS, LLC; WEHBE ROCKIN,
INC.; WEHBE JAMMIN, INC.; ERIN MULLINS; KEITH SMITH; and FREDDIE
WEHBE, Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-01399-SDM-MAP (M.D. Fla., Jan.
4, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Cooper-Rooney was employed by the Defendants as
delivery driver.

Tampa Bay Operations, LLC is a Florida limited liability company.
The Company operates Domino pizza stores. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 North Orange Avenue, 14th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
          E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Andrew Kimble, Esq.
          Philip Krzeski, Esq.
          MARKOVITS STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
                  akimble@msdlegal.com


TARGET CORP: Averts Cashier Class Action in Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Target Corp.
and Starbucks Corp. won't have to face a class action alleging
cashiers take a cut when customers try to add money to their
Starbucks accounts.

The suit is frivolous because the plaintiff didn't back up his
claims for fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or
negligence, Judge Edward J. Cleary of the Minnesota Court of
Appeals wrote Dec. 24 in an unpublished opinion.

Roy A. Day sued the companies after he attempted to deposit five
dollars in his Starbucks account at a location inside a Target
store but only one dollar was deposited.

He alleged Target's one-dollar minimum deposit allows cashiers to
credit the account just one dollar and pocket the rest.

Mr. Day can't proceed with a claim for fraud because he didn't
allege the companies made a false statement that he relied on and
lost money, the court said.

His distress claim failed too. "Although appellant may conclude
that the alleged theft of his four dollars is outrageous, such an
occurrence is not utterly intolerable to the civilized community,"
the court said.

His negligent hiring and supervision claims fail because he didn't
allege any physical harm, the court said.

Judges Louise Dovre Bjorkman and John R. Rodenberg joined the
opinion.

Mr. Day represented himself.

Counsel for Target and Starbucks didn't make appearances at the
appeals court.

The case is Day v. Target Corp., 2018 BL 476885, Minn. Ct. App.,
No. A18-0611, 12/24/18. [GN]


TOKYO ELECTRIC: Prosecutors Say Execs Fail to Safeguard Plant
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Chappell, writing for wvnc91.5, reports that the former
chairman and two vice presidents of the Tokyo Electric Power Co.
should spend five years in prison over the 2011 flooding and
meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, Japanese
prosecutors say, accusing the executives of failing to prevent a
foreseeable catastrophe.

Prosecutors say the TEPCO executives didn't do enough to protect
the nuclear plant, despite being told in 2002 that the Fukushima
facility was vulnerable to a tsunami. In March of 2011, it suffered
meltdowns at three of its reactors, along with powerful hydrogen
explosions.

"It was easy to safeguard the plant against tsunami, but they kept
operating the plant heedlessly," prosecutors said on Dec. 26,
according to The Asahi Shimbun. "That led to the deaths of many
people."

Former TEPCO Chairman Tsunehisa Katsumata, 78; former Vice
President Ichiro Takekuro, 72; and former Vice President Sakae
Muto, 68, face charges of professional negligence resulting in
death and injury. Messrs. Muto and Takekuro once led the utility's
nuclear division. All three have pleaded not guilty in Tokyo
District Court, saying they could not have predicted the tsunami.

The stricken plant triggered mandatory evacuations for thousands of
people. Prosecutors link 44 deaths to the incident, including a
number of hospital patients who were forced to leave their
facilities.

The sentencing recommendation came as prosecutors made their
closing arguments on Dec. 26, more than two years after the
executives were initially indicted.

The next step in the case will see a lawyer for victims and their
families speak in court on Dec. 27. But it won't be until March of
2019 that defense lawyers will deliver their closing arguments,
according to Japan's NHK News.

Hinting at what the defense's argument might be, NHK cites the
prosecutors saying, "the former executives later claimed that they
had not been informed, and that the executives put all the blame on
their subordinates."

The case has taken a twisting journey to arrive at this point. In
two instances, public prosecutors opted not to seek indictments
against the three TEPCO executives. But an independent citizen's
panel disagreed, and in early 2016, prosecutors in the case -- all
court-appointed lawyers -- secured indictments against the three
former TEPCO leaders.

Both TEPCO and the Japanese government lost a class-action lawsuit
in late 2017, when a court found that officials had not prepared
enough for potential disaster at the Fukushima power plant. In that
case, the Fukushima district court ordered payments totaling nearly
$4.5 million to about 3,800 plaintiffs.

All told, around 19,000 people are estimated to have died in
eastern Japan's triple disaster that included a powerful earthquake
off the coast of Tohoku, a devastating tsunami, and the worst
nuclear meltdown since the Chernobyl catastrophe of 1986.

In September, Japan's government announced the first death due to
radiation that was released at the Fukushima plant.

The region is still sharply feeling the results of the calamity. As
of late November, more than 30,000 people who fled the area had
still not returned, Kyodo News reports. [GN]


TRANS WORLD: Class Cert. Bid in Spack et al. Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CAROL SPACK, TABITHA SCHMIDT,
the Plaintiffs, vs. TRANS WORLD ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION; RECORD
TOWN, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01335-TJM-CFH
(N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Christian F. Hummel entered an order on
Jan. 15, 2019:

   1. granting in part Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify
      as a collective action pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act
      section 216(b):

      (a) Plaintiffs may conditionally certify their
          misclassification claim as to Store Managers,

      (b) Plaintiffs are permitted to set up a website, within the
          confines specified;

      (c) Plaintiffs are granted permission to send one reminder
          notice by U.S. mail; and

      (d) Defendants are ordered to post the Court-approved notice
          form in a conspicuous location in each of their stores
          for the entire duration of the notice period;

   2. denying in part Plaintiff's Motion to Conditionally Certify
      as a Collective Action pursuant to FLSA section 216(b):

      (a) Plaintiffs' request to certify their off-the-clock claim
          is denied;

      (b) Plaintiffs' request to allow potential opt-in plaintiffs
          to submit their consent to join forms by e-mail,
          website, or fax is denied; and

      (c) Plaintiffs' request to send a reminder notice by e-mail
          is denied;

   3. permitting Plaintiffs to distribute the Court-authorized
      notice form;

   4. accepting proposed consent form with the edits;

   5. accepting proposed reminder form with the edits;

   6. considering as potential Plaintiffs all those who were
      employed as SMs for at least one week from April 1, 2014,
      to the date of the Memorandum-Decision & Order;

