CAR_Public/190204.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, February 4, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 25

                            Headlines

AGENTRA LLC: Abboud TCPA Suit Seeks to Stop Autodialed Calls
AHO ENTERPRISES: Sandoval Ortega Sues Over Unpaid Wages
ALLERGAN PLC: Feb. 19 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
ALPHABET INC: Faces Shareholder Derivative Complaint
AMAZON.COM INC: Removes Ronquillo Suit to C.D. California

AMERICARE CERTIFIED: N.Y. App. Div. Flips Dismissal of Melamed Suit
ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL: Walker Suit Alleges Prisoner Rights Breach
ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA: Feinberg to Administer Sex Abuse Pay
ASHWOOD FINANCIAL: Vera et al. Allege Wrongful Debt Collections
ASSET RECOVERY: Smith Suit Alleges Breach of FDCPA in Arkansas

ATHELAS INSTITUTE: House Managers' Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
ATHENAHEALTH INC: Merger-Related Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
AXOS FINANCIAL: Dismissal of Mandalevy Class Suit Under Appeal
BARCEL USA: Morrison Appeals Class Action Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
BARK SHOP: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act

BITHUMB: Faces Class Action Over Server Outage
BLACK SHEEP: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Hall Suit Claims
BOB'S RED: Class Action Settled Out of Court
BOSCIA LLC: Marett Sues Under ADA in S.D. New York
BP EXPLORATION: Court Affirms Denial of Award Discretionary Review

BRISTOL COMPRESSORS: Faces Class Action Over WARN Act Violation
BUTTONWILLOW WAREHOUSE: Hernandez Sues for Breach of Employment
CALIFORNIA: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Daniels Suit
CALLFIRE INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Adzhikosyan Suit Claims
CANADIAN HOCKEY: Former Players File Concussion Class Action

CAREMARK LLC: S.D. Ohio Consolidates Doe I and Doe II Suits
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Oliveira Sues over Debt Collection Practices
CE RENTAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flores et al. Allege
CENTRAL PACIFIC: Robinson Files Class Suit in Hawaii Dist. Ct.
CERTIFIED CREDIT: Echevarria Sues over Debt Collection Practices

CHAMPION PETFOODS: N.D. Illinois Narrows Claims in Leppert Suit
CHARLOTTE SCHOOL: Settlement in Barchiesi Suit Has Final Approval
CHARTEC LLC: Faces Trammel Labor Suit in Kern County, California
CHINA TECHFAITH: Thomas Sues Over Share Price Drop
CHINATOWN TAKE-OUT: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Li FLSA Suit

CIT BANK: Judge Green-Lights Class Action Lawsuit
CORONA REGIONAL: Seeks March 31 Extension to File Cert. Writ
CREDIT ONE BANK: Bolden Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Calls
CRST EXPEDITED: Sellars' Hostile Work Environment Class Decertified
DARK HORSE: Class Certification Denial in Jimenez-Sanchez Reversed

DCN HOLDINGS: Gallivan Sues over Debt Collection Practices
DEALS ON BROADWAY: $52K Monica FLSA/NYLL Suit Settlement Approved
DENMARK, SC: Faces 2 Class Actions Over HaloSan-Tainted Water
DETROIT: Faces Another Lawsuit Over Towing Practices
DINING INNOVATION: Waitresses Sue to Recover Withheld Tips, OT Pay

DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Adair Suit
EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Foldenauer Challenges PDS Merger Deal
EQUINOX FITNESS: Removes Porter et al. Suit to C.D. California
ERBA DIAGNOSTICS: Florida Class Action Settlement Gets Court Okay
EXPEDIA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit on Taxes Overcharges

EXPEDIA: Faces Racketeering Class Action in Seattle
FAF INC: Misclassifies Drivers, Campbell Suit Alleges
FAIR COLLECTIONS: Brooks Sues over Debt Collection Practices
FIAT CHRYSLER: Schneider Files RICO Class Action in Michigan
FLOWERS FOODS: Class of Distributors in Noll FLSA Suit Certified

FOREVER 21: Kiler Suit in NY Asserts ADA Violation
FORSTER & GARBUS: Musante Sues Over FDCPA Breach
FRADKIN & WEBER: Faces Hoffman Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
GEN-KAL PIPE: Property Sale Order in MS Plumbing TCPA Suit Vacated
GREYSTONE PARK: Patients Subject to Violence, Drug Trafficking

HARRAH'S NC: Bid for Attorneys' Fees & Costs in Clark Suit Denied
HARRAH'S NC: Bid for Attorneys' Fees & Costs in Humble Suit Denied
HAWAII: DOE Gets Extension to ACLU's Title IX Lawsuit
HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: Faces Class Action Over Hep, HIV Exposure
HEALTHPLUS: May Have Exposed Patients to HIV, Suit Says

HUNTER WARTFIELD: Lee Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation in Florida
INDIANA: Drivers Sue over Discriminatory and Excessive Toll Fees
INEOS STYROLUTION: Foth Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
J. FLETCHER CREAMER: Shortchanges Workers' Pay, Benefits, Says Suit
J.M. SMUCKER: E.D. New York Transfers Forsher Suit to N.D. Ohio

JANNAH'S REAL ESTATE: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Stroop Says
JCREW INC: Haggar Sues Over ADA Violation
JEREMY SPENCE: Silver-Miller Files Crypto Fraud Class Action
JRC FITNESS: Faces Rivera TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
K12 INC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Calif. Securities Suit

KANN ENTERPRISES: Faces Jurado Suit in Kern California
LEGALLY MINE: Court Sets Aside Default Judgment in Eliasieh Suit
LOCKHEED MARTIN: COBRA Notice Lacks Details, Angela Hicks Alleges
LOVELY BRIDE: Dennis Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act in NY
LY BROTHERS: Denied Ruelas Breaks, Wage Statements, Reimbursements

MARLBOROUGH GALLERY:  Breaches ADA, Dawson Suit Asserts
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Vetter et al. Suit over Data Breach
MARY-ANNE MARTIN: Art Gallery Sued for ADA Violation
MBT FINANCIAL: Faces Pauli Securities Suit in Michigan
MDL 1566: Remand of Remaining Actions in Antitrust Suit Suggested

MEDSPA DEL MAR: Mazzariol Files Class Suit in S.D. Florida
MEISLIN PROJECTS: Dawson Suit Asserts ADA Violation
MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Kumar Sues over Debt Collection Practices
MERRIN GALLERY: Dawson Suit Alleges Breach of Disabilities Act
MICHAEL N. ALTMAN: Violates Disabilities Act, Says Dawson

MICHAEL WERNER: German Art Gallery Faces ADA Class Suit
MICHELE BEINY: Faces Dawson ADA Class Action in New York
MIDLAND CREDIT: Felix Mickens Sues over Debt Collection Practices
MINDBODY INC: Faces 4 Merger-Related Class Action Suits
MIREILLE MOSLER: Dawson Sues Art Gallery Under ADA

MITCHELL-INNES & NASH: Violates ADA, Dawson Suit Asserts
MIXOLOGY CLOTHING: Kevin Garey Alleges ADA Violation
MNUCHIN GALLERY: Dawson Asserts Breach of ADA in S.D. New York
MONSANTO CO: Blitz Appeals Class Cert. Denial to 7th Cir.
MORNINGSTAR INC: Amended Green RICO Suit Dismissed with Prejudice

NEW PRIME: Arbitration Ruling in Oliveira Class Suit Affirmed
NKM CORP: Faces Honeywell ADA Violation Suit in Florida
NUTRISYSTEM INC: Frechter Securities Suit Questions Sale to Tivity
NVIDIA CORP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
NVIDIA: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Misleading Statements

OATMEALS LLC: Faces Bunting Suit under ADA in E.D. New York
OCLARO INC: Monteverde & Assocs to Lead in Securities Suit
PACIFIC GAS: E.D. Cal. Enters Final Judgment in Greer Labor Suit
PARADE MANAGEMENT: Rodriguez Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
PARTSFLEET LLC: Faces Hamrick FLSA Suit in M.D. Florida

PITTSBURGH MEDICAL: Cost Award Order in Camesi FLSA Suit Affirmed
PLANET FITNESS: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages
POLARITYTE INC: Pomerantz to Lead in Securities Fraud Suit
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Brown Alleges FDCPA Breach in New Jersey
PRESTIGE PLUMBING: Guinn Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

PURDUE PHARMA: Court Tosses Opioid Crisis Claims in Connecticut
QUALITY DATA: Faces Agazanof Suit in C.D. California
REALREAL INC: Faces Rodriguez Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
RENT THE RUNWAY: Fischler Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
RUBY IV: Court Conditionally Certifies Classes in Kidwell FLSA Suit

SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Class Cert. Denied in Docking Fees Lawsuit
SCARPA RESTAURANT: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
SOUTH CAROLINA: Feb. 12 Fairness Hearing on Inmate Hep C Settlement
SPO NETWORKS: Latiolais Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
STEVEN SCOTT: Underpays Caretakers, Jessica Hagen Alleges

SYNNEX CORP: Continues to Defend Franchi and Zalvin Class Suits
TELADOC HEALTH: Feb. 11 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
TRANS WORLD: Conditional Certification of Spack Class Partly Okayed
TRANSUNION RENTAL: ENE in Perez FCRA Suit Continued to Feb. 27
UNITED STATES: D. Mass. Enters Final Judgment Against Dillon

UNITED STATES: D.C. App. Affirms Dismissal of Boyland Estate Suit
UNITED STATES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arnold et al. Say
UNITED STATES: Tapia Suit Asserts Tucker Act Violation
UNITED STATES: Underpays Customs and Border Protection Officers
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Partial Summary Judgment in Peterson Affirmed

VAQUITA CHEESE: Denied Perez Overtime Pay, Wage Notices, Paystubs
WARREN COUNTY, OH: Protective Order in Adoptive Families Suit OK'd
WELLS FARGO: To Pay $575MM in Settlement
WESLEY APARTMENT: Removes Whelan Suit to N.D. Georgia
WEYERHAEUSER CO: Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of Kipp Suit Ruling

WISCONSIN: Court Dismisses Al Ghashiyah Prisoner Suit
WOLFF SHOE: Garey Suit Alleges ADA Violation in New York
WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: TCCWNA Claim in Luca Dismissed with Prejudice
XPO LOGISTICS: Feb. 12 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
YOGAWORKS INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit

YOUNG AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in 1st Amended Apodaca Suit

                            *********

AGENTRA LLC: Abboud TCPA Suit Seeks to Stop Autodialed Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA ABBOUD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AGENTRA, LLC, a Texas limited liability company, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00120-K (N.D. Tex., January 19, 2019), is brought
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to:

   (1) stop the Defendant's practice of placing telephone calls
       and text messages 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 the Defendant from continuing to place autodialed
       and/or prerecorded telephone calls and/or text messages to
       consumers who have elected to out-out of receiving them;
       and

   (3) obtain redress for all persons injured by the Defendant's
       conduct.

Agentra, LLC, is a limited liability company organized and existing
under the laws of the state of Texas whose primary place of
business and corporate headquarters is located in Dallas, Texas.
Agentra is a health insurance agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert B. Kleinman, Esq.
          Breanne V. Cope, Esq.
          COMMON SENSE COUNSEL LLP
          404 W. 7th Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 299-5329
          Facsimile: (512) 628-3390
          E-mail: robert@commonsensecounsel.com
                  breanne@commonsensecounsel.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          Taylor Smith, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
                  ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
                  tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com


AHO ENTERPRISES: Sandoval Ortega Sues Over Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Jose Salvador Sandoval Ortega, J. Guadalupe Alaniz, Efrain Enriquez
and Norberto Rodriguez on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. AHO Enterprises Inc. (dba "Superior
Body Shop"), Jack Aho, Issa Aho, Hani Aho and Does 1 through 30,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00404-DMR (N.D. Cal.,
January 23, 2019) is an action brought on behalf of Plaintiffs
individually; as FRCP Rule 23 representative of a class or various
subclasses of non-exempt employees employed by, or formerly
employed by, Defendants; as a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
collective action; and as a class representative in the interest of
the general public under the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").

The Defendants' violations revolve around their failure to pay all
wages when due; failure to pay employees overtime wages; failure to
comply with minimum and contractual wage requirements; failure to
comply with rest and meal period requirements; and failure to
comply with the record-keeping, wage statement and payment deadline
provisions of California law. As a result of these violations,
Defendants have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as
provisions of California labor laws and the California unfair
competition law, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Jose Salvador Sandoval Ortega is a California resident.
During the class period Salvador was employed by Defendants as a
non-exempt employee at Defendants' facilities.

Plaintiff J. Guadalupe Alaniz is a California resident. During the
period covered by this lawsuit, Alaniz was employed by Defendants
as a non-exempt employee at Defendants' facility in San Mateo known
as Superior Body Shop.

Plaintiff Efrain Enriquez is a California resident. During the
class period, Enriquez was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt
employee at Defendants' facilities.

Plaintiff Norberto Rodriguez is a California resident. During the
class period Rodriguez was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt
employee at Defendants' facilities.

AHO Enterprises Inc. (dba "Superior Body Shop") is a California
corporation.

Jack Aho owned Aho Enterprises, Inc. and is Chief Financial
Officer, and controlled the illegal payroll policies and directly
told employees not to take legally mandated breaks.

Issa Aho owned Aho Enterprises, Inc. and is Chief Executive
Officer, and controlled the illegal payroll policies and directly
told employees not to take legally mandated breaks.

Hani Aho owned Aho Enterprises, Inc. and is Secretary, and
controlled the illegal payroll policies and directly told employees
not to take legally mandated breaks.[BN]

The Plaintiff are represented by:

     Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
     Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
     David Gomez, Esq.
     MALLISON & MARTINEZ
     1939 Harrison St., Suite 730
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: 510-832-9999
     Fax: 510-832-1101
     Email: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
            HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
            DGomez@TheMMLawFirm.com


ALLERGAN PLC: Feb. 19 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Allergan plc.  Shareholders
interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines
listed to petition the court and further details about the cases
can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation
to you.

Allergan plc (NYSE: AGN)
Class Period: May 9, 2017 - December 19, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 19, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/allergan-plc-loss-form?wire=3

During the Class Period, and unbeknownst to investors, Allergan
misled investors regarding various "pharma and device approvals"
and concealed the fact that the Company's CE Mark for its textured
breast implants and tissue expanders was expiring in Europe.

On December 19, 2018, the Company announced that, following a
compulsory recall request from Agence Nationale de Securite du
Medicament ("ANSM"), the French regulatory authority, the Company
had suspended the sale of these products and that it was
withdrawing all remaining supplies from European markets. The
suspension of sales stemmed directly from the expiration of the
company's CE Mark for these products, and the stock price fell
drastically following the news.

To learn more about the Allergan plc class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.
  
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.  

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


ALPHABET INC: Faces Shareholder Derivative Complaint
----------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
shareholder derivative complaint accuses the directors of Alphabet,
including John Doerr, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Sundar Pichai and
Eric Schmidt of harming shareholders by allowing pervasive sexual
harassment at the company, in San Mateo County Court.

A copy of the Verified Stockholder Derivative Complaint is
available at:

          https://is.gd/IjBUkv

The case is Northern California Pipe Trades Pension Plan ("NCPTPP")
and Teamsters Local 272 Labor Management Pension Fund v. Alphabet,
Inc., Case No. 19CV09149 (Calif. Super. Ct.).


AMAZON.COM INC: Removes Ronquillo Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of LOUIE RONQUILLO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM,
INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, Defendant, filed a notice
to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 18STCV05155) to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
January 9, 2019. The clerk of court for the Central District of
California assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00207-AB-FFM. The case is
assigned to Judge Andre Birotte Jr. and referred to Magistrate
Judge Frederick F. Mumm.

Amazon.com, Inc. engages in the retail sale of consumer products
and subscriptions in North America and internationally. The company
was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Walter Perlman, Esq.
          Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
          RASTEGAR LAW GROUP APC
          22760 Hawthorne Blvd Suite 200
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Telephone: (310) 961-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 961-9094
          E-mail: douglas@rastegarlawgroup.com
                  farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Amy A. McGeever, Esq.
          Andrea L Fellion, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1270
          Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
          E-mail: amy.mcgeever@morganlewis.com
                  andrea.fellion@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Brian D Fahy, Esq.
          John S Battenfeld, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: brian.fahy@morganlewis.com
                  jbattenfeld@morganlewis.com


AMERICARE CERTIFIED: N.Y. App. Div. Flips Dismissal of Melamed Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAISA MELAMED, ETC., ET AL., Appellants, v. AMERICARE
CERTIFIED SPECIAL SERVICES, INC., ET AL., Respondents, Case No.
2016-02524, Index No. 503171/12 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department,
reversed the order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kathy J.
King, J.), dated Jan. 2016, (i) granting the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the class action allegations of the complaint, and (ii)
denying the Plaintiffs' cross motion to compel the production of
certain payroll data.

In a putative class action, inter alia, to recover damages for
violations of Labor Law articles 6 and 19, the Plaintiffs appeal
from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kathy J. King,
J.), dated Jan. 20, 2016.  The order granted the Defendants' motion
pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss, and denied as academic the
Plaintiffs' cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel.