   7. directing Defendants to provide to Plaintiffs, within 21
      days of the date of this Memorandum-Decision & Order -- by
      February 5, 2019 -- the names, work locations, dates of
      employment, telephone numbers, work e-mail addresses, and
      last known addresses of all current and former Store
      Managers who worked at any of the TWEC locations in the
      United States for at least one week from April 1, 2014, to
      the date of the Memorandum-Decision & Order;

   8. directing that the notice period is 60 days, beginning on
      February 5, 2019 -- the date by which Defendants' must turn
      over to plaintiffs the information specified above -- and
      ending on April 6, 2019; and

   9. directing the Clerk of the Court to serve the Memorandum-
      Decision & Order on the parties in accordance with the Local

      Rules.[CC]

TRUSTMARK NATIONAL: Files Motion to Disqualify 2 Attorneys
----------------------------------------------------------
Jimmie E. Gates, writing for Mississippi Clarion Ledger, reports
that Trustmark National Bank has yet to answer a federal
class-action lawsuit against the bank over overdraft fees, but it
has filed a motion to disqualify two Washington-based attorneys
from the lawsuit.

Trustmark said in the motion filed that attorneys Jeffrey Kaliel
and Sophia Gold of the Washington, D.C., law firm Kaliel PLLC made
an unauthorized appearance in the case.

The complaint shows that it was submitted by attorneys Christopher
J. Weldy, Mr. Kaliel and Ms. Gold as attorneys for plaintiffs,
according to Trustmark.

Trustmark said Mr. Weldy is licensed to practice in Mississippi,
but Mr. Kaliel and Gold are not licensed to practice in Mississippi
and have not been admitted to practice in the specific case by a
judge.

"Attorneys Kaliel and Gold have made an unlawful appearance in this
court in violation of Local Rule 83, for which the penalty is
mandatory disqualification," Trustmark Attorney David Kaufman said
in the court motion.

Earlier in December, two Mississippi women filed the lawsuit.

Cryesha McDonald of Waynesboro and Chantal Lewis of Jackson alleged
Trustmark routinely assesses overdraft fees on transactions that
didn't actually overdraft an account.

The lawsuit also alleges Trustmark has a policy of assessing two
out-of-network automated teller machine fees on a single cash
withdrawal and three out-of-network fees on ATM withdrawals
preceded by a purported balance inquiry.

According to the lawsuit, the moment a debit card transaction is
authorized on an account with positive funds, Trustmark immediately
reduces the consumer's checking account balance by the amount of
the purchase and the set-aside funds to cover the transaction.

Despite putting aside sufficient available funds for debit card
transactions at the time transactions are authorized, Trustmark
later will often assess overdraft fees on those same transactions
when they purportedly settle days later into a negative balance,
according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit is seeking restitution of all fees paid, compensatory
damages and injunctive relief.

Mr. Kaufman said on Dec. 26 that Trustmark will have a response to
the lawsuit. However, he said the Christmas holiday season will
delay a response with personnel off work.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Keith Ball extended the deadline to Feb. 19
for Trustmark to respond to the lawsuit on a request from attorneys
for the bank.

A judge will decide whether to grant the two women's request for a
class-action lawsuit against the bank.

Meanwhile Bobby White, 55, who said he is disabled and lives on a
fixed income; alleges he has had numerous problems with Trustmark
overdraft fees.

"A few months ago, I was about a week from my monthly check and the
$8.99 (monthly) service fee put me $2 in overdraft and I borrowed
and put $20 in the bank the same day," Mr. White said. "They still
charged me the $32 OD fee which threw me back into overdraft and
they charged me another $32 overdraft fee. It was their OD fee that
threw me back into OD!"

Mr. White said he ended up paying $188 in overdraft fees that month
and $108 this past month. "You can't imagine what that does to
someone on a fixed income," Mr. White said. [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Offers Settlement to Drivers Prior to IPO
------------------------------------------------------------
PYMNTS.com reports that Uber, gearing up to launch an initial
public offering (IPO) in the first quarter of 2019, is offering to
settle with drivers who have been fighting the ride-hailing company
via individual arbitration.

According to a report in TechCrunch, citing law firm Lichten &
Liss-Riordan, Uber has as part of the settlement tentatively
offered to pay 11 cents for each mile Uber drivers drove. Drivers
have been going after Uber individually after a September ruling
that they could launch a class action lawsuit against Uber. Uber
declined to comment to TechCrunch, noted the report. The lawsuits
over driver classification goes back a few years and involves nine
states and 160,000 drivers. The drivers want to be classified as
employees instead of independent contractors so they can get
compensated for expenses including gas and maintenance on their
vehicles. Drivers are also focusing on Uber's move to prevent
drivers from keeping or accepting tips from passengers. In June of
2017, Uber did introduce a tips app, which TechCrunch reported
resulted in drivers earning an extra $600 million in one year's
time.

With the settlement, drivers who accept it must release all claims
lodged against Uber related to misclassification of employees.
TechCrunch noted the settlement is tentative depending on how many
drivers sign up for the agreement as well as other factors,
reported TechCrunch, noting payment could take six months to reach
drivers. The report noted that 11 cents per mile is about one-third
of what the driver could have received if he or she pursued
arbitration instead of seeking a settlement.

The move on the part of Uber to potentially settle with the drivers
comes as reports are surfacing that the IPO is about to happen.
Earlier in December The Financial Times, citing people familiar
with the matter, reported Uber filed paperwork with the SEC, which
means an IPO can happen soon with the first quarter the most likely
time frame. Uber is expected to be among the biggest IPOs for 2019,
already garnering a multibillion-dollar valuation. By settling with
drivers it removes one bit of uncertainty for investors. [GN]


UNIQUE CAMERA: Tyler Singleton Seeks Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------
TYLER SINGLETON, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, vs. UNIQUE
CAMERA SERVICE, INC., an Illinois for-profit corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-10152-BAF-SDD (E.D. Mich., Jan. 15.
2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Act.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant whose rights under
the FLSA and the WOWA have been violated. The Plaintiff worked for
Defendant as a repair technician between October 2017 and January
2018. The Plaintiff was fired in January 2018 over a
misunderstanding with the schedule. He did not voluntarily leave
his employment with Defendant Unique Repair. In his position as a
repair service technician, the Plaintiff went to the homes of
Defendant's customers and he repaired the customers' appliances.
Specifically, he worked mostly on repairing appliances which were
under a warranty from Samsung, the lawsuit says.