The Plaintiffs, home health aides who were employed by the
Defendants and who often worked 24-hour "live in" shifts, commenced
the action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
employees, seeking damages for underpayment of minimum and overtime
wages in violation of the Labor Law and New York State Department
of Labor wage orders and regulations.

Prior to serving their answer, the Defendants moved pursuant to
CPLR 3211(a)(1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint, and the
Plaintiffs cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 901 and 902 for class
certification.  In an order dated Dec. 11, 2014, the Supreme Court
denied the Defendants' motion and denied the Plaintiffs' cross
motion without prejudice to renew after the completion of limited
discovery necessary to adduce evidence to satisfy the requirements
of CPLR 901 and 902.  It concluded, inter alia, that the evidence
adduced by the Plaintiffs on their cross motion was insufficient to
demonstrate that they would fairly and adequately represent the
interests of the class.

Thereafter, some discovery was exchanged, but the Defendants
refused to provide certain payroll data relating to the proposed
class of home health aides that was requested by the Plaintiffs.
The Defendants then moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss
the class action allegations of the complaint on the basis that the
Plaintiffs had not timely moved for leave to renew their motion for
class certification.  The Plaintiffs opposed the motion and
cross-moved pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the production of the
requested payroll data.  The Supreme Court granted the motion and
denied the cross motion as academic.  The Plaintiffs appeal.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' initial motion for class
certification was timely made.  Moreover, while the Defendants
contend that the Plaintiffs failed to timely renew their motion,
the Defendants refused to provide material sought by the Plaintiffs
which was needed to determine whether the prerequisites of a class
action set forth in CPLR 901(a) could be satisfied and to address
the considerations set forth in CPLR 902 for determining whether
the matter may proceed as a class action.  Accordingly, the Supreme
Court should have denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
class action allegations of the complaint, and should have granted
the Plaintiffs' cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the
production of the requested payroll data.

The Court reversed, on the law, with costs.  It denied the
Defendants' motion  to dismiss, and granted the Plaintiffs' cross
motion to compel.

The motion by the respondents, inter alia, to strike stated
portions of the record, and the Appellants' brief on an appeal from
an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated Jan. 20, 2016,
on the ground that they contain or refer to matter dehors the
record.   By decision and order on motion of the Court dated Jan.
17, 2017, that branch of the motion which is to strike stated
portions of the record and the Appellants' brief was held in
abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal
for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in
opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, the Court
granted the branch of the motion which is to strike stated portions
of the records.  It struck (i) the Appellants' brief, pages 12
through 13, 60 through 844, 946 and 1180 through 1182 of the record
on appeal; (ii) those portions of the Appellants' brief which refer
to that material; and (iii) those portions of the record and the
Appellants' brief have not been considered in the determination of
the appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 16, 2019 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/KUge0X from Leagle.com.

Beranbaum Menken LLP, New York, NY (Jason J. Rozger of counsel),
for appellants.

Peckar & Abramson, P.C., New York, NY (Kevin J. O'Connor --
KOConnor@pecklaw.com -- of counsel), for respondents.


ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL: Walker Suit Alleges Prisoner Rights Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aramark Correctional
Services LLC. The case is styled as Ronald Walker and any and all
other residents that are similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gregg
Scott, Eric Kunkel, Dora Lucas, John Doe, Lynne Shelton, Shan
Jumper, Mara Sheldon, Steve Dredge and Aramark Correctional
Services LLC as well as all others that are discovered through the
course of discovery to have participated in the events and actions
and actions complained of, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-04014-CSB
(C.D. Ill., January 22, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Conditions of
Confinement filed pursuant to the Prisoner Civil Rights.

Aramark Correctional Services LLC is a government facility in Tulsa
County.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.



ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA: Feinberg to Administer Sex Abuse Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Martines, writing for TRIB Live, reports that all but one of
the seven Catholic dioceses in Pennsylvania, along with the
Archdiocese of Philadelphia, are trusting a Washington, D.C.-based
law firm led by Kenneth Feinberg to administer compensation funds
to survivors of sexual abuse.

The name might sound familiar: Mr.  Feinberg administered the fund
Penn State University set up to compensate young men sexually
abused by Jerry Sandusky along with the September 11th Victim
Compensation Fund.

He and Camille Biros, the firm's business manager, already manage
compensation programs across five dioceses in New York.

"They've proven to have success," Bishop David Zubik of the Diocese
of Pittsburgh said of Feinberg and his firm. "That's why, when we
looked at their record, we thought that this was the best way to
go."

Mr. Feinberg himself offered a similar explanation as to how he
became the go-to person for determining how people are compensated
in the wake of tragedy.

"I think our success rate -- I think they come back to us -- they
did it before so they can do it again," he said.

His work settling a class action suit brought by 250,000 veterans
exposed to Agent Orange while serving in Vietnam was the starting
point for his career as a mediator, Mr. Feinberg wrote in his 2012
book, "Who Gets What."

The suit was settled in 1984 as the eight chemical company
defendants agreed to pay out $180 million, plus interest, to
resolve the litigation.

"My new professional niche was ensured," he wrote in his book.

The Brockton, Mass. native attended the University of Massachusetts
and New York University Law School, and clerked for Stanley H.
Fuld, chief judge of the New York State Court of Appeals. He spent
three years as an assistant U.S. attorney in New York City and
served as special counsel to the Senate judiciary committee led by
Sen. Ted Kennedy.

Among the connections forged in Mr. Feinberg's early years as a
lawyer was one with Jack B. Weinstein, a fellow Fuld clerk who went
on to serve as federal district judge in Brooklyn, Feinberg wrote.
It was Weinstein who called on Feinberg to mediate the Agent Orange
suit.

Mr. Feinberg went on to mediate several high-profile cases that
came through Weinstein's courtroom, including those related to
asbestos-related illnesses.

Soon after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Feinberg
was appointed to serve as the administrator for the September 11th
Victim Compensation Fund. He was in charge of determining both
eligibility as well as calculating damages for claims paid out to
those who lost family members or who were injured.

The fund paid $7 billion to 5,500 claimants.

"Emotionally, that one was probably the most difficult,"
Ms.  Biros said.

Ms. Biros is also the president and treasurer of Strategic
Settlement Advisors, Inc., a Washington D.C.-based company that
works in conjunction with Mr. Feinberg's practice to carry out
civil litigation settlements.

Along with Mr. Feinberg, Ms. Biros has worked as an administrator
on compensation claims programs including One Fund Boston and the
Aurora, Colorado Victim Relief Fund.

Such funds are typically overseen by a small team that conducts
several levels of review, she said.

"We like to keep it rather small so that we can ensure consistency
in the way they're evaluated and reviewed," she said of the process
for evaluating claims and conducting meetings with victims.

Planning and executing diocesan compensation funds has been
challenging for different reasons, Mr.  Feinberg said. It's
emotional, challenging work.

"It's astounding as to the number of claims we've seen in New York
and Pennsylvania," he said. "And it is amazing to us how there are
claimants who want maybe more than money -- to be heard. To tell
their story."

Past clients

2001: September 11th Victim Compensation Fund

Congress established the fund to distribute tax-free to the victims
and families of the 5,500 people who died or were injured. Feinberg
was appointed "Special Master" of the fund by the U.S. Attorney
General and took the job pro bono.

Number of claims: 5,500 claimants representing the dead and
physically injured

Total amount paid: $7 billion; average compensation of $2 million
per family who lost a loved one, an average of $400,000 per person
experiencing injury.

2010: Gulf Coast Claims Facility

Claims compensation program following the BP oil spill in the Gulf
of Mexico due to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig explosion.

Number of claims: Over 1.2 million claims

Total amount paid: $6.5 million

2012: Penn State University

Number of claims: Feinberg served as a mediator in the resolution
of over 30 cases

Total amount paid: Over $109 million to an unspecified number of
victims, according to the most recent Penn State fiscal reports

2013: One Fund Boston

Following the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, Feinberg administered a
fund, pro bono, that distributed aid to victims and families over
its 20-month lifespan.

Number of claims: Feinberg handled 259 claimants

Total amount paid: Nearly $80 million [GN]


ASHWOOD FINANCIAL: Vera et al. Allege Wrongful Debt Collections
---------------------------------------------------------------
BIANNCA VERA; and JOSE VERA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASHWOOD FINANCIAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00344-MCA-SCM (D.N.J., Jan. 10, 2019)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Madeline Cox Arleo
and referred to Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion.

Ashwood Financial, Inc. handles consumer collection accounts. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          Zemel Law LLC
          1373 Broad Street, Suite 203-C
          Clifton, NJ 07013
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com


ASSET RECOVERY: Smith Suit Alleges Breach of FDCPA in Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Virginia D. Smith,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Navient Solutions, LLC
and John Does, 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-06008-SOH (W.D.
Ark., January 18, 2019).

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

Asset Recovery Solutions LLC, also called ARS Solutions is a debt
collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ATHELAS INSTITUTE: House Managers' Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Willie Samuel, Dinah Reeder and Eric Williams, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated employees v. Athelas Institute,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00069 (D. Md., January 8, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage
Payment and Collection Law.

Athelas provides services to individuals with intellectual and
developmental disabilities, providing residential services to its
clients where Plaintiffs were employed as "House Managers." They
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime
compensation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
      George E. Swegman, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
      36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Phone: (410) 244-7005
      Fax: (410) 244-8454
      Email: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
             gswegman@nicholllaw.com


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Merger-Related Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
athenahealth, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated January 28, 2019, that the
plaintiffs in Hamilton v. athenahealth, Inc., et al., Kent v.
athenahealth, Inc., et al., and Crawford v. athenahealth, Inc., et
al., each voluntarily dismissed their actions.

As disclosed in the definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A (the
"Definitive Proxy Statement") filed by athenahealth, Inc.
("athenahealth" or the "Company") with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC"), on December 18, 2018, a putative class
action lawsuit, captioned Hamilton v. athenahealth, Inc., et al.,
was filed in the District Court for the District of Massachusetts
in connection with the proposed merger (the "Merger") of May Merger
Sub Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub") with and into athenahealth,
with athenahealth surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary
of May Holding Corp., a Delaware corporation ("Parent"). Parent is
an affiliate of Veritas Capital Fund Management, L.L.C. ("Veritas")
and Evergreen Coast Capital ("Evergreen"), and an affiliate of
certain entities operating under the name Virence Health
("Virence").

The complaint names the Company, the members of the board of
directors of the Company (the "Board"), Parent, Merger Sub, Veritas
and Evergreen as defendants. The complaint generally alleges that
the defendants caused the Company to file a materially incomplete
and misleading preliminary proxy statement relating to the Merger
in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). The complaint seeks,
among other things, to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing the Merger.

On December 21, 2018, a second putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Kent v. athenahealth, Inc., et al., was filed in
connection with the Merger in the District Court for the District
of Delaware. The complaint names the Company and the members of the
Board as defendants.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants caused the
Company to file a materially incomplete and misleading preliminary
proxy statement relating to the Merger in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks, among
other things, to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing the Merger.

On January 7, 2019, a third putative class action lawsuit,
captioned Crawford v. athenahealth, Inc., et al., was filed in
connection with the Merger in the District Court for the District
of Massachusetts. The complaint names the Company and the members
of the Board as defendants.

The complaint generally alleges that the defendants caused the
Company to file a materially incomplete and misleading preliminary
proxy statement relating to the Merger in violation of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks, among
other things, to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing the Merger.

On January 28, 2019, the plaintiffs in the Hamilton, Kent and
Crawford actions each voluntarily dismissed their actions.

athenahealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
network-based medical record, revenue cycle, patient engagement,
care coordination, and population health services for medical
groups and health systems. The company was founded in 1997 and is
headquartered in Watertown, Massachusetts.


AXOS FINANCIAL: Dismissal of Mandalevy Class Suit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Axos Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that a notice of appeal
has been filed with regard to a court order dismissing the case
entitled, Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al.

On October 15, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit styled Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al,
and brought in United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (the "Golden Case").

On November 3, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a second
putative class action lawsuit styled Hazan v. BofI Holding, Inc.,
et al., and also brought in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California (the "Hazan Case").

On February 1, 2016, the Golden Case and the Hazan Case were
consolidated as In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case #: 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC (the "Class Action"), and the Houston
Municipal Employees Pension System was appointed lead plaintiff.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company and other named defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose
wrongful conduct that was alleged in a complaint filed in
connection with a wrongful termination of employment lawsuit filed
on October 13, 2015 (the "Employment Matter") and that as a result
the Company's statements regarding its internal controls, as well
as portions of its financial statements, were false and misleading.


On March 21, 2018, the Court entered a final order dismissing the
Class Action with prejudice. On March 28, 2018, the plaintiff filed
a notice of appeal.

On April 3, 2017, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its
Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative class
action lawsuit styled Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al., and
brought in United States District Court for the Southern District
of California (the "Mandalevy Case").

The Mandalevy Case seeks monetary damages and other relief on
behalf of a putative class that has not been certified by the
Court. The complaint in the Mandalevy Case (the "Mandalevy
Complaint") alleges a class period that differs from that alleged
in the First Class Action, and that the Company and other named
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
failing to disclose wrongful conduct that was alleged in a March
2017 media article. The Mandalevy Case has not been consolidated
into the First Class Action.

On December 7, 2018, the Court entered a final order granting the
defendants' motion and dismissing the Mandalevy Case with
prejudice. On January 3, 2019, the plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Axos Financial said, "The Company and the other named defendants
dispute the allegations of wrongdoing advanced by the plaintiffs in
the Class Action, the Mandalevy Case, and in the Employment Matter,
as well as those plaintiffs' statement of the underlying factual
circumstances, and are vigorously defending each case."

Axos Financial, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofI
Federal Bank that provides consumer and business banking products
in the United States. The company offers deposits products,
including consumer and business checking, demand, savings, and time
deposit accounts. The company was formerly known as BofI Holding,
Inc. and changed its name to Axos Financial, Inc. in September
2018. Axos Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is based in
San Diego, California.


BARCEL USA: Morrison Appeals Class Action Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Aurora Morrison filed an appeal from a District Court
judgment dated January 3, 2019, entered in her lawsuit entitled
Morrison v. Barcel USA, LLC, Case No. 18-cv-531, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (White
Plains).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 21, 2019, Judge
Vincent L. Bricetti granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's first amended class action complaint.

The Plaintiff brings the putative class action against the
Defendant for alleged violations of New York General Business Law
and for common law fraud.  Essentially, she alleges she purchased
two bags of Takis Rolled Tortilla Chips -- one "Zombie" flavored
and one Guacamole flavored -- and the bags contained too much air
and too few chips.

The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendant from packaging the
Product with non-functional slack fill (unnecessary empty space).
The Defendant argues the Plaintiff lacks standing to seek
injunctive relief under GBL Section 349 because she does not
plausibly allege a risk of future injury.

The appellate case is captioned as Morrison v. Barcel USA, LLC,
Case No. 19-176, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Aurora Morrison, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com

Defendant-Appellee Barcel USA, LLC, is represented by:

          Thomas E. Fox, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          4 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-3000
          E-mail: thomas.fox@skadden.com


BARK SHOP: Fischler Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------
Bark Shop, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Brian
Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Bark Shop, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00399 (E.D. N.Y., January 18, 2019).

Bark Shop is an upscale, modern pet salon aiming to offer the best
service with an open-door concept.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BITHUMB: Faces Class Action Over Server Outage
----------------------------------------------
Fifi Arisandi, writing for Chepicap, reports that a South Korean
court just won Bithumb in a legal case that involves a client,
whose funds were lost due to a compromise to his account.

The user, named Ahn Park filed a lawsuit against the former biggest
crypto exchange in the world, claiming that his account was
accessed by hackers that successfully drained his $355,000 fund,
leaving only few cents in the account.

The hacker was said to manage to gain control over Mr. Park's
account for few hours, during which they exchanged all cash
balances to Ethereum.

According to Finance Magnates, the incident happened on November
30, around 5 months after the exchange was reported to suffer a
major hack that managed to steal a staggering $30 million.

Mr. Park accused Bithumb's lack of security as the main cause of
the incident, stating that there were still critical issues on
their server that hadn't been fixed, although the exchange claimed
to have stepped up their security following the hack.

Mr. Park also questioned the obligations of exchanges, and whether
their fiduciary duties have covered security breaches.

In their defense, the Seoul-based exchange argued that they can't
be held responsible for the loss since they're not a financial
company, an electronic financier, or an electronic financial
assistant.

They also claimed to have done their fiduciary duty to Mr. Park by
sending 10 SMS messages to alert him about the ETH transactions
performed by the hackers.

After considering all the facts as well as the arguments from both
sides, the court agreed that Bithumb is not a financial company and
considered that the multiple SMS warnings were an adequate proof of
the exchange's fulfilling their fiduciary duties, thus decided to
acquit them from all charges.

The judge also stated that cryptocurrency can't be regarded as an
electronic means of payment as it "mainly used as speculative
means."

While it's unclear how the hackers managed to gain access to Park's
account, according to the lawsuit document, he could be one of
Bithumb's 31,000 users, whose accounts accessed unauthorizedly
using a staff's home computer, which eventually resulted in the
loss of the funds from phishing attacks.  

In a previous statement, the South Korean Financial Supervisory
Commission said that Bithumb is currently facing a class action
lawsuit due to the server outage on November 12.

Around 3,000 plaintiffs are said to look for unspecified damages,
compensation for legal fees and certification for class-action
status, on which the exchange said to discuss internally on how to
pay back users, after apologizing and stating that they "will meet
its legal and social responsibilities concerning this issue." [GN]


BLACK SHEEP: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Hall Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BLACK SHEEP OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
7:19-cv-00014 (W.D. Tex., January 16, 2019), alleges that Black
Sheep failed to pay the Plaintiff and other workers like him,
overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Black Sheep is a Utah corporation with headquarters in Roosevelt,
Utah.  Black Sheep is an oilfield services company with projects
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  tjones@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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


BOB'S RED: Class Action Settled Out of Court
--------------------------------------------
Jon Parton, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action against cereal maker Bob's Red Mill Natural
Foods alleging its products contained the weed killer glyphosate
has been settled out of court, according to a court filing
submitted Thursday.

A copy of the Joint Notice of Settlement and Request to Vacate
Dates is available at:

          https://is.gd/gdQS9g

The case is Frankel, et al. v. Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods, Inc.,
Case No. 3:18-cv-05394 (N.D. Cal.).


BOSCIA LLC: Marett Sues Under ADA in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
Boscia, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Lucia
Marett, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. Boscia, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00708 (S.D. N.Y., January 24, 2019).

Boscia, LLC, is a botanical preservative-free skincare company
based in Irvine, CA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com




BP EXPLORATION: Court Affirms Denial of Award Discretionary Review
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CLAIMANT ID 100303892, Requesting Party-Appellant, v.
BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION
COMPANY; BP, P.L.C., Objecting Parties-Appellees, Case No. 18-30792
(5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
affirmed the district court's denial of the Claimant's request for
discretionary review of a decision by the Claims Administrator for
the Deepwater Horizon Settlement Program.

On April 20, 2010, an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon, a mobile
offshore drilling unit leased by BP, resulted in the discharge of
millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.  BP entered
into the Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement with
a class of individuals and entities allegedly injured by the oil
spill.  The Settlement Agreement created the Settlement Program and
imposed a June 8, 2015 deadline for the submission of claims for
settlement benefits.  The claims for benefits are initially decided
by the Claims Administrator, whose decisions can be appealed to an
Appeal Panel.  The district court has discretion to review Appeal
Panel decisions for compliance with the Settlement Agreement.2

The Claimant operates several locations across Alabama, including
Warehouse A and Warehouse B.  At the end of 2009, the Claimant
shifted "delivery volume" from Warehouse A to Warehouse B.  After
the shift in delivery volume, Warehouse A remained open for
customer pick-up business and continued to function as its
administrative office.

On Jan. 20, 2016, the Claims Administrator awarded the Claimant
$8,485.18 on the Warehouse A Claim.  The award did not include any
compensation for Warehouse B.  The Claimant sought reconsideration
of the award, contending that it should have included compensation
for Warehouse B.

The Claims Administrator denied the Claimant's request for
reconsideration.  After noting that the Claimant elected to file
Facility-specific claims, the Claims Administrator determined that
Warehouse A and Warehouse B qualified as separate Facilities and
therefore could not be consolidated into a single claim.  The
Claims Administrator subsequently reduced Claimant's award to
$3,907.05 on grounds not relevant to the instant appeal.

The Claimant appealed to an Appeal Panel, which affirmed the Claims
Administrator's decision.  The Appeal Panel explained that Policy
467 considers each warehouse to be a Facility.  Consequently, the
Claimant, who elected to file a separate claim for each Facility,
should have filed a separate claim for Warehouse B rather than
attempting to consolidate the revenue from both warehouses.

The Claimant sought discretionary review in the district court,
arguing that the Claims Administrator should have considered
Warehouse A and Warehouse B as part of one combined claim and
awarded it $532,837.  The district court denied the  Claimant's
request for discretionary review without comment.

The Claimant appealed.  It contends that the Claims Administrator
misapplied the Settlement Agreement by (1) refusing to consider
Warehouse B as part of the Warehouse A Claim, (2) refusing to allow
the Claimant to amend the Warehouse A Claim to include a claim for
Warehouse B, or (3) refusing to allow the Claimant to submit a new
claim for Warehouse B.

The Fifth Circuit finds that the Claims Administrator did not
misapply the Settlement Agreement by refusing to consider Warehouse
A and Warehouse B as part of one combined claim.  The transition of
certain operations from Warehouse A to Warehouse B does not
implicate Policy 467's provision on changes in locations.  This
conclusion is supported by the fact that Warehouse A continued to
qualify as a "Facility" after the shift in delivery volume because
the Claimant continued to use Warehouse A for customer pick-up
business and administrative tasks.

In addition, the Claims Administrator also did not misapply the
Settlement Agreement by refusing to allow the Claimant to amend the
Warehouse A Claim to include an independent claim related to
Warehouse B.  The Claimant's proposed amended "claim" would include
two "independent claims," one for Warehouse A and one for Warehouse
B. Policy 467 allows Multi-Facility Businesses like Claimant to
file "a claim for each individual Facility."  It does not allow
Multi-Facility Businesses to file a claim that includes two
"independent" claims for different Facilities.

Finally, the Court finds that the Claims Administrator did not
misapply the Settlement Agreement by refusing to permit Claimant to
file a separate claim for Warehouse B.  Assuming Section 4.3.7
imposes some sort of timeliness requirement on the Claims
Administrator's review of a claim, it did not violate that
requirement by failing to review the Warehouse A Claim during the
brief time between the date on which it was submitted and the
deadline for filing claims.

The Court concludes that the district court did not abuse its
discretion when it denied the Claimant's request for discretionary
review.  It accordingly affirmed the judgment of the district
court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 16, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/ItVAFD from Leagle.com.


BRISTOL COMPRESSORS: Faces Class Action Over WARN Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
David McGee, writing for Bristol Herald Courier, reports that after
43 years of operation, Bristol Compressors abruptly announced in
August it was closing its Washington County, Virginia,
manufacturing facility, resulting in the loss of 470 jobs.

Bristol Compressors -- which produced hermetically sealed
compressors for air conditioning units, heat pumps, geothermal
units and refrigeration units -- blamed loss of business in the
Middle East as the most significant contributor to the plant
closing.

Employees expressed little surprise over the closing after the
number of orders had gone down, bills to vendors were delinquent
and sick time had been taken away.

Local economists said the closing of the county's third-largest
employer could have a ripple effect in the local economy and, if
employees did not find work quickly, could ultimately result in a
total loss of between 800 and 1,000 jobs.

The region hosted two job fairs just for displaced employees. About
100 businesses came out to the job fairs, and some employees were
able to leave with new jobs.

Others filed a lawsuit in federal court stating Bristol Compressors
violated the WARN Act by not providing 60 days notice of the plant
closing. It was brought on behalf of all 470 employees of the plant
and sought to become a class action lawsuit. Damages were being
sought up to the maximum amount of statutory damages, including
interest. [GN]


BUTTONWILLOW WAREHOUSE: Hernandez Sues for Breach of Employment
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Buttonwillow
Warehouse Company, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Hernandez,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Buttonwillow Warehouse Company, Inc., a California
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-100202 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
January 24, 2019).

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

Buttonwillow Warehouse Company, Inc. retails crop protection
products and fertilizers. The Company offers wholesale distribution
of animal feeds, agricultural chemicals, and other farm supplies.
Buttonwillow Warehouse Company operates in the State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
   Rastegar Law Group
   22760 Hawthorne Blvd, Suite 200
   Torrance, CA 90505


CALIFORNIA: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Daniels Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NORMAN GERALD DANIELS, III, Plaintiff, v. STU SHERMAN,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01313-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California denied the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and appointment of an interim class counsel.

The Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, commenced the action by filing a Complaint against the
Defendant, the Warden of California Substance Abuse Treatment
Facility and State Prison, Corcoran ("SATF"), on Sept. 6, 2016.
The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant declined to make certain
accommodations to improve the accessibility of the computers in the
law library at SATF.

On March 20, 2017, the Court found that the allegations in the
action were substantially similar to those in the case Daniels v.
Allison, Case No. 1:12-cv-00545-LJO-GSA, which was dismissed with
prejudice on Feb. 21, 2014, and dismissed it as barred by the
doctrine of res judicata.  The Court entered judgment on the same
day.

On Dec. 17, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Submit Multiple
Requests for Class Certification. The motion is now before the
Court.  He requests that the Court merges his cases into a class
action and seeks the appointment of an interim class counsel.

The Plaintiff states that he has filed numerous discrimination
lawsuits alleging that the computer equipment available to visually
impaired prisoners is inadequate. Regarding the instant action, he
states that the case is currently in limbo as the ACCESS TO Court'
case is being merged with the case, and it seems that the Trial
court is holding until the issues of the 'ACCESS TO Court' case is
resolved.  The Plaintiff further states that the Armstrong Remedial
Plan is not complete and the Prison Law Office, the class counsel
in Armstrong, is not accomplishing the intent of the Remedial
Plan.

Magistrate Judge Grosjean denied the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and appointment of an interim class counsel.  She
explains that the Court dismissed the action and entered final
judgment on March 20, 2017.  The Plaintiff, however, has not move
for relief from the judgment.  He does not assert that any of the
circumstances described in Rule 60(b) apply to the case.  His only
argument in support of the instant motion is that he wishes to
consolidate the action with other cases, and wishes to convert the
action into a class action lawsuit.  This is an insufficient basis
for relief from the judgment.

Furthermore, she finds that the Plaintiff cannot establish an
exceptional circumstance warranting the appointment of counsel to
represent him in his individual capacity.  Pro se litigants do not
have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in civil actions,
and the Court cannot require an attorney to represent a pro se
litigant.  The action has already been dismissed on the merits, and
the Plaintiff was able to articulate his claims pro se in light of
the complexity of the legal issues involved.

Moreover, Magistrate finds that the pro se plaintiffs may not
pursue claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity.
Conversely, unless the Plaintiff's request for class certification
is granted, he cannot show the type of complexity of legal issues
which would justify appointment of counsel.  Because she has
concluded that the Plaintiff is not entitled to appointed counsel
in his own right, the Magistrate must also conclude that the
Plaintiff does not meet the prerequisites for certification of a
class action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 15, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/wYfvDL from Leagle.com.

Norman Daniels, III, Plaintiff, pro se.


CALLFIRE INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Adzhikosyan Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ARAM ADZHIKOSYAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALLFIRE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00246 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 10, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls.

CallFire Inc. provides text and voice solutions for businesses in
the United States and Canada. The company’s products include
voice broadcast, text messaging, call tracking, and interactive
voice response. It serves non-profits, religious groups, and other
organizations. The company was founded in 2012 and is based in
Santa Monica, California. It has additional offices in Pasadena,
California; Austin, Texas; and Kiev, Ukraine. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Mona Amini, Esq. (SBN: 296829)
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  mona@kazlg.com

               - and -

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


CANADIAN HOCKEY: Former Players File Concussion Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Greer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
proposed class action on behalf of current and former amateur
hockey players in the Canadian Hockey League who didn't go on to
professional careers accuses the league of failing to warn young,
vulnerable players of the long-term risks of repetitive brain
trauma suffered on the ice.

Lead plaintiff James McEwan's claim in B.C. Supreme Court names the
CHL, the Western Hockey League, and Hockey Canada as defendants.
Mr. McEwan, who started with the WHL's Seattle Thunderbirds in 2004
at age 17, filed the lawsuit on behalf of current and former
players who suffered concussive injuries during game play.

According to the claim, Mr. McEwan played in the WHL for four
seasons, ending his stint as captain of the Kelowna Rockets in
2008. He was involved in more than 70 fights in his career and was
frequently "glorified" as the team's most entertaining player and
best fighter, the claim says. By the time he was 19, Mr. McEwan
said he "was beginning to experience severe anxiety, mood swings,
personality changes and angry outbursts."

"The side effects of his continuous head trauma began to have a
noticeable impact on his day-to-day life," the claim states. "Mr.
McEwan began to consume copious amounts of alcohol in an effort to
cope with the physical pain and mental distress he was regularly
experiencing. Had Mr. McEwan been made aware by the Defendants of
the long-term side effects of concussive and sub-concussive impacts
to the head, he would not have involved himself in so many on ice
fights."

Plaintiff's attorney Robyn Wishart told Courthouse News in a phone
interview that the proposed class is made up of "vulnerable" minors
who are often away from their families, many living with host
families under the leagues' billet system,  as they chase their
near-impossible dream of making the National Hockey League.

"A lot of kids who are trying to compete for elite-level athletics
will play at all costs without fear of consequence for their
long-term future," she said. "We're seeing players who return home
who are not the same people from when they left and parents say,
‘What happened to my child? Why wasn't I told that my child had
this many fights, this many concussions?'"

A former athlete in her university days, Ms. Wishart said she could
relate to athletes who sacrifice their bodies for their dreams, but
said the leagues failed to warn players of long-term health risks
while failing to enforce rules against on-ice fights.

"These amateur hockey players aren't going to make the big show.
They have to work and what are they left with?" she said. "It isn't
just professional hockey players who end up struggling to function
in our society after sport is over. There are elite-level amateur
athletes that are going to struggle through their adult lives with
repetitive brain trauma and we need to be addressing this as a
society. That's the overall issue."

The leagues, Ms. Wishart said, haven't been served with the lawsuit
and the allegations remain unproven. The CHL and WHL did not
respond to Courthouse News' requests for comment on the lawsuit by
Jan. 10.


CAREMARK LLC: S.D. Ohio Consolidates Doe I and Doe II Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN DOE ONE; JOHN DOE TWO; JOHN DOE THREE, on behalf
of themselves and all similarly situated individuals; Plaintiffs,
v. CAREMARK, L.L.C.; FISERV, INC., FISERVE SOLUTIONS, LLC; and
DEFENDANTS DOES 1-10, Defendants, and JOHN DOE, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CAREMARK,
LLC, Defendant, Case Nos. 2:18-cv-238, 2:18-cv-488 (S.D. Ohio),
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted Plaintiffs
John Doe One, John Doe Two, and John Doe Three ("Doe I
Plaintiffs")'s  Motion to Consolidate John Doe v. Caremark, LLC,
Case No. 2:18-cv-488 with the present case -- John Doe One, et al.
v. Caremark, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-238 -- for "all
purposes."

The following parties oppose consolidation: Defendant Caremark;
Defendants Fiserv Solutions, and Fiserv Inc.; and John Doe,
Plaintiff in John Doe v. Caremark LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-488 ("Doe
II Plaintiff").

The Doe I Plaintiffs move to consolidate two related cases.  They
filed John Doe One, et al. v. Caremark, L.L.C., et al., No.
2:18-cv-238 ("Doe I"), on March 21, 2018, on behalf of themselves
and all similarly situated individuals.  They filed an Amended
Complaint on June 5, 2018.

In John Doe v. Caremark, LLC, No. 2:18-cv-488 ("Doe II"), the Doe
II Plaintiff initiated suit, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, on May 16, 2018.  The Doe II Plaintiff
filed an Amended Complaint on June 22, 2018, removing all the
Defendants except Caremark ("Doe II Defendant").

On Dec. 21, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.  Both Doe I Plaintiffs and Doe II
Plaintiff have cognizable claims for: 1) the unauthorized,
unprivileged disclosure to a third-party of nonpublic medical
information ("Biddle claim"); and 2) the violation of Ohio Rev.
Code Section 3701.243.  The Doe II Plaintiff also has additional
claims under Ohio law.

Both of these cases are proposed class action suits stemming from
the same event.  As the Court described in its Dec. 21, 2018
Opinion and Order, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants'
choice to use a glassine windowed envelope, in conjunction with the
design of the letter, resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of
the recipients' Personal Identification Information ("PII") and
Personal Health Information ("PHI") -- including the recipients'
status as HIV-positive -- at a minimum, to Fiserv employees
preparing the envelopes for mailing and mail carriers.

Magistrate Judge Vascura and the undersigned preside over both
cases.  A discovery schedule has yet to be set for either case.
The Doe I Plaintiffs have moved to consolidate Doe I and Doe II
"for all purposes."

Judge Sargus finds that Doe I and Doe II share common questions of
law and fact.  By identifying common questions of law and fact, the
Doe I Plaintiffs have met the threshold requirement for
consolidating Doe I and Doe II.  Consolidation would save time,
expense, and judicial resources, as the cases share so many common
questions of fact and law.  The Court has yet to set a case
schedule for either case, so consolidation would not disturb the
Court's trial schedule.  Finally, the opposing parties primarily
objected to the timing of the Doe I Plaintiffs' motion rather than
the actual consolidation of Doe I and Doe II.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Sargus granted the Doe I
Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate, and consolidated Doe I and Doe
II for discovery, trial, and all other purposes.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 16, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/5WwZ4N from Leagle.com.

John Doe, Interested Party, represented by Matthew R. Wilson --
mwilson@meyerwilson.com -- Meyer Wilson Co., LPA.