Unique Camera is in the household appliance repair services
business.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Bryan Yaldou, Esq.
          Elaina S. Bailey, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC
          23000 Telegraph, Suite 5
          Brownstown, MI 48134
          Telephone: (734) 692-9200
          Facsimile: (734) 692-9201
          E-mail: Bryan@yaldoulaw.com

UNITED KINGDOM: Sued Over "State-Sponsored Discrimination"
----------------------------------------------------------
Phila Siu, writing for South China Morning Post, reports that a
British citizen of Gurkha descent in Hong Kong is threatening to
take the British government to court over the "state-sponsored
discrimination" he is undergoing in his passport renewal
application, saying he felt humiliated by the "nonsense".

Tsewang Bhotia, 43, director of a headhunting firm, applied to have
his passport renewed in November, expecting the process to take
three to four weeks.

His nightmare started when the Passport Office wrote to him and
requested that he submit 13 additional documents, which he
described as "nonsense".

Among the documents requested were his school records dating as far
back as possible; his family tree dating back to his grandparents;
photos of himself with his parents since birth; his father's
British Army Service book; and his father's Army camp letter given
when he was discharged from service.

"I was stunned. When I was looking at this [list], I was like, what
is this?" he said. "I will be looking at legal action".

He said he has not decided whether to take an individual legal
action or a class action -- to gather more people in similar
ordeals to sue the British authorities together.

"If we take legal action, we have a strong chance because you can
clearly see this is discrimination. No other citizens of the UK are
being asked this, and no other ethnic groups are being asked this.
Why suddenly the Nepalese?"

The Gurkhas are Nepali soldiers who served in the British army, and
to whom the UK government granted citizenship.

During the colonial period when Hong Kong was ruled by the British,
the Gurkhas lived in army barracks, isolated from the rest of
society, until they were thrust into the midst of an overwhelmingly
Chinese community when British rule ended in 1997.

In May, about 100 Gurkha descendants protested outside the British
consulate in Hong Kong, complaining about the delays in receiving
their passports. Some said the application usually took four
years.

UK loses vital immigration documents, throwing lives into turmoil
During the protest, British consulate staff handed the protesters a
letter by Mark Thomson, the passport office's director general, who
promised that his office would "urgently" review the delays.

He also said that the hold-ups were caused by people falsifying
connections to the Gurkhas.

But what Mr. Bhotia could not understand was that he was not
applying for his first British passport. He was applying to have
his existing one, which he received in 2008, renewed.

"When I applied for my passport for the first time, did I face any
real difficulties? The answer was no," he said.

Mr. Bhotia was born and raised in Hong Kong. He received his
British National (Overseas) passport in 2005, and his British
passport three years later.

He was married to a British woman and they have two children. None
of them have had any problems with their passport applications.

"[Mark Thomson] stated that some frauds are taking place. I don't
know what kind of fraud he was talking about. He was probably
referring to identity fraud. If that's the case, what you are doing
now is trying to label all of us as fraudsters by giving us this
nonsense [the letter]," he said.

With the hold-up, Mr. Bhotia has already cancelled work trips to
Singapore and Jakarta in December, as well as other trips to
Southeast Asia in the coming months. He has also cancelled several
family trips.

"I am in the people's business. I need to meet people," he said.
"If I am not going to be travelling for a year, it's going to have
an impact."

Asked about Mr. Bhotia's case, a spokesman for the British Home
Office said that all applications for a British passport, including
renewals, are treated "on their own merit".

"Her Majesty's Passport Office will not issue a passport until all
checks to confirm nationality and identity have been satisfactorily
completed," he said.

The list of documents the Passport Office has asked Tsewang Bhotia
to submit:

1) School records dating back as far as possible

2) Hong Kong birth certificate

3) Hong Kong permanent identity card

4) Nepalese relationship certificate relating to him and his
parents

5) Nepalese citizenship certificate

6) Nepalese passport(s)

7) Marriage certificate

8) Family tree showing his relationship back to grandparents
(maternal and paternal)

9) Photos of himself with his parents since birth (in chronological
order)

10) Successive identity documents for himself from birth to the
time of issue of his first British National (Overseas) passport

11) Parents' current identity card

12) Father's British Army service book (if applicable)

13) Army camp letter (if applicable) [GN]


WELLMONT HEALTH: Jury Rules in Favor of Highlands Physicians
------------------------------------------------------------
According to Eric Oliver of Becker's ASC Review, a Tennessee jury
ruled Bristol, Tenn.-based Wellmont Health System breached its
contractual and fiduciary duties to Kingsport, Tenn.-based
Highlands Physicians, the Bristol Herald Courier reports.

Here's what you should know:

1. The jury sided with Highlands awarding the group $58 million,
but did not grant additional punitive damages.

2. Highlands along with 2,100 people filed the class-action suit in
2016, alleging a breaches of contract, fiduciary duty and of the
network access agreement. The suit also argued Wellmont made
several other actions that negatively impacted Highland.

3. Wellmont intends to appeal the decision. [GN]


WEST VIRGINIA: Obtains Favorable Ruling in I/DD Waiver Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Open Minds reports that on September 25, 2018, a federal judge
ruled that West Virginia's current budgeting procedures for the
Intellectual/Developmental Disability (I/DD) Waiver does not
violate due process. The ruling was in response to a lawsuit,
Michael T. v. Crouch, filed in July 2015 on behalf of five waiver
participants, and which later became a class action-lawsuit that
covered all 4,684 I/DD waiver participants.

The original complaint was filed by Mountain State Justice. The
Department of Health and Human Resources' (DHHR) Bureau for Medical
Services (BMS) operates the IDD Waiver budgeting program.
[GN]


WINCO FOODS: Faces Petersen Suit in Sacramento, California
----------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Winco Foods Foundation. The case is captioned as DENNIS J.
PETERSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WINCO FOODS FOUNDATION; WINCO HOLDINGS INC.;
and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00247825-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 4, 2019).