John Doe One, John Doe Two & John Doe Three, Plaintiffs,
represented by Terry L. Kilgore -- tksquire13@gmail.com -- Alan M.
Mansfield -- amansfield@whatleykallas.com -- WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP,
pro hac vice, Benjamin R. Powell, Consumer Watchdog, pro hac vice,
Edith Marie Kallas -- ekallas@whatleykallas.com -- Whatley Kallas,
LLP, pro hac vice, Gerald S. Flanagan, Consumer Watchdog, pro hac
vice, Henry C. Quillen -- hquillen@whatleykallas.com -- Whatley
Kalls, LLP, pro hac vice & Joe R. Whatley, Jr. --
jwhatley@whatleykallas.com -- pro hac vice.

Caremark, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Robert G. Cohen --
rcohen@keglerbrown.com -- Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter, Donald M.
Houser -- donald.houser@alston.com -- Alston & Bird, pro hac vice,
Kristine M. Brown -- kristy.brown@alston.com -- Alston & Bird, pro
hac vice & Matthew L.J.D. Dowell -- matt.dowell@alston.com --
Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice.

Fiserv, Inc. & Fiserv Solutions, LLC, Defendants, represented by
James B. Hadden, Murray Murphy Moul Basil LLP, David M. Kroeger --
dkroeger@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, pro hac vice, Geoffrey
J. Moul -- moul@mmmb.com -- Murray Murphy Moul Basil LLP, John H.
Mathias, Jr. -- jmathias@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, pro hac
vice, Jory M. Hoffman -- jhoffman@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block, pro
hac vice & Megan B. Poetzel -- mpoetzel@jenner.com -- Jenner &
Block, pro hac vice.


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Oliveira Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROMULO OLIVEIRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC; and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00422-WJM-MF (D.N.J., Jan.
11, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge William J.
Martini and referred to Magistrate Judge Mark Falk.

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC provides financial resolution
services. Its services cover various areas, such as collection
account and debt control. The company was founded in 1991 and is
based in Valhalla, New York. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of Cavalry Investments, LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is assigned to:

          Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
          280 Prospect Ave. 6G
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 803-6611
          Facsimile: (866) 596-4973
          E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com


CE RENTAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Flores et al. Allege
----------------------------------------------------------
PAUL CUETO FLORES; and MISAEL JUAREZ PEREZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CE RENTAL,
INC.; and CAPITAL RENTALS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00053-ABJ (D. Colo., Jan. 10, 2019) is an action against
the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum
wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as hourly paid,
non-exempt employees.

CE Rental, Inc., a rental company, offers tableware, designer
linens, chairs, glassware, flatware, catering equipment, dance
floors, and more. The company offers products for corporate events,
including galas, dinners, luncheons, and style shoots; and social
events, such as weddings, parties, dinners, and wedding shows in
North Carolina. It also operates a showroom in Raleigh. The company
was founded in 1952 and is based in Raleigh, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew T. Sutter, Esq.
          SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC
          7540 A Little River Turnpike
          Annandale, VA 22003
          Telephone: (703) 256-1800
          E-mail: Matt@sutterandterpak.com


CENTRAL PACIFIC: Robinson Files Class Suit in Hawaii Dist. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit and demand for jury trial has been filed
against Central Pacific Bank. The case is styled as Linda Robinson
obo all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Central Pacific
Bank, Defendant, Case No. 1CC191000112 (Haw. D. Ct., January 18,
2019).

Central Pacific Bank is an American regional commercial bank
headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii. It was founded by Koichi Iida, a
Honolulu business leader, with assistance from Sumitomo Bank in
Japan. Mr. Iida was President from 1954 to 1960. It is the main
subsidiary of Central Pacific Financial Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   John Francis Perkin, Esq.
   Perkin & Faria, LLLC
   841 Bishop Street, Suite 1000
   Honolulu, HI 96813
   Tel: 808-523-2300



CERTIFIED CREDIT: Echevarria Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER ECHEVARRIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CERTIFIED CREDIT & COLLECTION
BUREAU also known as: CERTIFIED CREDIT & COLLECTION BUREAU, INC.;
and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 3:19-cv-00312-BRM-TJB (D.N.J., Jan. 9,
2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means
to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Brian R.
Martinotti and referred to Magistrate Judge Tonianne J.
Bongiovanni.

Certified Credit and Collection Bureau is a debt collection agency.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
          280 Prospect Ave. 6G
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 803-6611
          Facsimile: (866) 596-4973
          E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com


CHAMPION PETFOODS: N.D. Illinois Narrows Claims in Leppert Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEBORAH LEPPERT and ZACHARY CHERNIK, individually and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs,
v. CHAMPION PETFOODS USA INC. and CHAMPION PETFOODS LP, Defendants,
Case No. 18 C 4347 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss.

Leppert and Chernik filed a class action suit against the
Defendants, on behalf of two putative classes, one consisting of
citizens of Ohio and the second of citizens of Illinois.  The
Complaint alleges state law claims for breach of express warranty
(Count I), breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Count
II), negligent misrepresentation (Count III), common law fraud
(Count IV), fraudulent omission (Count VII), and unjust enrichment
(Count VIII) on behalf of both classes; a claim for violation of
the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA), on behalf of the
putative Ohio Class (Class V); and a claim for violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
(ICFA),on behalf of the putative Illinois Class (Count VI).

The Defendants manufacture, market, advertise, label, distribute
and sell pet food, including its cat food brand names Orijen and
Acana, throughout the United States.  They charge a premium for
their purportedly higher-quality cat foods.  On their website, the
Defendants advertise that they make their pet foods in their own
"award-winning kitchens" featuring "state-of-the-art fresh
food-processing technologies" and are "dedicated to the highest
standards of authenticity, nutritional integrity, and food
safety."

Nowhere on the packaging or in any advertising or marketing do
Defendants disclose that the cat foods contain levels of arsenic,
mercury, lead, cadmium and/or bisphenol A ("BPA") at levels known
to pose health risks to humans and animals.  Specifically, the cat
foods are known to contain -- presumably based on third-party
scientific testing -- the following levels of heavy metals and BPA.
The Defendants knew their cat food products contained heavy metals
and BPA.  The Clean Label Project found and informed the Defendants
that their dog and cat food products contained higher levels of
heavy metals when compared to other pet foods.

Plaintiff Chernik is a citizen of Illinois and purchased Orijen and
Acana cat foods for his two cats from his local pet food stores
every 10-12 weeks from 2006 through 2016.  Plaintiff Leppert is a
citizen of Ohio and purchased Orijen cat foods for her two cats
every month from 2011 through 2018 from a pet store in Powell,
Ohio.  Both the Plaintiffs saw the nutritional claims on the
packaging before purchasing the cat food, relied on those claims in
deciding to purchase the cat food, and would not have purchased the
cat food had Defendants disclosed that it contained heavy metals,
chemicals or toxins.  Since consuming Orijen cat food, one of
Plaintiff Leppert's cats suffered from gastrointestinal issues that
required surgery and the other was diagnosed with chronic kidney
disease.

Plaintiffs Chernik and Leppert bring their claims individually and
on behalf of all citizens of Illinois and Ohio, respectively, who
purchased the "contaminated" cat food from July 1, 2013 to the
present.

The Defendants moved to dismiss all claims brought by Plaintiff
Leppert and the putative Ohio Class (Counts I-V, VII-VIII) pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal
jurisdiction; the claims for breach of express or implied warranty
(Counts I-II), negligent misrepresentation (Count III), unjust
enrichment (VIII), and a violation of OCSPA (Count V) for failure
to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6); and all claims sounding in fraud (Counts IV, VI, and VII)
for failure to state a claim with particularity as required under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).  In their Response to the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss
their negligent misrepresentations claim (Count III).

Judge Kendall granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.  She dismissed without prejudice all claims
brought by Plaintiff Leppert individually and on behalf of the
putative Ohio Class for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(2).  She likewise dismissed without prejudice all claims
based on allegations that Defendants misrepresented their cat food
products as being "safe" or fit for consumption by cats.  Finally,
the Judge dismissed the claims for breach of express and implied
warranty (Counts I-II) without prejudice for failure to provide the
requisite pre-suit notice and dismisses the fraudulent omissions
claim (Count VII) without prejudice for failure to allege a duty to
disclose.  The Plaintiffs have until Feb. 14, 2019 to re-plead
these claims, if possible.

Absent re-pleading of the dismissed claims, only the following
claims may proceed: common law fraud (Count IV), ICFA (Count VI)
and unjust enrichment (Count VIII) based on the allegations that
the Defendants misrepresented their cat food products as being
"Biologically Appropriate" and made from "Fresh Reginal
Ingredients."

Among other things, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have
sufficiently alleged facts supporting a claim that they purchased
cat food at a premium based on misleading representations that it
was "biologically appropriate" and made from "fresh regional
ingredients."  Therefore, their unjust enrichment claim (Count
VIII) based on this same theory also survives.

As to the ICFA claim (Count VI), the Judge also finds that while
the Complaint alleges simply that Chernik saw the nutritional
claims on the packaging, it then goes on in several paragraphs to
describe in detail and even provide pictures of the specific claims
on the cat food packaging.  Drawing all inferences in the
Plaintiffs' favor as it must, the Judge reasonably assumes the
nutritional claims Chernik saw and relied upon included those
describing the cat food as being "biologically appropriate" and
made from "fresh, regional ingredients."

The Judge further finds that under Illinois law, mere puffery or a
statement of the Deller's opinion is not actionable under either a
common law fraud or ICFA claim based on the sound reasoning that no
reasonable consumer would rely on such an implicit assertion as the
sole basis for making a purchase. Therefore, for the reasons
explained already, the only statements that could possibly provide
a basis for a common law fraud or ICFA claim are that the cat foods
are "biologically appropriate" and made from "fresh regional
ingredients."

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 16, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/E7IMDU from Leagle.com.

Deborah Leppert, Plaintiff, represented by Kyle Alan Shamberg --
kshamberg@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, Rebecca
Peterson -- rapeterson@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Naun
P.l.l.p., pro hac vice, Robert Kinney Shelquist --
rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grundal Nauen & Holstein PLLP,
Steven M. McKany -- smckany@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo
LLP, pro hac vice & Katrina Carroll -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com --
Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC.

Zachary Chernik, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Kyle Alan Shamberg,
Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, Rebecca Peterson, Lockridge Grindal
Naun P.l.l.p., pro hac vice, Robert Kinney Shelquist, Lockridge
Grundal Nauen & Holstein PLLP & Katrina Carroll, Lite DePalma
Greenberg LLC.

Champion Petfoods USA, Inc. & Champion Petfoods LP, Defendants,
represented by David A. Coulson -- oulsond@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg
Traurig P.A. & Francis A. Citera -- citeraf@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg
Traurig, LLP..


CHARLOTTE SCHOOL: Settlement in Barchiesi Suit Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT C. BARCHIESI, and LEJLA HADZIC, Individually
and in a representative capacity on behalf of a class of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW,
LLC and INFILAW CORPORATION, Defendants, Civil Action No.
3:16-CV-00861-GCM (W.D. N.C.), Judge Graham C. Mullen of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
Charlotte Division, granted the parties' motion for final approval
of the class action settlement.

On Jan. 9, 2018, the Court heard the motion for final approval of
the class action settlement of Settling Plaintiffs Spencer Krebs,
Morgan Switzer, Dave Wyatt, Krystal Horsley, Jacenta Marie Price,
Markisha Dobson, Raissa Levy, James Villanueva, Shanna Rivera, and
Andre McCoy, individually and in their representative capacity on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and Leah Ash,
individually, and Defendants Charlotte School of Law, LLC ("CSL"),
InfiLaw Corp., InfiLaw Holding, Chidi Ogene, Jay Conison, and Don
Lively.

For the reasons stated in the Order Granting Preliminary Approval
of Class Settlement and Preliminary Class Certification, and having
found nothing in any submitted objections that would disturb these
previous findings, Judge Mullen finds and determines that the
proposed settlement Class meets all of the legal requirements for
class certification for settlement purposes under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(1)(B).  Further, he finds that the
Settlement Agreement is, in all respects, fair, adequate, and
reasonable.  He therefore approved it.

The Class Members are defined as any person who enrolled in,
attended, or paid tuition or fees to CSL between Sept. 1, 2013 and
Aug. 15, 2017.  

The Defendants, through the Claims Administrator, will issue a
Settlement Payment to each Class Member who submitted a valid and
timely Claim Form and is approved by the Claims Administrator
(i.e., each Authorized Claimant) pursuant to procedures and in the
amount to be calculated in the Settlement Agreement Section 10.2
and under the timeline stated in Section 10.2 of the Settlement
Agreement.

The Settling Plaintiffs' Counsel are awarded 15% of the settlement
in attorneys' fees plus $35,773.82 in costs.  The Representative
Plaintiffs and Leah Ash are each awarded $500 as incentive awards.
The Claims Administrator will make such payments from the
Settlement Fund pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 16, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/JrpLQB from Leagle.com.

Robert C Barchiesi, Individually and in a Representative capacity
on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated & Lejla
Hadzic, Individually and in a Representative capacity on behalf of
a class of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented
by Angelique Adams -- aadams@shipmanlaw.com -- Shipman & Wright,
LLP, Gary K. Shipman -- gshipman@shipmanlaw.com -- Shipman &
Wright,
LLP, John Alan Jones -- email@m-j.com -- Martin and Jones, PLLC,
Karl Joseph Amelchenko, Martin & Jones, Kyle Joseph Nutt, Shipman &
Wright, LLP, Steven Dennis Corriveau, Martin & Jones & H. Forest
Horne, Jr., Jones, Martin, Parris & Tessener.

Raissa Levy, Case No. 3:17cv26, James Villanueva, Case No.
3:17cv26, Shanna Rivera, Case No. 3:17cv26, Andre McCoy, Case No.
3:17cv26 & 17cv26 Levy Plaintiffs, Consol Plaintiffs, represented
by Amanda A. Mingo, Rawls, Scheer, Foster, Mingo & Culp, PLLC,
Brian Leighton Kinsley, Crumley Roberts, Philip Bohrer, Bohrer
Brady LLC, pro hac vice, Robert Andre Fleury, Jr., Crumley Roberts
& Scott E. Brady, Bohrer Brady LLC, pro hac vice.

Leah Ash, Case No. 3:17cv39 & 17cv39 Ash Plaintiff, Consol
Plaintiffs, represented by Michael John Messinger, Law Offices of
Michael Messinger, PLLC.

Spencer Krebs, Case No. 3:17cv190, Morgan Switzer, Case No.
3:17cv190, Dave Wyatt, Case No. 317cv190, Jacenta Marie Price, Case
No. 3:17cv190, Krystal Horsley, Case No. 3:17cv190, Markisha
Dobson, Case No. 3:17cv190 & 17cv190 Plaintiffs, Consol Plaintiffs,
represented by Anthony J. Majestro -- amajestro@powellmajestro.com
-- Powell & Majestro, PLLC, pro hac vice, Douglas B. Abrams, Abrams
& Abrams, P.A., Noah Abrams, Abrams & Abrams PA, Taylor M. Norman
-- tnorman@bjc4u.com -- Bailey Javins & Carter, LC, pro hac vice &
Timothy C. Bailey, Bailey Javins & Carter, LC, pro hac vice.

Charlotte School of Law, LLC, Defendant, represented by David
Edward Mills -- dmills@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Debbie W. Harden
-- debbie.harden@wbd-us.com -- Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP,
Johnny M. Loper -- johnny.loper@wbd-us.com -- Womble Bond Dickinson
(US) LLP, Michael DeWayne Hays -- mhays@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP,
pro hac vice, Rebecca Claire Fleishman --
rebecca.fleishman@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice,
LLP, Robert Cahill -- rcahill@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, pro hac
vice & Sarah Motley Stone -- sarah.stone@wbd-us.com -- Womble Bond
Dickinson (US) LLP.

InfiLaw Corporation, Defendant, represented by David Edward Mills,
Cooley LLP, Johnny M. Loper, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Sarah
Motley Stone, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Debbie W. Harden,
Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Michael DeWayne Hays, Cooley LLP,
pro hac vice & Robert Cahill, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.

Jay Conison, Case No. 3:17cv190, Consol Defendant, represented by
David Edward Mills, Cooley LLP, Johnny M. Loper, Womble Bond
Dickinson (US) LLP, Sarah Motley Stone, Womble Bond Dickinson (US)
LLP, Debbie W. Harden, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Michael
DeWayne Hays, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice & Robert Cahill, Cooley LLP,
pro hac vice.

Chidi Ogene, Case No. 3:17cv190, Consol Defendant, represented by
David Edward Mills, Cooley LLP, Johnny M. Loper, Womble Bond
Dickinson (US) LLP, Sarah Motley Stone, Womble Bond Dickinson (US)
LLP, Debbie W. Harden, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Michael
DeWayne Hays, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice & Robert Cahill, Cooley LLP,
pro hac vice & Sarah Motley Stone, Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP.

Sterling Partners, Case No. 3:17cv190 & Sterling Capital Partners
IV, LLC, Case No. 3:17cv190, Consol Defendants, represented by Adam
Karl Doerr -- adoerr@rbh.com -- Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson & Robert
Evans Harrington, Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A..


CHARTEC LLC: Faces Trammel Labor Suit in Kern County, California
----------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
CharTec, LLC. The case is captioned as TABITHA TRAMMEL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ALEX ROGERS; and CHARTEC, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
BCV-19-100100 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., Jan. 11, 2019). The case is
assigned to Judge Stephen D. Schuett.

CharTec, LLC provides Hardware-as-a-Service (HaaS)/sales training
programs. Its HaaS programs help technology companies to transfer
as managed service providers to offer custom standardized hardware
branded with their company name and logo; servers, workstations,
backup and disaster recovery, firewalls, and VoIP; hardware
refreshments; software assurance and licensing; software budgeting
and license tracking; a single point of contact for problem
resolution; tech support; and North American-based help desk. The
company is based in Bakersfield, California. CharTec, LLC operates
as a subsidiary of ARRC Technology, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Gene F. Williams, Esq.


CHINA TECHFAITH: Thomas Sues Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------
Bradley Thomas, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. China Techfaith Wireless Communication
Technology Limited, Deyou Dong and Yuping Ouyang, Defendants, Case
No. 19-cv-00134, (E.D. N.Y., January 8, 2019) seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

China Techfaith is into the design and development of specialized
mobile handsets for consumers and enterprises. On December 20,
2018, China Techfaith said that operating expenses for the first
half of 2018 more than quintupled as compared to the same period of
last year as a result of the lower transaction valuation of the
sale of its subsidiary in July 2018, resulting in 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, shares of China Techfaith stock fell $0.59 per share
or over 35% to close at $1.07 per share on December 20, 2018. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
             pkim@rosenlegal.com


CHINATOWN TAKE-OUT: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Li FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Shanfa Li and Guiming Shao filed an appeal from the
District Court's Opinion and Order dated December 4, 2018, and
Judgment dated December 6, 2018, entered in their lawsuit styled
Li, et al. v. Chinatown Take-Out Inc., et al., Case No. 16-cv-7787,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(White Plains).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New
York Labor Law, arising from the Defendants' various willful and
unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices.

The appellate case is captioned as Li, et al. v. Chinatown Take-Out
Inc., et al., Case No. 19-78, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Shanfa Li, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, and Guiming Shao are represented by:

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

Defendants-Appellees Chinatown Take-Out Inc., DBA China Town Take
Out, and Yechiel Meiteles are represented by:

          Bernard Weinreb, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF BERNARD WEINREB
          2 Perlman Drive
          Spring Valley, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 369-1019
          E-mail: boruchw@cs.com


CIT BANK: Judge Green-Lights Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge
in Camden has largely denied a motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit over "force placed" insurance policies for holders of
reverse mortgages.

Mortgage lender CIT Bank, mortgage servicer Financial Freedom
Senior Funding Corp. and three insurance companies moved to dismiss
the suit, which claims the defendants conspired to engage in
abusive practices against a class of holders of reverse mortgages.
But U.S. District Judge Renee Bumb denied the motion to toss the
nine-count complaint, except to dismiss a count for tortious
interference against the insurance company defendants.
The ruling allows the suit to proceed against Financial Freedom,
CIT and the three insurance company—QBE Insurance Corp., QBE
First Insurance Agency and MIC General Insurance—on counts for
conspiracy to defraud, violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
Financial Freedom and CIT also face counts for breach of contract,
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
violation of the Truth in Lending Act.

The suit is being brought on behalf of a potential class of CIT
borrowers who were charged for force-placed insurance by the
defendant insurance companies. The suit claims that holders of
reverse mortgages whose property insurance lapsed were charged
excessive premiums and fees for policies placed on their homes
through arrangements between CIT, Financial Freedom and the three
insurance companies.

The sole named plaintiff is Monica Gray, executrix of Earl Gray
Jr., who died in 2016 after obtaining a reverse mortgage from
Financial Freedom on his house in Cinnaminson. He left the property
to Monica's children, Jasmine and Justin, in a trust. But he failed
to maintain hazard insurance coverage on his property, as required
by the mortgage terms, prompting Financial Freedom to arrange the
issue of force-placed insurance on his property.
The suit claims Financial Freedom gets a commission or kickback
from buying force-placed insurance from the QBE defendants and MIG
General. The cost of the insurance, and the kickback, is then
passed on to the property owner, according to the suit.

The suit does not challenge Financial Freedom's ability to obtain
force-placed insurance to protect its interest in the borrowers'
loans it services, but challenges its "manipulation" of the process
through its "scheme" with the other defendants.

"Defendants' practices have resulted not only in imposing
unwarranted and excessive charges for insurance and inspection fees
on the reverse mortgage loans it services, but also led to
unprecedented rates of reverse mortgage foreclosures and the
eviction of elderly consumers from their homes," the lawsuit
claims.

Bumb dismissed the tortious interference claims against the
insurance defendants after finding the allegations lacked a
requisite element of malice. She said that in the context, malice
does not mean ill will, but that harm was inflicted intentionally,
without justification or excuse. Concluding that that was not the
case, she cleared the insurance company defendants on the tortious
interference count.

CIT and Financial Freedom claimed the state-law claims against them
are pre-empted by the Home Owners Loan Act, a federal law. But Bumb
disagreed. While the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit have yet to rule on HOLA's
pre-emptive effect on state law claims, Bumb found no pre-emption
based on rulings from other federal appeals courts.

The defendants also claimed that the RICO and Truth in Lending Act
counts are time-barred and that they fail on the merits. Bumb said
the RICO statute of limitations issue was "one in which they
ultimately may prevail" but is "better decided after discovery."
The question of equitable tolling of the TILA count, likewise, "is
more appropriately addressed on a developed record rather than at
the pleadings stage."

The plaintiffs and class are represented by Roosevelt Nesmith, Esq.
-- roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com -- an attorney in Montclair, and
Catherine Anderson of Giskan Solotaroff & Anderson in New York.
Nesmith said in a statement, "We are heartened by the Court's
decision which upheld the overwhelming majority of Plaintiffs'
claims alleging CIT Bank, its Financial Freedom division, and its
forced-placed insurers, QBE Insurance and MIC General Insurance,
misled consumers in overcharging them for insurance it force-placed
on their properties and in imposing unwarranted inspection fees on
their mortgage accounts.  We look forward to continuing to
prosecute these claims on behalf of the named Plaintiffs and the
putative class." Louis Smith, Esq. -- smithlo@gtlaw.com -- of
Greenberg Traurig in Florham Park, represents CIT and Charles
Faletta, Esq. -- cfalletta@sillscummis.com -- of Sills, Cummis &
Gross in Newark, and Stephen LeBlanc, Esq. --
sleblanc@buckleysandler.com -- of Buckley Sanders in Washington,
D.C., represent the insurance companies. None of the defense
attorneys responded to a request for comment. [GN]


CORONA REGIONAL: Seeks March 31 Extension to File Cert. Writ
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Corona Regional Medical Center, et al., submitted to
Justice Elena Kagan their application to extend the time to file a
petition for a writ of certiorari from January 30, 2019, to March
31, 2019, in the matter titled CORONA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; UHS
OF DELAWARE, INC., Applicants/Petitioners v. MARLYN SALI AND
DEBORAH SPRIGGS, Respondents, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated and the general public, Case No. 18A723, in the
Supreme Court of United States.

The Ninth Circuit entered its judgment on May 3, 2018, denying the
Applicants' timely petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on
November 1, 2018.  The Ninth Circuit issued an amended opinion on
November 27, 2018.

The Lower Court Case is entitled MARLYN SALI AND DEBORAH SPRIGGS,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated and the
general public v. CORONA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; UHS OF DELAWARE,
INC., Case No. 15-56460, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

The District Court case is styled MARLYN SALI AND DEBORAH SPRIGGS,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated and the
general public v. CORONA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; UHS OF DELAWARE,
INC., in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 12, 2018, Judge
Salvador Mendoza, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the District Court's denial of class certification
in the case.  Sali and Spriggs appeal the District Court's denial
of class certification in the putative class action alleging
employment claims against Corona and UHS.

Corona operates a hospital in Southern California that employs
hourly-wage Registered Nurses ("RNs").  Sali and Spriggs are RNs
formerly employed by Corona.  They assert that a number of Corona's
employment policies and practices with respect to RNs violate
California law and have resulted in underpayment of wages.

The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action in California State
Court on behalf of all RNs employed by Defendants in California at
any time during the Proposed Class Period who (a) were not paid all
wages at their regular rate of pay; (b) not paid time and a-half
and/or double time for all overtime hours worked; and (c) denied
uninterrupted, 'off-duty' meal-and-rest periods.  The lawsuit was
later removed to the District Court.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners/Applicants Corona Regional Medical Center,
et al., are represented by:

          Stacey E. James, Esq.
          Khatereh Sage Fahimi, Esq.
          Christina H. Hayes, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3577
          Telephone: (619) 232-0441
          E-mail: sjames@littler.com
                  sfahimi@littler.com
                  chayes@littler.com

               - and -

          Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq.
          Theane Evangelis, Esq.
          Bradley J. Hamburger, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          Facsimile: (213) 299-7520
          E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
                  tevangelis@gibsondunn.com
                  bhamburger@gibsondunn.com


CREDIT ONE BANK: Bolden Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saadia Bolden, on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated
consumers, Plaintiff, v. Credit One Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
CV19909283 (Comm. Pleas, Ohio, January 8, 2019), seeks statutory
damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Bolden received calls on her cell telephone from Credit One,
demanding money in connection with an allegedly-outstanding debt
using an automatic telephone dialing system. Bolden does not have
an account with Credit One and never authorized Credit One to call
her on her cell phone, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
      Michael L. Berler, Esq.
      Michael L. Fine, Esq.
      FREDERICK & EERIER LLC
      767 East 185th Street
      Cleveland, OH 44119
      Phone: (216) 502-1055
      Fax: (216) 609-0750
      Email: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
             mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
             michaelf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com


CRST EXPEDITED: Sellars' Hostile Work Environment Class Decertified
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CATHY SELLARS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CRST EXPEDITED, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. C15-117-LTS (N.D. Iowa), Judge Leonard T.
Strand of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division, granted the Defendant's (i) motion for
partial summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' retaliation claim, and
(ii) motion for decertification of the Hostile Work Environment
class.

CRST operates its transportation company by teaming together two
drivers per truck so one driver may sleep while the other is
driving.  CRST has a written policy prohibiting sexual harassment
in its workplace.  The policy also prohibits unlawful employment
discrimination and retaliation.  The policy is contained within the
handbooks that are distributed to CRST drivers and home office
employees, including driver managers ("DMs").

The Plaintiffs are female truck drivers who assert claims of
hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of Title VII
of  the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against their employer, CRST.
They contend that CRST repeatedly failed to discipline DMs for
failure to follow its policy of immediately separating drivers upon
receipt of a sexual harassment complaint and escalate that
complaint to HR.  They suggest that DMs are incentivized to keep
the trucks moving because stopping them due to sexual harassment
complaints will affect their compensation metrics.  They allege
sexual harassment is allowed to thrive under this purported policy,
pattern or practice of failing to discipline DMs for mishandling
complaints.

On March 30, 2017, Judge Strand entered an order certifying the
following classes:

     a. The Hostile Work Environment Class: All women who were or
are employed as team truck drivers by CRST Expedited, Inc. at any
time from Oct. 12, 2013 to the present, who have been subjected to
a hostile work environment based on sex as a result of any of the
following alleged CRST policies: (1) failing to find their
complaints were corroborated without an eyewitness or admission,
(2) failing to discipline drivers after complaints were
corroborated; and (3) failure to discipline DMs for failing to
promptly respond to sexual harassment complaints.

     b. The Retaliation Class: All women who were or are employed
as team truck drivers by CRST Expedited, Inc. at any time from Oct.
12, 2013 to the present, who have been subjected to retaliation
based on sex as a result of CRST requiring them to exit the truck
in response to their complaints of sexual harassment.

He also certified the following issues pursuant to Rule
23(c)(4)(a):

     a. As to the Hostile Work Environment Class, whether CRST has
any of the following policies, patterns or practices that create or
contribute to a hostile work environment: (1) failing to find their
complaints were corroborated without an eyewitness or admission,
(2) failing to discipline drivers after complaints were
corroborated and (3) failure to discipline DMs for failing to
promptly respond to sexual harassment complaints; and

     b. As to the Retaliation Class: Whether CRST has a policy,
pattern or practice of retaliating against women complaining of
sexual harassment by requiring them to exit the truck except when
they are a lead driver or owner-operator Id. at 55. I noted the
order could be altered or amended as appropriate before final
judgment pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C).

CRST now seeks summary judgment on the retaliation claim and
decertification of the hostile work environment class.  CRST argues
that the Plaintiffs' retaliation claim fails for four reasons: (i)
the Plaintiffs cannot show that they suffered any materially
adverse employment action; (ii) the Plaintiffs cannot show that
their removal from their trucks was motivated by retaliatory animus
against them for complaining of sexual harassment; (iii) CRST has
legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for its remedial actions; and
(iv) the record lacks any evidence of pretext.

The Plaintiffs argue an unpaid suspension or pay cut in response to
sexual harassment complaints constitutes a materially adverse
employment action.  They contend they have direct evidence of
retaliatory intent based on CRST's admission that its policy is to
remove women who complain about harassment from their trucks and,
depending on whether the removal occurred before or after July
2015, to pay them nothing or reduced pay.

As to the retaliation claim, Judge Strand finds that  CRST is
entitled to summary judgment for all complaints after July 1, 2015,
as the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of
material fact from which a jury could conclude that CRST maintained
a policy, pattern or practice of failing to pay female drivers
complaining of sexual harassment or paying them significantly less
than they would have made had they stayed on the truck.  The
Plaintiffs' attempt to demonstrate a fact issue as to pretext by
showing that they made complaints of sexual harassment and CRST
took adverse employment action shortly thereafter is insufficient.
They offer no evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer
that CRST's stated reasons for removing the complainant from the
truck (resulting in no pay until the complainant could be
re-paired) were pretextual.  As such, CRST is entitled to summary
judgment on the Plaintiffs' retaliation claim.

With respect to the hostile work environment class, the Judge finds
that the Plaintiffs have done little to explain precisely how their
hostile work environment claim should be tried and where the
certified issue fits into the overall method of proving liability
and damages.  Aside from advocating for a bifurcated approach, the
Plaintiffs have not explained how they intend to prove their
hostile work environment claim on a class basis.  The Plaintiffs
are not alleging that CRST's policies, patterns or practices
themselves are the harassing conduct, but the means by which CRST
tolerates, encourages and allows sexual harassment in the
workplace.  This is where the class structure falls apart, as there
is no common evidence regarding the alleged harassment female
drivers experienced.  Any commonality concerning CRST's alleged
response (or lack of response) to each reported incident of
harassment has no bearing on the isolated nature of the harassing
conduct.

In sum, the Judge finds that the hostile work environment class and
certified issue do not meet the predominance and superiority
requirements under Rule 23(b)(3), nor the commonality requirement
under Rule 23(a).  The hostile work environment class must be
decertified.

For the reasons stated, Judge Strand granted the Defendant's motion
for partial summary judgment regarding the class retaliation claim,
and dismissed the class claim of unlawful retaliation.  He also
granted the Defendant's motion  for decertification of the Hostile
Work Environment class, and decertified the Hostile Work
Environment Class.

The Plaintiffs may pursue their hostile work environment claims
against the Defendant on an individual basis.  In addition, while
he has granted summary judgment as to the class claim of
retaliation, the Judge holds it does not preclude the possibility
that an individual Plaintiff might have a viable retaliation claim
based on the specific facts and circumstances of that Plaintiff's
case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 15, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/NmIRWM from Leagle.com.

Cathy Sellars, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Claudia Lopez, On behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated & Leslie Fortune, On behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Thomas Andrew
Newkirk -- tnewkirk@newkirklaw.com -- Newkirk Zwagerman PLC,
Giselle Schuetz -- giselle@joshuafriedmanesq.com -- Law Offices of
Joshua Friedman, PC, pro hac vice, Joshua N. Friedman --
josh@joshuafriedmanesq.com -- Friedman & Houlding LLP, pro hac
vice, Rebecca Houlding -- rebecca@joshuafriedmanesq.com -- Law
Offices of Joshua Friedman PC, pro hac vice & Shilpa Narayan,
Friedman & Houlding LLP, pro hac vice.

CRST Expedited, Inc, Defendant, represented by Kevin J. Visser --
kvisser@simmonsperrine.com -- Simmons Perrine Moyer Bergman PLC,
Nicholas Petersen -- npetersen@simmonsperrine.com -- Simmons
Perrine Moyer Bergman PLC, James T. Malysiak -- jmathias@jenner.com
-- Jenner & Block LLP, pro hac vice, Jessica Ring Amunson, Jenner &
Block LLP, pro hac vice & John H. Mathias, Jr. --
jmathias@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, pro hac vice.


DARK HORSE: Class Certification Denial in Jimenez-Sanchez Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FERNANDO JIMENEZ-SANCHEZ et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. DARK HORSE EXPRESS, INC., Defendant and Respondent,
Case No. F072599 (Cal. App.), Judge Brad R. Hill of the Court of
Appeals of California for the Fifth District reversed the trial
court's order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

The named Plaintiffs, former employees of the Defendant, brought
the action asserting wage and hour claims on behalf of themselves
and other similarly situated employees of the Defendant.  The
operative pleading names two Plaintiffs, Jimenez Sanchez and
Porfirio Preciado.  It alleges they brought the action as a class
action, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
current and former employees of the Defendant who worked as
drivers.