WinCo Foods, LLC retails bulk foods, deli, seafood, and bakery
products bulk foods, produce, meat, deli products, seafood, variety
and seasonal products, and bakery products. WinCo Foods, LLC was
formerly known as Waremart Food Centers and Cub Foods and changed
its name to WinCo Foods, LLC in 1999. The company was founded in
1967 and is based in Boise, Idaho with stores in Arizona, Idaho,
California, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington. WinCo
Foods, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Winco Holdings, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Marcus J Bradley, Esq.


WM MORRISON: Field Law Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------
Brian Vail, Q.C of Field Law, in an article for Lexology, reports
that employers can be vicariously liable at common law for the
actions of a rogue employee who brings about an unauthorized cyber
data breach, even where the employee's motive was to harm the
employer and not to injure the third parties whose data is involved
or for personal gain.

Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC v Various Claimants, 2018 EWCA Civ
2339

FACTS AND ISSUES:

Skelton was employed by a supermarket company (Morrisons) as a
Senior IT Auditor. After he was formally disciplined in 2013 he
bore a grudge against the company. In 2014, in the course of his
duties, he was assigned the task of transmitting employee personal
data on a USB memory stick to the company's external auditors. He
copied this data from his employer-supplied computer onto a
personal USB stick before passing the data on to the auditor.
Subsequently, he posted the personal data of almost 100,000
Morrisons employees online. He took (unsuccessful) steps to attempt
to frame another employee for the breach. The trial judge held that
Skelton's actions were not a "sequence of random events" but all
part of a careful plan to cause the company harm. He was ultimately
convicted of crimes for this conduct. A number of Morrisons
employees (5,518) brought a class action against the company,
seeking damages for breach of the U.K. Data Protection Act, s. 4(4)
and at common law for the torts of misuse of private information
and breach of confidence.   The trial judge held that the company
was not directly liable for breach of the statute or at common law.
Although it was the "data controller" within the meaning of the
statute for the data on its own storage devices, it was held not to
be the "data controller" of the data on Skelton's personal USB
stick that was posted online. The trial judge held that Morrisons
did not know, nor ought it to have known in the circumstances, that
Skelton bore a grudge or would act criminally with the data.
Morrisons was held to have breached a Data Protection Principle
(DPP) set out in the statue in that it should have had better
procedures in place to ensure that confidential data was deleted
from Skelton's laptop shortly after it had been provided to the
external auditors, and after temporary use outside of its data
base. However, the trial judge held that this breach of the DPP
"could not have prevented an individual determined to [misuse the
data] from copying sensitive data held on his work laptop to some
other medium" and Skelton had stolen the data before it would have
been deleted in compliance with the rule.   However, the trial
court held Morrisons to be vicariously liable for the actions of
its rogue employee because the loss was sufficiently connected to
his legitimate employment duties. The Data Protection Act was
interpreted as not excluding the possibility of vicarious liability
for its breach and did not occupy the legal field so as to
eliminate common law vicarious liability. The trial judge held that
vicarious liability is imposed on a party which is not directly
liable in one of two ways as outlined by Salmon on Torts as adopted
by Mohamud v. William Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC11
(H.L.)]. The Court held as follows:   131.    The precise scope of
"course of employment" which could bring secondary liability upon
an employer for a wrongful act was defined by Salmond in the first
(1907) edition of his text book on the law of torts, Salmond on
Torts, as "either (a) a wrongful act authorized by the master or
(b) an unauthorized mode of doing some act authorized by the
master" adding that a master was liable for acts which he had not
authorized if they were "so connected with the acts which he has
authorized that they may rightly be regarded as modes -- although
improper modes -- of doing them" (pp 83-84). . .

Morrisons was granted leave to appeal by the trial judge. The Court
of Appeal found this to be because Skelton appeared to have been
troubled by the Morrisons argument that vicarious liability should
not be imposed on the employer where the rogue employee's motive
was to harm the employer, because to hold the contrary would render
the court to be an accessory to the employee's misconduct (appeal
decision para. 75).

Morrisons appealed the trial judge's findings of vicarious
liability at common law. Neither side challenged the trial judge's
dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims for breach of statutory duty
and the finding that Skelton, not Morrisons, was the "data
controller" of the leaked data within the meaning of the statute.
Morrisons advanced three grounds of appeal, the third of which
being of interest to Canadians. Morrisons argued that the trial
judge erred:

In concluding that the Data Protection Act, does not excludes
vicarious liability;   In concluding that the Data Protection Act
does not preclude common law actions for breach of confidence and
the U.K. tort misuse of private information; and   In finding that
Morrisons was vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of Skelton
at common law.

HELD: For the plaintiffs; appeal dismissed.  The Court of Appeal
concluded that the U.K Data Protection Act did not exclude
vicarious liability and did not preclude common law actions for
breach of confidence and misuse of private information. It
dismissed the first two grounds of appeal.

The Court held that "if Parliament had intended such a substantial
eradication of common law and equitable rights, it might have been
expected to say so expressly" (para. 51).
The Court also relied on a concession by Morrisons that the common
law actions in question "operate in parallel" to the statutory
causes of action to find internal inconsistency in Morrisons'
position.

The Court found that "the DPA says nothing at all about the
liability of an employer, who is not a data controller, for
breaches of the DPA by an employee who is a data controller" (para.
57)

The Court concluded as follows on this issue:
60. In conclusion, the concession that the causes of action for
misuse of private information and breach of confidentiality are not
excluded by the DPA in respect of the wrongful processing of data
within the ambit of the DPA, and the complete absence of any
provision of the DPA addressing the situation of an employer where
an employee data controller breaches the requirements of the DPA,
lead inevitably to the conclusion that the Judge was correct to
hold that the common law remedy of vicarious liability of the
employer in such circumstances (if the common law requirements are
otherwise satisfied) was not expressly or impliedly excluded by the
DPA.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of vicarious liability on
the part of Morrisons at common law.

1. The first part of the Salmond test was held to have been met for
the reasons enunciated by the trial judge. Skelton's actions were
held to have been within the scope of his employment duties. His
employment did not merely allow him access to the data; he had been
specifically assigned to use it (para. 62-63).

2. The Court found the second part of the test to have been met.
The Court held that there was a sufficiently close connection
between Skelton's wrongful acts and what he was authorized to do in
his employment; that his acts could be considered a mode of
carrying out his employment, albeit an unauthorized mode.