The Defendant is a trucking company and the Plaintiffs were
employed as drivers to transport milk within California; they were
paid on a piece-rate1 basis for driving and at a contractual rate
for certain other activities.  The Plaintiffs allege the Defendant
enforced policies that: imposed a piece-rate system that failed to
compensate employees for all "hours worked," as defined by law;
failed to authorize or permit rest breaks by not separately
compensating for them at an hourly rate; failed to schedule meal
periods, provide uninterrupted duty-free meal periods of at least
30 minutes, or pay employees for on-duty meal periods; failed to
pay premiums when rest or meal breaks were not provided; failed to
maintain accurate records of employee time; failed to provide
accurate wage statements; and failed to pay all wages owed upon
termination of employment.

The Plaintiffs assert causes of action for: (1) failure to pay at
least minimum wage or the contractual rate for all hours worked,
including "nonproductive time"; (2) failure to provide rest periods
or premium wages in lieu of them; (3) failure to provide meal
periods or premium wages in lieu of them; (4) failure to provide
accurate wage statements; (5) failure to timely pay wages due at
termination; and (6) violation of the unfair competition law.

The Defendant identified 76 current and former drivers as potential
class members.  It obtained settlement agreements and releases of
the claims asserted in the lawsuit from 54 of those drivers.  It
produced a list of the 76 drivers to plaintiffs in discovery
responses in December 2014; it also produced copies of all but two
of the releases to the Plaintiffs in October and December of 2014.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  They
proposed certification of a class defined as all current and former
California based Dark Horse drivers who are or have been paid on a
piece rate basis at any time from March 25, 2010 to present.  The
Plaintiffs also proposed two subclasses: (1) drivers within the
class who did not sign settlement or release agreements; and (2)
drivers within the class who signed a purported settlement and
release of claims.  They asserted the class was numerous and
ascertainable, and would support class action treatment of the
case.

The Defendant opposed the motion for class certification.  It
argued 54 potential class members had released their claims,
leaving only 17 potential class members, other than the named
Plaintiffs and the four individuals who provided declarations in
support of the Plaintiffs' motion. It contended the class was not
sufficiently numerous to warrant a class action.  Further, because
most of the potential class members expressed through their
releases a lack of interest in pursuing the litigation against the
Defendant, the Plaintiffs' claims were not typical of the class and
were antagonistic to the interests of the majority of potential
class members.  The Defendant also asserted the proposed class
included a number of different types of drivers, whose work
involved different tasks and who were paid by different pay
formulas.

The trial court denied the Plaintiffs' motion, primarily on the
ground individual issues predominated over common issues capable of
determination on a class basis.  The Plaintiffs appeal from the
denial of the class certification motion.  They contend the trial
court used improper criteria or erroneous legal assumptions in
reaching its decision, and therefore abused its discretion in
denying the motion.

Judge Hill finds that the Plaintiffs' claims for separate
compensation for rest breaks presented some common factual and
legal issues that the trial court should have considered as common
questions, capable of being determined on a class basis, when it
considered whether common issues predominate in this case. The
claim for premium wages may also present a common legal question
regarding whether section 226.7 requires payment of premium wages
when an employee paid on a piece-rate basis is provided a rest
break, but is not compensated for the break separately from the
piece rate.  Because the trial court based its decision on the
certification motion in part on an erroneous legal assumption, and
failed to consider the common questions presented by the rest break
claims, the Judge must remand for the trial court to reconsider
whether common issues predominate in the case as a whole.

The Judge also finds that the trial court did not discuss any
release issues related to the meal break claims, or determine
whether the releases, as they applied to meal break claims,
presented predominantly common or individual questions. It did not
expressly find that individual issues predominated over common
issues as to the meal break claims, because of individual issues
raised by the releases. Nonetheless, it seemed to find that the
effect of the releases was to overcome the common issues presented
by the meal period claims.  Consequently, the trial court's
findings and reasoning regarding the meal period issues do not
support its denial of the motion for class certification; the Judge
must remand for the trial court to consider the common issues it
found, and any individual issues presented by the meal break claims
or the releases of those claims, in determining whether common
issues predominate in the case as a whole.

The Judge further the trial court had discretion to consider
whether the remaining members of the proposed class were
sufficiently numerous to justify class treatment, after determining
individual questions predominated with respect to the claims of one
subclass and the defense to them.  However, because he has found
that the trial court used improper criteria or erroneous legal
assumptions in determining whether common issues predominate in the
rest break claims, and that the error in considering the rest break
claims affected the trial court's analysis of the meal break and
release claims, he concludes the trial court must reconsider
numerosity along with the other factors and redetermine whether
class certification should be granted.

Finally, he finds that trial court's reasons for finding a class
action was not the superior method of adjudicating Plaintiffs'
claims was influenced by the trial court's erroneous legal
assumptions about the rest break claims.  Additionally, the trial
court's discussion of the numerosity issue did not include any
consideration of the impracticability, difficulty, or inconvenience
of joining all the proposed class members, or all the proposed
nonrelease subclass members, in the action.  Thus, it did not
appear to apply the correct analysis in considering numerosity.

Ultimately, Judge Hill concludes that because of the trial court's
use of improper criteria or erroneous legal assumptions and other
errors in the resolution of the motion, he must reverse the order
and remand for the trial court to reconsider the motion for
certification of the proposed class and subclasses.  Accordingly,
he reversed the trial court's order denying class certification,
and remanded the matter to the trial court to reconsider and
redetermine the motion for class certification in light of the
views expressed in the Opinion.  The Plaintiffs are entitled to
their costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 16, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/rpuj9r from Leagle.com.

Mallison & Martinez, Marco A. Palau, Eric Trabucco and Stanley
Mallison for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Klein, DeNatale, Golder, Cooper, Rosenlieb & Kimball, Catherine E.
Bennett -- cbennett@kleinlaw.com; Krase, Bailey, Reed-Krase and
Allan M. Bailey -- abailey@kraselaw.com -- for Defendant and
Respondent.


DCN HOLDINGS: Gallivan Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER GALLIVAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DCN HOLDINGS, INC. doing business
as: Accountsreceivable.com, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00143-JAK-JEM (C.D. Cal., Jan. 8, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The
case is assigned to Judge John A. Kronstadt and referred to
Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott.

DCN Holdings, Inc. doing business as: Accountsreceivable.com is a
California company engaged as a debt collection agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J Bontrager,Esq.
          Martin and Bontrager APC
          6464 West Sunset Boulevard Suite 960
          Los Angeles, CA 90028
          Telephone: (323) 940-1700
          Facsimile: (323) 328-8095
          E-mail: nick@mblawapc.com
                  tom@mblawapc.com


DEALS ON BROADWAY: $52K Monica FLSA/NYLL Suit Settlement Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTONINA "MONICA" MONICA, Plaintiff, v. DEALS ON
BROADWAY CORP., doing business as "Deals on Broadway," et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 18 Civ. 1342 (HBP) (S.D. N.Y.), Magistrate
Judge Henry Pitman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York approved the parties' settlement agreement in
the action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
the New York Labor Law ("NYLL").

The parties were able to reach their settlement without the
assistance of the Court.  The Plaintiff was employed at the
Defendants' retail clothing store from April 16, 2014 through Feb.
2, 2018.  The complaint states that the Plaintiff worked as a
cleaning person, stock up person and customer service provider.
The Plaintiff has alleged claims under the FLSA and the NYLL
contending that the Defendants failed to pay her the minimum wage,
overtime premium pay, and spread-of-hours pay, and that the
Defendants are liable for statutory penalties for failing to
provide the required wage notice and wage statements.  The
Plaintiff claims that her total unpaid straight time and overtime
wages are $54,327.28, exclusive of liquidated damages.  Other than
the fact of the Plaintiff's employment, the Defendants have denied
all of the material allegations in the complaint.

The settlement provides that the Defendants will pay a total amount
of $52,000 -- $34,200 to be paid to the Plaintiff and $17,800 to be
paid to the counsel for fees and costs.

In determining whether a proposed FLSA settlement is fair and
reasonable, a court should consider the totality of circumstances,
including but not limited to the following factors: (1) the
plaintiff's range of possible recovery; (2) the extent to which the
settlement will enable the parties to avoid anticipated burdens and
expenses in establishing their claims and defenses; (3) the
seriousness of the litigation risks faced by the parties; (4)
whether the settlement agreement is the product of arm's length
bargaining between experienced counsel; and (5) the possibility of
fraud or collusion.

Magistrate Judge Pitman finds that the settlement here satisfies
these criteria.  First, the net settlement amount represents
approximately 63% of the Plaintiff's claimed unpaid wages and
overtime pay.  Second, the settlement will entirely avoid the
expense and aggravation of litigation.  Third, it enable the
Plaintiff to avoid the risk of litigation.  Fourth, there is no
evidence that the settlement is anything other than the product of
arm's-length bargaining between experienced counsel.  Fifth, there
is no evidence suggesting fraud.  Finally, the settlement provides
that 33.3% of the net settlement fund -- $17,100 -- will be paid to
the Plaintiff's counsel as a contingency fee.

Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate approved
the settlement in the matter.  In light of the settlement, the
action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs.  The Clerk is
respectfully requested to mark the matter closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 18, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/MNogId from Leagle.com.

Antonina Monica Monica, individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jian Hang
-- jhang@hanglaw.com -- Hang & Associates, PLLC & Lorena P. Duarte
-- lduarte@hanglaw.com -- Hang & Associates PLLC.

Deals on Broadway Corp., doing business as Deals on Broadway &
Jalal Saab, Defendants, represented by Regina Elaine Faul --
rfaul@phillipsnizer.com -- Phillips Nizer LLP & Laura Elizabeth
Longobardi -- llongobardi@phillipsnizer.com -- Phillips Nizer LLP.


DENMARK, SC: Faces 2 Class Actions Over HaloSan-Tainted Water
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Pugliese and Celia Palermo, writing for WRDW, report that for
at least 10 years, people in Denmark did not trust the water coming
into their homes.

Turns out, the chemical HaloSan was in the water. It's a chemical
often used as a pool disinfectant and it's not approved by the
EPA.

Today, the city rallied, pleading for justice.

Joyce McNeal and a van full of others drove 12 hours from Flint,
Michigan to Denmark, South Carolina.

"Does this situation remind you of what happened in Flint?" "Every
day," Joyce Mcneal, from Flint Michigan replied. "This is Flint."

Thousands drinking poisonous water. In Flint, it was water with
lead that killed Joyce's son.

"My son was the one the had the compromised immune system and the
mental illness," McNeal said. "It destroyed him mentally and the
bacteria and stuff ate him up alive."

Now Eugene Smith and his wife worry about what could happen to
them.

"It's brown, muddy looking. Smells," Pauline Ray Brown said.

"We got a lead test. It came back starting off from a 1 to a 2 to 3
to 5 to 6 to 7 close to 8 level of lead was in me," Eugene Smith
said.

They're not just worried about lead.

'It's very scary to not know what is coming out of your water."

"HaloSan is in this water, lead is in this water, manganese is in
this water, copper is in this water," John Harrell, the attorney
for the people of Denmark said. "Not only that, but they're being
charged for the water they can't drink. It's ridiculous."

John Harrell is the attorney for the people of Denmark. They filed
two class action lawsuits against the City.

"We discovered that there was a poisonous water problem in Denmark
and we discovered that no one in administration is willing to do
anything about it," Harrell said.

"I was my clothes, I scratch, I shower, I scratch. It is not the
lotion or soap I use, it's the water."

For now, they rely on bottled water because for more than 10 years,
they couldn't trust their own.

"Like Doctor Mark Edwards says the only thing this water is good
for is to flush your toilet," Brown said.

Doctor Mark Edwards is the professor who helped expose Flint's lead
crisis. He's been testing Denmark for more than two years and is
only one of the hundreds still demanding answers.

While the City of Denmark has stopped using a chemical called
HaloSan in water from one of its wells, people exposed to the
chemical say they're still dealing with the effects.

With no clear timeline for a solution, neighbors are in limbo,
waiting on clean water and answers.

William Stewart and dozens of others waited in line on Dec. 29
behind Denmark Furniture.

"Without purified water, clear water, you might as well die," said
Mr. Stewart. "You can't survive off of bad water,"

For at least 10 years, people in Denmark used that bad water
without knowing it was being injected with a chemical not approved
by the Environmental Protection Agency.

"I can't find the words to express myself," said Mr. Stewart.

But now that they know about the chemical used in the water, they
rely on bottled water. Water they know is safe.

"This helps, but it's no good for the future," said Mr. Stewart.

By the thousand, people in Denmark are taking the water crisis into
their own hands, handing out nearly a 100, 000 water bottles in the
last two months, 12,000 gallons of water in total.

"These distributions are a temporary fix to us getting real
answers," said Deanna Miller-Berry. She's heading up a grassroots
effort called Denmark Citizens for Safe Water. [GN]


DETROIT: Faces Another Lawsuit Over Towing Practices
----------------------------------------------------
Miami Herald reports that two Detroit residents and a car leasing
company have filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the city and a
towing company worked with police to impound vehicles without
informing owners.

The suit alleges that Bobby's Towing was allowed to charge
exorbitant storage fees to unsuspecting car owners, for months or
years. The Detroit News reported .

Jason Katz, Esq. -- jason@JKatzlaw.com -- is the attorney for the
car leasing firm Brite Financial Services of Madison Heights and
Detroit residents Gerald Grays and Dale Riley. He said the city
violated his clients' constitutional rights by not informing them
about what happened to their vehicles, charging thousands in
storage fees and making them pay before fighting the issue in
court.

An attorney for Bobby's Towing Services declined to comment to the
newspaper. City attorneys and the state attorney general's office
said they'll prove in court that the allegations have no merit.

"We deny the allegations made in this suit and will defend against
them vigorously in court," said Detroit Deputy Corporation Counsel
Chuck Raimi, Esq.

The lawsuit is the latest in a string of controversies surrounding
the city's police towing operation . Officials said Detroit police
took over most of the city's towing operations in October, with the
hope of fixing the issues with the process.

Grays reported to the Detroit police in 2016 that his vehicle had
been stolen, but he wasn't informed by police until Feb. 2018 that
the car was being held by Bobby's Towing, the lawsuit said. The tow
yard informed Grays that the $15 daily storage fee had reached
$11,000.

Riley reported a vehicle missing in 2015, but wasn't informed until
2017 that it had been found in a vacant lot and marked as
abandoned, the lawsuit said. Riley wasn't given a chance to
retrieve the vehicle before it was towed, according to the suit.

Brite Financial alleges that the towing company refused to release
one of their vehicles back to them, the lawsuit alleges. The
leasing firm was later notified that the vehicle had been
abandoned.

"There are likely thousands of people this has happened to," Katz
said. "This is a consequence of a really poor legal system. The law
doesn't protect vehicle owners, because there is no deadline to
report to the owner that their car has been towed or deemed
abandoned.

The federal lawsuit was filed in July, but Katz is seeking to have
the case approved as a class action. A hearing on the issue is
scheduled for Jan. 9.[GN]


DINING INNOVATION: Waitresses Sue to Recover Withheld Tips, OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paramaporn Teppawan, Chia Wen Garay and Shelby Billionaire, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Dining Innovation New York. Inc., Joji Uematsu and Kulthjwadi
Saneewong, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00195 (S.D. N.Y., January 8,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act; and unpaid
"spread of hours" premium pursuant to New York Labor Law and the
New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Defendants operate as Tsuru Ton Tan Udon Noodle Brasserie where
Plaintiffs worked as waitresses. They have worked in excess of 40
hours per week without being paid overtime and allege that the
restaurant maintained an illegal tip pool without their consent.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel. (212) 209-3933
      Fax. (212) 209-7102
      Email: info@jcpclaw.com


DREXEL UNIVERSITY: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Adair Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KELSEY ADAIR, Plaintiff, v. DREXEL UNIVERSITY,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00677 AC (E.D. Cal.), Judge Allison
Claire of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiff is pursuing a putative class action against the
Defendant for false and misleading advertising of its online
educational program known as the Interdepartmental Medical Science
("IMS") Certificate Program.  The action was originally filed in
the Sacramento County Superior Court on March 8, 2018.  The
Defendant removed the action to the Court on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction.

On April 27, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a first amended class action
complaint ("Complaint") against Defendant Drexel University, and
Does 1-10 inclusive, alleging three causes of action: (1) violation
of the California False Advertising Law ("FAL"); (2) violation of
the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and (3) violation of Consumer
Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA").  The Plaintiff seeks equitable relief,
monetary damages, and to represent a class.  The Defendant answered
on May 31, 2018.

The Plaintiff is a former student of Drexel University's IMS
Certificate Program.  She alleges that Drexel falsely advertised
and misrepresented through its online advertising, to her and to
other similarly situated consumers, that its IMS educational
program would help prepare students for medical school by having
live teachers at the satellite campus, writing letters of
recommendation for its students to aid them in obtaining medical
school placement, and guaranteeing a certain number of spots" at
Drexel University College of Medicine.   In reliance on these
representations, the Plaintiff purchased the Defendant's
educational program for $50,000 on or around August 2014.

The classes were conducted virtually and with pre-recorded lectures
from Drexel University College of Medicine; letters of
recommendation were not provided to medical schools the Plaintiff
applied to; and the Plaintiff was not provided an interview with
Drexel University College of Medicine as guaranteed.  It was not
until May 2015, after already purchasing the services and classes
had begun, that the Plaintiff discovered th eDefendant's
"deception."