(i) The Court rejected Morrsions' argument that his wrongful
disclosure of the data was a subsequent, separate matter from his
original copying of the data in the course of his employment. The
Plaintiffs' cause of action came into existence when Skelton
downloaded the data onto his own USB stick. Had the Plaintiffs been
aware of it at that time they could have sued for an injunction and
at least nominal damages (para. 66). The Court upheld the trial
judge's finding that Skelton's acts were not a "sequence of random
events, but an unbroken chain" of Skelton's plan (para. 73),
concluding as follows:

74.    The findings of primary fact in this paragraph are not in
dispute. The Judge's evaluation of them in the opening and closing
sentences of the paragraph as constituting a "seamless and
continuous sequence" or "unbroken chain" of events is one with
which we entirely agree. It is therefore unnecessary to embark on a
discussion of the nature of the review by an appellate court of
evaluative findings of this kind. In so far as the Judge's
conclusions involved a value judgment (see Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v
Salaam [2003] 2 AC 366 per Lord Nicholls at [24]), it is one with
which we agree.   The Court noted that employers have long been
held vicariously liable for torts committed "away from the
workplace" (para. 71).

3. The Court rejected Morrisons' "novel" argument that an employer
should not be vicariously liable where the rogue employee's motive
was to harm the employer and not for personal gain or to injure
third parties. Morrisons had argued that in finding the employer
vicariously liable the Court was, in effect, becoming an accessory
to the employee's tort (para. 75 – 76).

4. The Court also rejected Morrisons' argument that a finding of
vicarious liability for cyber data breaches would impose an
unacceptable burden on employers because of their potential to give
rise to claims on a "massive scale":

77.    Ms. Proops [for Morrisons] submitted that, given that there
are 5,518 employees who are claimants in the present case, and the
total number of employees whose confidential information was
wrongly made public by Mr. Skelton was nearly 100,000, this
illustrates how enormous a burden a finding of vicarious liability
in the present case will place on Morrisons and could place on
other innocent employers in future cases. These arguments are
unconvincing. As it happens, Mr. Skelton's nefarious activities
involved the data of a very large number of employees although, so
far as we are aware, none of them has suffered financial loss. But
suppose he had misused the data so as to steal a large sum of money
from one employee's bank account. If Morrisons' arguments are
correct, then (save for any possible claim against the bank) such a
victim would have no remedy except against Mr. Skelton personally.
Yet this hypothetical claimant would, as it seems to us, be in
essentially the same position as Mrs. Lloyd in Lloyd v Grace,
Smith.

78.    There have been many instances reported in the media in
recent years of data breaches on a massive scale caused by either
corporate system failures or negligence by individuals acting in
the course of their employment. These might, depending on the
facts, lead to a large number of claims against the relevant
company for potentially ruinous amounts. The solution is to insure
against such catastrophes; and employers can likewise insure
against losses caused by dishonest or malicious employees. We have
not been told what the insurance position is in the present case,
and of course it cannot affect the result. The fact of a defendant
being insured is not a reason for imposing liability, but the
availability of insurance is a valid answer to the Doomsday or
Armageddon arguments put forward by Ms. Proops on behalf of
Morrisons.  

COMMENTARY:  The two-part test for vicarious liability relied upon
and applied by the English courts (often referred to as the
"Salmond Test") is the same test as applied in Canada (Bazley v
Curry [1999] 2 S.C.R. 534 (S.C.C.); T. (G.) v. Griffiths[1999] 2
S.C.R. 570).  Thus, this case is a significant persuasive authority
in this country.   The case was decided on principles of vicarious
liability that have been well-settled for decades. The decision
should come as no surprise. The Court rejected what it considered
to be the only "novel" defence argument advanced -- that a finding
of vicarious liability for cyber data breaches would impose an
unacceptably heavy burden on innocent employers. There have been
Canadian examples of employees causing or threatening to cause a
data breach to injure the employer so as to advance some cause.  
There has been at least one American case holding that an employer
cannot be vicariously liable for an employee's wrongful acts,
absent direct liability on the part of the employer:  Enslin v. The
Coca-Cola Co. 136 F.Supp.3d 654 (2015, U.S.D.C., E.D. Penn.).  In
that case, an employee of a Coke company who was responsible for
making decisions to divest the company laptop computers, knowingly
and unlawfully sold the laptops to criminals. These laptops
contained personal information about Coke employees. The Plaintiff
experienced fraud and identity theft after the computer thefts
occurred. The Court refused to dismiss the case. However, the Court
dismissed the negligence claim and held for the Plaintiff for,
inter alia, breach of contract since his employment contract was
held to contain a term that the employer would keep his data
secure. The Court held that absent a finding in direct negligence
on the part of the employer there could be no claim for vicarious
liability. This case cannot be authority regarding vicarious
liability as that concept is understood in Canada where the very
essence of vicarious liability involves an innocent employer being
found liable for the risks its business creates in the marketplace.
  It is interesting to note that the Court suggested that the best
protection for employers might be insurance, notwithstanding that
it was not aware of what the insurance position would be for such a
loss and the fact that the presence or absence of insurance for a
defendant cannot affect the result of a tort case (at para. 78).  
We understand that Morrisons has indicated an intention to appeal
to the U.K. Supreme Court (D. Margolis, Data Breach in the UK: Can
a Rogue Employee Leave You on the Hook?, 11 December 2018, Littler,
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/data-breach-in-the-uk-can-a-rogue-56745/).[GN]


YALE UNIVERSITY: Vellali et al. Seek to Certify Beneficiaries Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH VELLALI et al., the
Plaintiffs, vs. YALE UNIVERSITY et al., the Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-01345-AWT (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an
order on Jan. 15, 2019:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all participants and beneficiaries of the Yale University
      Retirement Account Plan from August 9, 2010, through the
      date of judgment, excluding the Defendants"; and

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs as representatives of the class
      and appointing their attorneys -- Schlichter, Bogard &
      Denton LLP -- as class counsel for the class under Federal
      Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
          Heather Lea, Esq.
          Sean E. Soyars, Esq.
          Joel D. Rohlf, Esq.
          SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLP
          100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-6115
          Facsimile: (314) 621-7151
          E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com
                  hlea@uselaws.com
                  ssoyars@uselaws.com
                  jrohlf@uselaws.com

               - and -

          Stuart M. Katz. Esq.
          COHEN AND WOLF, P.C.
          1115 Broad Street
          Bridgeport, CT 06604
          Telephone: (203) 368-0211
          Facsimile: (203) 337-5505
          E-mail: skatz@cohenandwolf.com

ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Rolfe et al. Sue over Silver Pool Scam
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Zions Bancorporation seeks to
recover damages from Defendant sustained as a result of the Bank's
own independent wrongdoing and knowing assistance related to the
Silver Pool scam.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are victims of an
enormous Ponzi scheme knowingly assisted by Zions Bank, a division
of Defendant Zions Bancorporation. By its substantial assistance,
including the actions of the Bank and its employees in furtherance
of and to facilitate the scheme, and through its actual knowledge
that fiduciary funds it held as custodian were being diverted and
used for Ponzi payments, Zions Bank aided and abetted the scheme.
Moreover, Zions Bank was negligent in failing to act, as it was
required to do once it became aware that investor money, i.e.,
fiduciary funds for which it acted as custodian, were being
diverted.

The scheme was perpetrated by Gaylen Rust and members of his
family, who, through Rust's company, Rust Rare Coin, Inc. raised
money from investors ostensibly to purchase contracts of sale for
silver. Rust told investors he was pooling their money in a silver
trading pool that he managed (the "Silver Pool"), and through a
proprietary trading system he employed, and through a trading
account he purportedly held at HSBC Bank, one of the world's
largest financial institutions, was using the money in the Silver
Pool to sell silver as market prices rose, and buy silver as market
prices fell, thereby increasing the amount of silver in the Silver
Pool. Rust also claimed that he maintained large amounts of
physical silver owned by the Silver Pool at warehouses owned and
operated by Brink's Incorporated where it was being held for
safekeeping.

To solicit investors, Rust touted his supposed successful track
record in buying and trading silver, luring investors with the
promise of double-digit returns averaging 20-25% per year on their
investment in the Silver Pool. Rust provided investors with
periodic statements reflecting those supposed returns. In reality,
however, Plaintiffs' investment in the Silver Pool was a sham. Rust
was not buying or selling silver, nor did he have physical silver
stored in a Brink's warehouse. Moreover, neither Rust nor RRC
maintained an account at HSBC. Instead, Rust diverted investor
money to himself and to his family, to other failing companies Rust
or his family members controlled, and used new investor money to
make payments to earlier investors seeking to liquidate all or part
of their interests in the Silver Pool. In reality, the statements
Rust provided to his investors and the returns stated thereon were
fake. Rust was not earning profits from buying and selling silver,
and instead was making those distributions from the money received
from new investors. The Silver Pool was not a real business or
trading operation, and instead was a Ponzi scheme.

Rust could not have perpetrated the Silver Pool scam on his own.
Instead, he crucially depended on the knowing participation of his
bank, Zions Bank, through which Rust committed his fraud. The
epicenter of Rust's Silver Pool scheme was one account at Zions
Bank ending in number 7496, known to investors. The investigation
of Plaintiffs' counsel, which investigation included interviews
with many Silver Pool investors, a review and analysis of numerous
documents related thereto, and a review and analysis of other
documents including documents obtained in a civil enforcement
action filed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the
State of Utah Division of Securities, demonstrates that Zions Bank
had actual knowledge that: (1) RRC was a precious metal and coin
dealer, and thus was a high-risk account, triggering enhanced due
diligence requirements for the Bank; (2) RRC had a silver trading
operation called the Silver Pool; (3) RRC received investment
proceeds from investors in the Silver Pool to be invested by RRC
and Rust; (4) RRC and Rust were managing investor money as
fiduciaries, and thus the Silver Pool account held fiduciary funds;
(5) RRC and Rust were misusing funds from the Silver Pool
Investment Account by commingling such funds and transferring them
to Rust, his family, and other entities whose business was
unrelated to the Silver Pool; and (6) RRC and Rust were misusing
investor money to make Ponzi payments.

On November 13, 2018, Rust's scheme began to unwind. On that date,
the CFTC and Utah filed their civil enforcement action against
Rust, certain members of his family, and RRC charging them with
fraud and asserting violations of the Commodities and Exchange Act
and CFTC Regulations, aiding and abetting those violations, and
multiple violations of the Utah Uniform Securities Act. On November
15, 2018, two days later, the Securities and Exchange Commission
filed its own action charging Rust and RRC with operating a
fraudulent silver trading program. The SEC complaint alleged the
same course of conduct alleged by CFTC/Utah; that Rust made
material misrepresentations and omissions to solicit investors
across the country to invest in his scheme. The SEC also charged
Rust and RRC with fraud and asserted numerous violations of the
federal securities laws. The Plaintiffs and the putative class
members were victims of Rust's Silver Pool investment scheme. They
invested their personal money in what they believed to be the
Silver Pool, and were damaged, the lawsuit says.

The case is captioned as DALE AND KAREEN SPRINGER, JACK AND LEXI
ROLFE, DAVID AND GWEN DUDIK, PATRICK SPRINGER, TERRY FISHER,
MICHAEL ORGILL, BRYCE ABPLANALP, KIM ABPLANALP, MATHEW AND JESSICA
OBRAY, KENT AND JANN MOWER, DANIEL AND JESSICA MCCAIN, DANIEL AND
VICTORIA LEMON, ADAM AND STEPHANIE WELLS (individually and on
behalf of their minor children C.W. AND J.W.), JADEN WELLS, MCKENNA
WELLS, LANCE PACKER, CLARENCE AND NANCY FIELDS, ROBYN GRAY,
CHRISTOPHER AND DELANI LYMAN, RAY AND RITA SMITH, WAYNE HALL, JEFF
AND SUSAN MCCAIN, SCOTT SEIPERT, NOLAN AND VICKI ANDERSON, AG
TSUNAMI, LLC, LADAWN LOTT, SCOTT AND VICKIE MOWER, RON WELLS, BRYAN
BARKER, DALE MORK, MARK AND STEPHANIE MUDROW, ELWIN JOHNSON, CODY
BROWNING, KEVIN MAUGHAN, COREY AND ANGIE THURMAN, KEVIN AVERY AND
DENISE MURDOCK, WILLIAM GUFFEY, JEFF RANSOM, DON AND JANETTE
FOWERS, RONALD SCOTT WELLS, ROBERT HARRISON, ALAN ALLRED, CATHERINE
BINSACCA, SCOTT PIGGOTT, DAVID ZUCKERMAN, JDH FAMILY LTD
PARTNERSHIP, EDWARD TERRY, SHADE PROPERTIES, LLC, JOYCE STEVENS,
MIKAEL AND KRISTEN THELIN, ALAN AND VALORIE LAMBERT, BRIAN AND
KATHERINE MALLROY, DIANNA CLARK, KEVIN AND APRIL WELLS, ROSALIE
WELLS, DENNIS AND ANNETTE GUFFEY, CHARLES CLANTON, KATHLEEN
CALLAHAN, BRADY TEW, DEAN PAUL IVORY, KELLY AND TAMARA FLINT, JASON
AND TAMARA HIXSON, BRYAN POWELL, GINGER CRUIKSHANK, GLENN AND JAN
MILLER, JACOB INGEBRITSON, TIFFANI GRIMM, and LAEL AND JEAN WELLS,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. ZIONS BANCORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00035-BCW (D. Utah, Jan. 15, 2018).