According to the Plaintiff, she failed to receive the advertised
quality of classes, medical school placement assistance, an
interview with Drexel University College of Medicine, and
ultimately assistance in gaining acceptance into a medical school
program.  She alleges that the Defendant's "fraudulent practices"
constitute a fraudulent omission of a material fact relating to the
nature and quality of its services that would be important to a
reasonable consumer to know at the time they purchase Defendant's
educational program.  Finally, the Plaintiff summarily alleges that
she, and other similarly situated consumers, would not have
purchased the Defendant's program absent these "online
representations and omissions" by the Defendant and its employees.

The Defendant moves for summary judgment on all three claims, on
the ground that the Olaintiff cannot establish that the Defendant
made any false, deceptive or misleading material statements that
would likely deceive a reasonable consumer.

Judge Claire finds that the evidence fails to support the
Plaintiff's characterization of the Defendant's online advertising
of its Sacramento-based IMS program as deceptive or misleading as
to these matters.  To defeat summary judgment, the mere existence
of a scintilla of evidence in support of the Plaintiff's position
will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury
could reasonably find for the Plaintiff.  In the case, the Judge
finds that the Plaintiff's evidence of misrepresentation is no more
than a scintilla; a reasonable jury could not find any
misrepresentation or deceptive advertisement by a preponderance of
the evidence.  Put another way, the Plaintiff's evidence could not
lead a rational trier of fact to conclude that a significant
portion of potential students could be misled by Drexel's marketing
of its IMS program.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff's FAL, UCL, and
CLRA claims fail as a matter of law, and the Defendant is entitled
to summary judgment.

Finally, because the Plaintiff's individual claims fail as a matter
of law, the putative class action does not survive.  The Plaintiff
agrees.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Claire granted in full the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and dismissed without
prejudice the putative class claims.  The Judgement is to be
entered in favor of the Defendant.  The Clerk is directed to close
the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 15, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Vcf7YH from Leagle.com.

Kelsey Adair, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adrian R. Bacon, Law Offices of
Todd M. Friedman, P.C., Meghan George, Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman, PC, Thomas Edward Wheeler -- twheeler@fbtlaw.com -- Law
Offices of Todd M. Friedman & Todd M. Friedman, Law Offices of Todd
M. Friedman, P.C.

Drexel University, Defendant, represented by Michael J. Vartain --
charissa@vartainlaw.com -- Vartain Law Group & Stacey Lynn Leask,
Vartain Law Group, P.C..


EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Foldenauer Challenges PDS Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
Brian Foldenauer, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Edge Therapeutics, Inc., Sol Barer, Isaac
Blech, Brian Leuthner, R. Loch Macdonald, James J. Loughlin, Robert
Spiegel, Liam Ratcliffe and Rosemary A. Crane, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00118-UNA (D. Del., January 22, 2019) is a stockholder
class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the
other public stockholders of Edge Therapeutics, Inc. against the
Company and its Board of Directors for violations of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed merger
between Edge and PDS Biotechnology Corporation ("PDS").

On November 23, 2018, the Board caused the Company to enter into a
definitive merger agreement with PDS, pursuant to which PDS will
become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Edge. While the Proposed Merger
will technically result in the acquisition of PDS by Edge, in
reality it is a takeover of Edge by PDS, says the complaint.

In order to convince Edge's stockholders to vote in favor of the
Proposed Merger, the Board authorized the filing of a Form S-4
Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on or about December 21, 2018, which contains, in violation of the
Exchange Act, incomplete and materially misleading information
regarding: (a) the financial projections for Edge and PDS; (b) the
financial analyses conducted by the Company's financial advisor,
Piper Jaffray & Co., in connection with the Proposed Merger; and
(c) the process that resulted in the Proposed Merger. The
Registration Statement contains woefully inadequate disclosure
regarding the indications of interest and bids received by Edge
during the sales process and the concurrent future employment
communications that members of the Edge Board and management had
during the negotiations that resulted in the Merger Agreement,
asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from taking any steps to
consummate the Proposed Merger unless and until the material
information is disclosed to Edge stockholders before the vote on
the Proposed Merger or, in the event the Proposed Merger is
consummated, recover damages resulting from the Defendants'
violations of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times was, a continuous owner of
Edge common stock.

Edge Therapeutics, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of Delaware with its principal executive offices
located at 300 Connell Drive, Suite 4000, Berkeley Heights, New
Jersey 07922. Shares of Edge common stock are listed on the NASDAQ
under the symbol "EDGE".

Sol Barer has served as a director of the Company since September
2011 and currently serves as Chairman of the Company's Board.

Isaac Blech has served as the Vice Chairman of the Company since
January 2013.

Brian Leuthner has served as a director, Co-Founder, President, and
CEO of the Company since its inception in January 2009.

R. Loch Macdonald has served as a director, Co-Founder, and Chief
Scientific Officer of the Company since its inception in January
2009.

James J. Loughlin has served as a director of the Company since
November 2011. Robert Spiegel has served as a director of the
Company since August 2013. Liam Ratcliffe has served as a director
of the Company since 2016.
Rosemary A. Crane has served as a director of the Company since
September 2017.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
     COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
     The Brandywine Building
     1000 West Street, 10th Floor
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 984-3800
     Email: bbennett@coochtaylor.com

          - and -

     Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
     Christopher R. Tillotson, Esq.
     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
     1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
     New Orleans, LA 70163
     Phone: (504) 455-1400
     Fax: (504) 455-1498
     Email: Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com


EQUINOX FITNESS: Removes Porter et al. Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of RENEE PORTER; JOSHUA TOLIN; and ASHLEY
CHAPMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EQUINOX FITNESS SEPULVEDA, INC.; EQUINOX
HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, filed a
notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 18STCV03163) to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
January 9, 2019. The clerk of court for the Central District of
California assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00203-R-SS. The case is
assigned to Judge Manuel L. Real and referred to Magistrate Judge
Suzanne H. Segal.

Equinox Holdings, Inc. operates full-service fitness clubs that
offer an integrated selection of programs, services, and products.
The company was founded in 1991 and is based in New York, New York.
Equinox Holdings, Inc. is a former subsidiary of The Related
Companies, L.P. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel D Almon, Esq.
          Ronald W Makarem, Esq.
          MAKAREM AND ASSOCIATES APLC
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2440
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760
          Telephone: (310) 312-0299
          Facsimile: (310) 312-0296
          E-mail: almon@law-rm.com
                  makarem@law-rm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nima Darouian, Esq.
          Mia D. Farber, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          725 South Figueroa Street Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 689-0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
          E-mail: nima.darouian@jacksonlewis.com
                  mia.farber@jacksonlewis.com


ERBA DIAGNOSTICS: Florida Class Action Settlement Gets Court Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a class action lawsuit against ERBA Diagnostics,
Inc., has won court approval, ERBA said in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated January 29,
2019.

In December 2015, a class action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida against ERBA
Diagnostics, Inc. (the "Company") and certain of its current or
former executive officers.

The original Complaint was replaced by an Amended Complaint that
added, as defendants, certain other of the Company's former
executive officers, the Company's executive chairman, the entity
that is the Company's majority stockholder (ERBA Diagnostics
Mannheim GmbH), the company that owns the majority stockholder
(Transasia Bio-medicals Ltd.), and the Company's independent
registered public accounting firm at the time the Amended Complaint
was filed (Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C.).

The Amended Complaint alleged generally that during the purported
class period of June 14, 2013 through November 20, 2015, the
Company and the other Company-related defendants knowingly or
recklessly disseminated or approved statements about the
Company’s financial position and results of operations, business
operations, and prospects that were materially false and misleading
or lacked a reasonable basis.

The Amended Complaint asserted claims for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and sought damages in the amount that the class members
allegedly lost on account of the allegedly false and misleading
statements.

The Company, together with those of its current and former officers
and directors who were named as defendants and served, filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint; the Company's former
auditors also moved to dismiss. On February 16, 2017, the court
heard oral argument on the motions to dismiss. At the conclusion of
the hearing, the judge ruled from the bench (i) granting the
motions to dismiss; (ii) denying the plaintiff's request for
permission further to amend the Amended Complaint; and (iii)
dismissing the case. On March 23, 2017, the plaintiff filed a
Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit.

On June 28, 2018, the Company, the other named defendants and the
plaintiff entered into a Stipulation of Settlement pursuant to
which the parties agreed to settle and resolve this matter, subject
to court approval, for a settlement amount equal to $1,215,000, of
which $1,100,000 was paid by the Company and the Company's current
and former officers and directors named as defendants, and $115,000
was paid by Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C.

The settlement amount paid by the Company and the Company's current
and former officers and directors was within the limits of the
Company's insurance coverage and was paid directly by the Company's
insurance provider. As consideration for the payment of the
settlement amount, the plaintiff agreed, on behalf of himself and
the settlement class, to release any and all claims related to the
subject matter of the Amended Complaint and such additional claims
as set forth in further detail therein.

On September 28, 2018, the district court entered an order granting
the plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement. The preliminary approval was subject to further
consideration at a final approval hearing which the district court
originally scheduled for December 12, 2018. On October 1, 2018, the
plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to adjourn the final approval
hearing requesting that the final approval hearing be moved to a
date no earlier than January 11, 2019. On October 2, 2018, the
district court entered an endorsed order granting the plaintiff's
motion and scheduled the final approval hearing to be held on
January 23, 2019. Notices of the settlement were sent to class
members and class members were given the opportunity to object to
or opt out of the settlement.

On January 23, 2019, at the final approval hearing, there were no
requests for exclusions and no objections to the settlement by any
class members. The judge ruled from the bench approving the
settlement and finding that the settlement is fair, adequate and
reasonable. The Company anticipates the judge will shortly issue a
final judgment and order closing the case.

The Company, its current and former directors and officers and all
of the defendants in this action denied and continue to deny that
any of them violated any laws or committed any wrongdoing
whatsoever, and the Stipulation of Settlement should not be deemed
to be an admission, concession, or finding of any fault, liability,
or wrongdoing whatsoever by any of the defendants.

ERBA Diagnostics, Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, and markets diagnostic test kits or assays, and
automated systems that are used to aid in the detection of disease
markers primarily in the areas of autoimmune, infectious diseases,
clinical chemistry, hematology, and diabetes testing. The company
was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Miami Lakes, Florida.
ERBA Diagnostics, Inc. is a subsidiary of ERBA Diagnostics Mannheim
GmbH.


EXPEDIA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit on Taxes Overcharges
--------------------------------------------------------
Lynsi Burton, writing for KOMO News, reports that attorneys filed a
federal class-action lawsuit alleging that Bellevue-based travel
booking company Expedia overcharges customers in taxes and fees.

The complaint accuses the company of levying taxes beyond what's
required by local jurisdictions for hotel rooms and pocketing the
proceeds.

The lawsuit, filed Dec. 17, focused on the taxes charged on
Reservations.com, a separate company that obtains its hotel room
inventory through Expedia and sells those rooms to customers.
Reservations.com has booked 4 million room nights since it opened
in April 2014, according to its website.

While Expedia collects the money for the room and the "taxes and
fees," Reservations.com charges a $14.99 service fee per room per
night as a commission on the sales.

Expedia pays hotels a wholesale rate for the right to sell room
reservations and then profit from the markup on each room, then
remit taxes to the hotels or local jurisdictions after a customer's
hotel stay is complete.

But the lawsuit argued that Expedia's listed taxes exceed various
cities' rates. Reservations.com is not involved in the collection
of taxes and fees, according to the lawsuit.

Plaintiff Joseph Church of Charleston County, South Carolina, used
Reservations.com in June 2017 to book two nights at the Hyatt
Regency Orlando for a family vacation, the complaint indicated.

He paid $518.30 for the room, $14.99 for the service fee and
$108.68 for "tax and fees," according to court documents. However,
the applicable taxes and government fees for Orlando, at a rate of
13.5 percent of the room's cost, should have amounted to $69.97,
attorneys alleged. Church was overcharged by about $38.71.

Attorneys outlined several other listings on the Reservations.com
site that appeared to demonstrate systematic overcharging.

They showed a $63.80 tax and fees charge for one night at the
Renaissance Seattle Hotel that should have been $31.84, according
to Seattle tax rates. At the Kimpton Hotel Vintage Seattle, the
fees listed amounted to $36.38, compared to the legal rate of
$30.64.

The complaint detailed similar schemes at the Atlanta Ritz Carlton
at the Westin New York at Times Square, as well as other hotels in
Chicago and Miami.

The class action said it represents all individuals and entities
who bought a pre-paid hotel room reservation using Reservations.com
or its call center where the room inventory was supplied by Expedia
or one of its subsidiaries from January 1, 2014 to the present
day.

The lawsuit accuses Expedia of committing tax, mail and wire fraud,
misappropriation of money and unjust enrichment.

Expedia's attorneys have not yet submitted a reply in the case and
the company has not responded to a request for comment.

The company expects to move from Bellevue to the Interbay
neighborhood of Seattle in 2019.[GN]


EXPEDIA: Faces Racketeering Class Action in Seattle
---------------------------------------------------
Ryan J. Farrick, writing for Legal Reader, reports that attorneys
filed a class action suit against travel booking juggernaut
Expedia, alleging that the company overcharges customers on taxes
and fees.

Seattle Pi reports that Expedia is accused of 'levying taxes beyond
what's required by local jurisdictions for hotel rooms and
pocketing the proceeds.'

This isn't the first time the website's run afoul of the law.
According to Skift.com, Expedia settled a similar consumer suit in
2009 for $123.4 million. That suit alleged a widespread breach of
contract, coupled with deceptive business practices.

Travel portals have long been criticized for inadequately
explaining the basis of tax charges and supposedly mandatory fees.

The same Seattle law firm that sued Expedia in 2009 is spearheading
the latest class action. Along with tax fraud, Hagens Berman says
the company has violated the Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations
statute -- a federal law originally designed to take down members
of the American Mafia, but which has seen novel utilization since.

The suit focuses on charges levied through Reservations.com, which
obtains its hotel room inventory from Expedia.

Reservations.com, says Seattle PI, has brokered over 4 million
'room nights' since opening in April of 2014. Expedia collects the
site's payments for lodging, taxes and fees, on top of a $14.99
commission from Reservations.com.

After consumers follow through with a reservation and check out of
a hotel, Expedia is supposed to remit collected taxes and fees to
hotels or local government agencies. But attorneys say that Expedia
routinely took more than needed, charging above cities' rates and
pocketing the difference.

Seattle Pi recounts the experience of plaintiff Joseph Church, who
spent two nights at the Hyatt Regency Orlando.

Court documents claim that Expedia overcharged consumers nearly
$100 million through Reservations.com. Image via Pictures of
Money/Flickr.

Church made his booking through Reservations.com, paying $518.30
for the room, $14.99 for a service fee and $108.68 for taxes and
fees.

However, Orlando's tax for hotel rooms is 13.5%. While Church
should have been liable for just under $70 in taxes, he was
overcharged by nearly 50%.

Other instances outlined by attorneys indicated that the practice
of taking more in taxes was routine on Reservations.com. In some
listings, such as that for the Renaissance Seattle Hotel, Expedia
levied more than twice the usual rate.

While Rsservations.com isn't named as a defendant, the lawsuit
maintains that the Expedia affiliate was a knowing and willing
accessory to deception.

"Contrary to Reservations.com's representations and/or the
expectations of consumers, the 'taxes and fees' charged by the
defendants are not the actual taxes and fees remitted to
governmental authorities but contain additional amounts
surreptitiously added by the defendants," claims the suit.

Notices on Reservations.com  say that whatever taxes and fees are
collected in prepaid hotel bookings are due only to government
mandate.

Skift.com notes that, while the suit only now focuses on Expedia's
practices 'in relation to Reservations.com,' the litigation wishes
to retain the right to expand its scope. Attorneys claim the
purported deception has cost customers nearly $100 million. [GN]


FAF INC: Misclassifies Drivers, Campbell Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Campbell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FAF, Inc., Forward Air Corporation,
Priority Capital Group, d/b/a Priority Leasing, and Odyssey
Transport, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00142-WQH-BLM (S.D.
Cal., January 22, 2019) is a class and collective action lawsuit
against Defendants to challenge, among other things, its policy and
practice of unlawfully misclassifying its non-exempt hourly Driver
employees as independent contractors exempt from the provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and California wage and hour
laws.

As a result of its unlawful misclassification policy and practice,
the Defendants have (1) failed to provide meal and rest periods and
pay premiums for missed breaks pursuant to California Labor Code;
(2) failed to compensate for all hours worked pursuant to
California Labor Code and the FLSA; (3) unlawfully deducted
expenses from Drivers' wages in violation of California Labor Code;
(4) failed to pay for waiting time penalties pursuant to California
Labor Code; (5) failed to provide timely and itemized wage
statements pursuant to California Labor Code; and (6) engaged in
unfair business practices pursuant to California Business and
Professions Code; (7) failed to provide minimum wage required under
Ohio law, (8) engaged in unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable acts
and practices under the Ohio Consumer Sales Protection Act; and (9)
violated the common laws of fraud and unjust enrichment, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is a resident of the State of California. Plaintiff was
employed as a Driver for Defendants until approximately September
of 2018.