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

Class Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Samuel Adams, Esq.
          ADAMS DAVIS P.C.
          35 Broadway, Suite 203
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Telephone: (801) 532-9500
          E-mail: sam@adamsdavis.com

               - and -

          Alan L. Rosca, Esq.
          Mark Goldman, Esq.
          Paul Scarlato, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY PC
          Eight Tower Bridge, 161 Washington St
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          23250 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 100
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (484) 342-0700
          E-mail: rosca@lawgsp.com
                  goldman@lawgsp.com
                  scarlato@lawgsp.com

               - and -

          J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          Brian O. Marty, Esq.
          SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE PC
          5015 Grand Ridge Dr, Ste 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265
          Telephone: (515) 223-4567
          Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
          E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
                  marty@sagwlaw.com

[*] Department of Education to Implement "Borrower Defense" Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------
John L. Culhane, Jr., Esq. -- culhane@ballardspahr.com -- of
Ballard Spahr LLP, in an article for National Law Review, reported
that the Department of Education announced earlier in December that
it would begin implementing its "borrower defense" final rule which
was issued in November 2016 by providing discharges of federal
student loans made to any borrowers who, in addition to other
conditions, could not complete his or her program of study because
the borrower's school closed.  The final rule was the subject of
litigation that resulted in an October 2018 ruling requiring the
Department to implement the rule.

In addition to requiring the discharges, the final rule includes a
ban on all pre-dispute arbitration agreements for borrower defense
claims by schools receiving Title IV assistance under the Higher
Education Act.  Both mandatory and voluntary pre-dispute
arbitration agreements are prohibited by the rule, whether or not
they contain opt-out clauses.  In addition, schools are prohibited
from relying on any pre-dispute arbitration or other agreement to
block a borrower from asserting a borrower defense claim in a class
action lawsuit until the court has denied class certification and
the time for any interlocutory review has elapsed or the review has
been resolved.  The prohibition applies retroactively to
pre-dispute arbitration or other agreements addressing class
actions that were entered into before the final rule's effective
date.

In August 2018, following negotiated rulemaking, the ED published a
notice of proposed rulemaking that would rescind the final rule and
replace it with the "Institutional Accountability regulations"
contained in the proposal.  Among the major changes to the final
rule that would be made by the proposal is the removal of the
arbitration ban.

Although the October 2018 ruling requires the Department to
implement the final rule, the Department has not yet indicated
whether it will enforce the arbitration ban, such as by requiring
schools to retroactively cancel arbitration agreements in existing
contracts.  Politico reported however that Department Spokeswoman
Liz Hill has indicated that guidance from the Department on
mandatory arbitration agreements will be forthcoming. [GN]


[*] Employers Brace for Fair Credit Reporting Act Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to ESR News Blog Editor Thomas Ahearn, class action
lawsuits involving the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
will not be the only compliance concern for employers performing
background checks in an increasingly complex legal environment in
2019. This trend has been chosen by global background check
provider Employment Screening Resources® (ESR) as second on the
list of "ESR Top Ten Background Check Trends" for 2019.

As legal compliance in screening continues to increase in
complexity, aligning with a screening firm that can support
compliance will be important, according to ESR founder and Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) Attorney Lester Rosen. Federal FCRA
requirements are not the only concern for many employers as they
are also impacted state and local prohibitions involving "Ban the
Box", salary history, and privacy.

As a result, Mr. Rosen explains lawsuits involving background
checks for employment purposes will continue to rise and the market
will look more closely at a screening firm's litigation and
sanctions history. Mr. Rosen -- who founded Employment Screening
Resources® (ESR) in 1997 -- says his firm has never been named in
an FCRA lawsuit and its screening practices have never been
sanctioned by any regulatory authority.

Part of the reason that not being involved in any FCRA lawsuits or
sanctions by regulatory authorities is an important issue is that
background screening has become so legally regulated since it
involves the ability of consumers to obtain and retain employment.
As a result, background screening is focused on legal compliance as
a result of litigation, legislation, and government regulation.

Passed by Congress in 1970, the FCRA 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 promotes
the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of consumer information
contained in the files of consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) -- the
FCRA's term for background check firms -- and it was intended to
protect consumers from the willful and/or negligent inclusion of
inaccurate information in their consumer reports, the FCRA's term
for background checks.

FCRA lawsuits are commonplace for employers who screen. In 2018,
settlements in lawsuits for alleged FCRA violations included $3.3
million against a CRA, $3 million against a tenant screening
company, $1.3 million against a health care firm, $1.2 million
against a subsidiary bottling plant of PepsiCo, $2.4 million
against snack food manufacturer Frito-Lay, and $1.2 million against
pet product supplier Petco.

The FCRA is enforced by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB), a U.S. government agency responsible for consumer
protection in the financial sector that may soon be called the
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP), and the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC), a U.S. government agency promoting consumer
protection. Both the CFPB and FTC were involved with the FCRA in
2018.

In December of 2018, the CFPB announced a settlement with State
Farm Bank for allegedly violating the FCRA by obtaining consumer
reports without a permissible purpose. Under the terms of the
consent order, State Farm Bank must implement and maintain
reasonable written policies, procedures, and processes to address
the practices at issue in the consent order and prevent future
violations.

In July of 2018, Maneesha Mithal, Associate Director of the FTC's
Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, testified on behalf of
the FTC before the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Committee that "vigorous" enforcement of the FCRA remained a top
priority and outlined efforts to educate consumers and businesses
about the law that governs the use of background checks.

Mr. Mithal noted that the FTC has played a key role in the
implementation, enforcement, and interpretation of the FCRA, which
requires CRAs to ensure they provide information in consumer
reports to recipients with a "permissible purpose," have reasonable
procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of the
information, and allow consumers to dispute and correct information
in their consumer reports.

Mr. Mithal testified that the FTC has brought more than 30 actions
to enforce the FCRA against CRAs, users of consumer reports, and
furnishers of information to CRAs in the last decade. As consumer
reporting evolves and new technologies and business practices
emerge, the FTC will continue to educate businesses that conduct
background checks on their respective rights and obligations under
the FCRA.

In October of 2018, the FTC announced a tenant screening company in
Texas agreed to pay $3 million -- the largest civil penalty the FTC
has obtained from a background screening company -- to settle
charges of violating the FCRA by failing to take reasonable steps
to ensure the accuracy of information provided to landlords and
property managers that caused renters to be falsely associated with
criminal records.

The tenant screening company issued a statement about the
settlement that expressed disappointment that the FTC singled out
their screening report results "for an issue that has confronted
the entire screening industry, namely how to match applicants with
common last names to public records when most courts do not make
social security or driver's license numbers available as part of
those records."

Besides the FCRA, employers and their screeners also have to worry
about state and local requirements such as "Ban the Box", which
delays questions about the criminal history of job applicants until
later in the hiring process, and salary history laws that prohibit
employers from seeking salary history information from applicants
in an effort to narrow the gender wage gap between women and men.

"Ban the Box" is a nationwide movement that seeks to advance job
opportunities for people with prior criminal convictions by
eliminating any inquiry on job applications into the criminal
history of candidates, specifically the check box that requires
candidates to disclose their criminal history. As of December 2018,
more than 150 cities and counties as well as 34 states have passed
Ban the Box laws.

In 2018, the Massachusetts Attorney General (AG) reached agreements
with four national employers -- Edible Arrangements, Five Guys
Burgers and Fries, L'Occitane, and The Walking Company – and
issued warning letters to 17 other Boston area businesses found to
be in violation of a "Ban the Box" provision in state law that
prohibited employers from asking about criminal records on an
initial job application.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recommended
employers utilize Ban the Box and a process called an
"Individualized Assessment" before the use of a criminal record is
made final where an applicant has one last opportunity to present
the case why they should be hired in its 2012 Enforcement Guidance
on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in
Employment.

Employers need to be careful that criminal records are used in a
way that does not cause discrimination as a result of disparate
impact, and that in no case should an employer automatically deny
employment on the basis of a criminal record unless it is job
related or there is a business necessity. Employers should consider
the nature and gravity of the offense, the nature of the job, and
the age of the offense.

Salary history restrictions have been passed in states, counties,
and cities with the idea is that if new pay is based upon previous
pay, then gender pay gaps are perpetuated. The goal is to base
compensation on the work performed and not to rely on previous pay
that may reflect gender discrimination. Statistics from the U.S.
Census Bureau show that women earned 80 percent of what men earned
in 2015.

In 2018, the EEOC -- the government agency which enforces federal
laws prohibiting employment discrimination including pay
discrimination -- announced that Denton County in Texas had agreed
to pay $115,000 to a female doctor after a federal court sided with
the EEOC in a lawsuit filed by the EEOC over alleged violations of
the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964.

Employers and screening firms also have to comply with a growing
number of privacy laws. For example, in June of 2018 California
Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a comprehensive internet
privacy and data breach protection bill called the California
Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (Assembly Bill 375) in response to the
data breaches that affected the personal data of millions of
consumers in the state.

The Act -- which takes effect on January 1, 2020 -- expands the
rights of consumers to know what data is being collected about them
online and to even delete it, empowers consumers to decline the
sale of their information and to report violations which must be
addressed by the violator or risk civil action, and provides a
private right of action for unauthorized access and theft or
disclosure of personal data. [GN]


[*] TruthinAdvertising.org Sees Spate of Fake White Chocolate Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This article by TruthinAdvertising.org highlights a trend in
class-action litigation as identified by its Class-Action Tracker.
Thus the name of this feature, CATrends.

If there's a white chocolate lover on your holiday shopping list,
be forewarned: Not all white chocolate is the real deal.

That's according to a recent spate of class-action lawsuits
alleging that a number of treats marketed as white chocolate do not
meet the FDA's definition for the confection. For white chocolate
to be called white chocolate, the agency has the following minimum
requirements:

20 percent cocoa butter
14 percent milk solids (mmm, milk solids)
5 percent milk fat

The FDA has only one limit, on sweeteners, which cannot exceed 55
percent. Fun fact: While you may be reading about these standards
for the first time, they have been around since 2004. That's when
the FDA finalized a rule in response to petitions filed by the
Hershey Company and the Chocolate Manufacturers Association (now
part of the National Confectioners Association).

So who's allegedly pushing fake white chocolate? Products currently
facing class-action litigation range from a Starbucks espresso
drink that contains no cocoa butter, to a Clif and Luna bar with no
milk fat, to a Nuts 'N More spread that is similarly lacking in the
milk fat department. The complaint against Starbucks states:

Real white chocolate's flavor is partially imparted by cocoa butter
and cacao fat. The imitation white chocolate in [Starbuck's
Doubleshot Energy White Chocolate Drink] does not have cocoa butter
as required, and instead has other cheap confectionary ingredients
to imitate the taste of white chocolate.

The complaint against the coffee giant points to the absence of
cocoa butter in the ingredients list on the label of the bottle. It
notes that Starbucks has other white chocolate beverages that do
contain cocoa butter, per ingredient information on the company's
website, proving that Starbucks is fully aware of "the qualities
and ingredients that make up real white chocolate."

Starbucks did not respond to request for comment. Neither did Nuts
'N More nor Living Intentions, whose trail mix may not be as white
chocolate-y as advertised.

A spokeswoman for Clif Bar & Company, maker of Clif and Luna bars,
referred to a motion filed in response to the lawsuit against the
company that argues product labeling is clear and transparent. She
said in a statement:

As our motion states, our "product labels explicitly disclose that
the 'white chocolate' taste in the products is merely a 'natural
flavor' and not an ingredient."

You be the judge. [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 ***