FAF, Inc. is a Tennessee corporation with its principal place of
business in Greenville, Tennessee. FAF is a subsidiary of Forward
Air. FAF's primary business consists of providing transportation
services; primarily, air cargo between terminal hubs at major
airports. During the relevant time period, FAF was, and still is,
regularly engaged in business throughout the United States,
including in the State of California.

Forward Air Corporation is a Tennessee corporation with its
principal place of business in Greenville, Tennessee. Forward Air
operates through terminal hubs near major airports. In California,
Forward Air operates out of locations in Sacramento, Los Angles,
San Francisco, and San Diego.

Odyssey Transport, LLC, is an Iowa corporation with its principal
place of business in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Odyssey Transport works
hand in-hand with First Priority and FAF in providing
transportation services for their shared clients.

Priority Capital Group, d/b/a Priority Leasing, is an Iowa
corporation with its principal place of business in Polk City,
Iowa. Priority Leasing was, and still is, regularly engaged in
business throughout the United States, including in the State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
     David C. Leimbach, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Phone: (415) 421-7100
     Facsimile: (415) 421-7105

          - and -

     Robert S. Boulter, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT S. BOULTER
     1101 Fifth Avenue, Suite 235
     San Rafael, CA 94901
     Phone: (415) 233-7100
     Facsimile: (415) 233-7101


FAIR COLLECTIONS: Brooks Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
COLBY BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FAIR COLLECTIONS & OUTSOURCING, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00141-CMR (E.D. Pa., Jan. 9, 2019)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt. The case is assigned to Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe.

Fair Collections & Outsourcing, Inc. was founded in 2004. The
company's line of business includes collection and adjustment
services on claims and other insurance related issues. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Linker, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          1373 Broad St., Suite 203-C
          Clifton, NJ 07013
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          E-mail: nl@zemellawllc.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Schneider Files RICO Class Action in Michigan
------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Schneider, et al., on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated, v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., FCA US LLC,
Sergio Marchionne, former CEO of FCA, Fiat and Fiat Subsidiaries,
and Chairman of FCA and Fiat Subsidiaries, Deceased, and his
successor, Michael Manley, VM Motori S.p.A., VM North America,
Inc., Robert Bosch GmbH and Robert Bosch, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-10231-MOB-DRG (E.D. Mich., January 23, 2019) is an action
over violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"); the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
("MMWA"); common law fraud; and the consumer laws of all 50 states
and the District of Columbia.

As the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has since
discovered, Fiat Chrysler, by and through FCA, concealed emission
treatment software features in vehicle engine's diesel controls on
applications for EPA Certificates of Conformity ("COCs") and
California Air Resources Board ("CARB") Executive Orders ("EOs").

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

Contrary to its public representations, and concealed from
consumers and regulators alike, Fiat Chrysler secretly programmed
its EcoDiesel vehicles with hidden software features that
significantly reduced the effectiveness of the NOx reduction
technology during real-world driving conditions. As a result, the
Subject Vehicles emitted harmful pollutants at levels that were
illegally high and far in excess of what a reasonable consumer
would expect from an "Eco" vehicle.

Plaintiffs seek a buyback program for the Subject Vehicles,
monetary damages (including treble damages under RICO), pollution
mitigation, business reforms, and injunctive and other equitable
relief for Defendants' misconduct related to the design,
manufacture, marketing, sale, and lease of the Subject Vehicles.
Plaintiffs are also entitled to a significant award of punitive or
exemplary damages, given that Defendants deliberately deceived
Plaintiffs, disregarded their rights to make free and informed
consumer choices, damaged them economically, and used them as
unwitting puppets in a scheme that impaired the public health for
the financial betterment of the Defendants, says the complaint.

Plaintiff, Bryan Schneider, a citizen of the State of Colorado
residing in the City of Northglen, bought a 2015 Dodge Ram 1500
EcoDiesel on January 1, 2015, at Ethio Motors, an authorized FCA
dealer in Aurora, Colorado.

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. is FCA's corporate parent. Fiat's
predecessor, Fiat S.p.A., began its acquisition of FCA's
predecessor, Chrysler Group LLC, in 2009 and completed it in
January 2014, at which time Chrysler Group LLC became a
wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Fiat and was renamed FCA US
LLC.

FCA US LLC is a Delaware limited liability company. It is a motor
vehicle manufacturer and a licensed distributor of new, previously
untitled motor vehicles. FCA is one of the "Big Three" American
automakers (with Ford and General Motors). FCA engages in commerce
by distributing and selling new and unused passenger cars and motor
vehicles under the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat brands.

Sergio Marchionne was the CEO and Chairman of FCA, the CEO of Fiat,
and the Chairman and/or CEO of several other Fiat subsidiaries,
including FCA Italy S.p.A., the Italian subsidiary of Fiat
headquartered in Turin, Italy at the time and, Michael Manley as
his successor and current CEO.

VM Motori S.p.A., is an Italian corporation headquartered in Cento,
Italy, which designs and manufactures diesel engines for
automobiles, including the Subject Vehicles.

VM North America, Inc. is or was a Delaware corporation and wholly
owned subsidiary of Fiat.

Robert Bosch GmbH is a German multinational engineering and
electronics company headquartered in Gerlingen, Germany. It is the
parent company of Robert Bosch LLC a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal place of business located at 38000 Hills
Tech Drive, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48331.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


FLOWERS FOODS: Class of Distributors in Noll FLSA Suit Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIMOTHY NOLL, et al., Plaintiffs. v. FLOWERS FOODS,
INC., et al., Defendant, Case No. 1:15-CV-00493-LEW (D. Me.), Judge
Lance E. Walker of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maine (i) granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification,
and (ii) denied the Defendants' Motion for Decertification of the
Conditionally Certified Collective Action.

In the action, Plaintiff Noll alleges that Defendants Flowers
Foods, LePage Bakeries, and CK Sales Company misclassify
Maine-based product distributors as independent contractors, and
that Maine and federal law require that he and other distributors
be compensated as employees.

Now pending are the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, and
the Defendants' Motion for Decertification of the Conditionally
Certified Collective Action.

The Plaintiff requests certification of a class of the Plaintiffs
to pursue claims for employee misclassification (Count II -
declaratory judgment of misclassification); violation of Maine's
independent contractor law, 26 M.R.S. Sections 1043(11)(E) and
591-A (Count III); violation of Maine's employment practices laws,
26 M.R.S. Sections 621 and 661 (Count IV); and contract recission
and quantum meruit (Count V).  Through these claims, the Plaintiffs
seek injunctive relief as well as damages for unpaid overtime and
unlawful paycheck deductions.

The Plaintiff proposes the class of all persons who, at any time
from Dec. 2, 2012 continuing through entry of judgment in the case,
worked as distributors for Flowers Foods, Inc., Lepage Bakeries,
Inc., and/or CK Sales Co., LLC, in the State of Maine and were
classified as independent contractors under their distribution
agreements.

Judge Walker finds that the Plaintiff has demonstrated (i) that the
class and the claims satisfy the four prerequisites of Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(a), and (ii) that the proposed class action would be a type
of class action condoned under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b).  Therefore,
he will certify the class.

He also finds that the Plaintiffs are similarly situated, that it
is possible to preserve and address individual defenses, and that
maintenance of a collective action is preferable to potentially
conducting many separate trials, even if those trials are joined
for purposes of pretrial proceedings.  Moreover, given his
certification of a class action on the state law claims, it would
be a waste of the party's resources and judicial resources not to
consider the FLSA claims in the same proceeding.  He will,
therefore, deny the motion to decertify.

Based on this, Judge Walker granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification, and denied the Defendants' Motion for
Decertification of the Conditionally Certified Collection Action.


Without prejudice to their objections to the decision, the parties
will meet and confer on the form and content of an order certifying
and defining the class to satisfy Rule 23(c)(1)(B)'s requirement
that the order must define the class and the class claims, issues,
or defenses.  If the parties cannot agree on the order, they will
present jointly the portions on which they do agree and separately
-- with support for their competing positions -- the portions on
which they cannot agree.  They will do so by Feb. 8, 2019.

The parties will meet and confer on the form and content of a class
notice that satisfies Rule 23(c)(2)(B).  The same procedures and
deadlines will be followed as in the preceding paragraph.

The order certifying the class must also appoint the class counsel.
In that connection, Judge Walker exercised his authority to order
that the class counsel proposes terms for attorney fees and
nontaxable costs, as well as record-keeping and documentation
requirements, and provides him with any fee agreement(s) that they
have entered.  They will do so by the same deadline.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 15, 2019 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/jNwLUX from Leagle.com.

TIMOTHY NOLL, Individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, represented by REBECCA S. WEBBER --
rwebber@sta-law.com -- SKELTON, TAINTOR & ABBOTT, SCOTT A.
MORIARITY, BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP, BRIAN D. CLARK,
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP, pro hac vice, CHARLES E. SCHAFFER,
LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, pro hac vice, CHRISTOPHER D.
JOZWIAK -- cdjozwiak@baillonthome.com -- BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK &
WANTA LLP, pro hac vice, DAVID M. CIALKOWSKI, ZIMMERMAN REED LLP,
pro hac vice, J. GORDON RUDD, Jr. , ZIMMERMAN REED LLP, pro hac
vice, RACHEL A. KITZE COLLINS -- rakitzecollins@locklaw.com
-- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP, pro hac vice, SHAWN J. WANTA --
sjwanta@baillonthome.com -- BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP, pro
hac vice & SUSAN E. ELLINGSTAD -- seellingstad@locklaw.com --
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP, pro hac vice.

FLOWERS FOODS INC, LEPAGE BAKERIES PARK STREET LLC & CK SALES CO
LLC, Defendants, represented by C. GARNER SANFORD, Jr. --
garner.sanford@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C., LIA A. LESNER, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C., pro hac vice, MARGARET S. HANRAHAN --
maggie.hanrahan@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C., pro hac vice, TIMOTHY H. POWELL --
tpowell@thebennettlawfirm.com -- THE BENNETT LAW FIRM, pro hac
vice, FREDERICK B. FINBERG -- rfinberg@thebennettlawfirm.com -- THE
BENNETT LAW FIRM, KEVIN P. HISHTA -- kevin.hishta@ogletree.com --
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., pro hac vice &
PETER BENNETT -- pbennett@thebennettlawfirm.com -- THE BENNETT LAW
FIRM.


FOREVER 21: Kiler Suit in NY Asserts ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Forever 21, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Marion
Kiler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Forever 21, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00391
(S.D. N.Y., January 18, 2019).

Forever 21, Inc. operates as a fashion retailer of women's, men's,
and kids clothing and accessories internationally. It offers
clothing products in the areas of dresses, tops, jackets, bottoms,
intimates, sleepwear, and active wear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street
   2nd Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 465-1188
   Fax: (212) 465-1181
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


FORSTER & GARBUS: Musante Sues Over FDCPA Breach
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP. The case is styled as Jennifer Musante, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster & Garbus,
LLP, Ronald Forster and Mark A. Garbus, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00440 (E.D. N.Y., January 22, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FRADKIN & WEBER: Faces Hoffman Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARCIA R. HOFFMAN, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. LAW OFFICE OF FRADKIN & WEBER, P.A., Case No.
1:19-cv-00163-CCB (D. Md., January 16, 2019), centers on the
Defendant's alleged failure to properly provide the disclosures
required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in its initial
written debt collection communications to Maryland consumers, or
within five days thereafter.

Fradkin & Weber is a limited liability corporation with its
principal office in Towson, Maryland.  Fradkin & Weber uses
instrumentalities of interstate commerce or the mails in a business
the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts,
and/or to regularly collect or attempt to collect, directly or
indirectly, debts owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due,
another.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric N. Stravitz, Esq.
          STRAVITZ LAW FIRM, PC
          4300 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 100
          Lanham, MD 20706
          Telephone: (240) 467-5741
          Facsimile: (240) 467-5743
          E-mail: eric@stravitzlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com


GEN-KAL PIPE: Property Sale Order in MS Plumbing TCPA Suit Vacated
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, M.S. WHOLESALE PLUMBING, INC., on behalf of itself and
all other entities and persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GEN-KAL PIPE & STEEL, CORPORATION and
EUGENE J. KALSKY, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. A-2502-17T2 (N.J.
Super. App. Div.), the Superior Court of New Jersey for the
Appellate Division reversed the Law Division's Dec. 19, 2017 order
granting M.S. Wholesale Plumbing's motion to levy and sell Kalsky's
real property.

Defendant Kalsky is the owner and CEO of Gen-Kal, a New Jersey
corporation with a principal address in New Jersey.  Plaintiff M.S.
Wholesale Plumbing is an Arkansas company with a principal address
in Arkansas.  The controversy in the case stems from a judgment
entered by a state trial court in Russellville, Pope County,
Arkansas.

In the Arkansas litigation, Plaintiff M.S. Wholesale Plumbing filed
a class action lawsuit against Defendants Gen-Kal and Kalsky,
alleging that Gen-Kal sent unsolicited faxes in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  M.S. Wholesale
Plumbing alleged that it received one fax containing an offer to
purchase piping that did not include an opt-out notice, as required
by Federal Communications Commission regulations implemented under
the TCPA.  The complaint further alleged that Kalsky is personally
liable under a veil-piercing theory because he has demonstrated an
abuse of the corporate form to commit the violations and wrongs
alleged in this complaint.

The Defendants did not immediately retain counsel or formally
answer the complaint.  Instead, in December 2015, Kalsky personally
sent a one-page letter to the clerk of the Arkansas court stating
that the fax was not unsolicited and requesting that the action be
dismissed.  Inexplicably, the Arkansas court treated the letter as
an answer, despite Arkansas law prohibiting a corporation from
appearing unless represented by an attorney.

Thereafter, the Arkansas court certified a class action, although
M.S. Wholesale Plumbing was the only identified member of the
class.  The Plaintiff then served notices to admit on Kalsky and
Gen-Kal, to which the Defendants did not respond.  On March 17,
2017, the Arkansas court granted summary judgment in favor of M.S.
Wholesale Plumbing, deeming Gen-Kal to have admitted to sending
25,000 unsolicited faxes to the class based on its failure to
respond to the notices to admit.  Based solely on Gen-Kal's failure
to respond to the notices to admit, the Arkansas court entered
judgment in the amount of $12.5 million against Gen-Kal and Kalsky,
jointly and severally.

After the judgment was entered, Kalsky retained Arkansas counsel
and filed a motion to set aside the judgment in July 2017, which
the Arkansas court denied.  On Nov. 16, 2017, the Defendants
appealed the denial of the motion to set aside the final judgment
to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.  This appeal remains pending
before the Arkansas Court of Appeals.

Meanwhile, before the Defendants moved to vacate the Arkansas
judgment, the Plaintiff domesticated the judgment in New Jersey
under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act ("UEFJA"),
by filing the judgment with the Clerk of the Superior Court on May
31, 2017.  On June 27, 2017, the Defendants filed a motion to
vacate the domesticated judgment in the Law Division, Burlington
County.  That motion remains pending before the Law Division.

The Plaintiff then took steps to enforce the judgment in New
Jersey.  In July 2017, it served a subpoena on Kalsky to appear for
a deposition and produce documents.  It also caused a writ of
execution to be issued, directing the Sheriff of Cape May County to
execute against Kalsky's personal property in satisfaction of the
judgment.  The Sheriff attempted to levy the Defendant's personal
property, but was unable to do so.  In September 2017, Kalsky was
deposed and questioned regarding all his assets.

On Nov. 1, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to N.J.S.A.
2A:17-1 and Rule 4:59-1 in the Law Division, Cape May County to
levy and sell real property owned by Kalsky in Cape May County.
The Defendants did not file a formal opposition to the motion, but
the counsel for the Defendants submitted two letters to the trial
court on Nov. 17 and 30, 2017.  The first letter asked the trial
court to postpone the motion until the resolution of the Burlington
County motion to vacate the domesticated judgment.  The second
letter requested the opportunity to fully oppose and brief the
motion, raising the following reasons that the Arkansas judgment
should not be entitled to comity: (1) the judgment was not final as
it was being appealed on substantive and procedural due process
grounds; (2) the TCPA does not permit personal liability except in
circumstances not present here; (3) the class certification was
improper; and (4) the Defendants already objected to the
domestication of the Arkansas judgment in Burlington County.

On Dec. 19, 2017, the trial court issued a written decision and
order granting the Plaintiff's motion to levy and sell the
property.  In its decision, the trial court found that the
Plaintiff had made a good faith attempt to locate Kalsky's personal
property in Cape May County, as required by N.J.S.A. 2A:17-1 and
Rule 4:59-1(d).  The trial court also noted the Defendants'
arguments against giving comity to the Arkansas judgment.

The appeal ensued.  While the appeal was pending, Kalsky used two
statutory adjournments to postpone the sheriff's sale to July 11,
2018.  On July 2, 2018, the Defendants filed a motion seeking a
stay of the sheriff's sale pursuant to Rule 2:9-5 pending the
resolution of the Arkansas appeal, the Burlington County motion,
and the insant appeal.  On July 17, 2018, the trial court issued a
written memorandum of decision and entered an order granting the
Defendants' motion and staying the sheriff's sale pending the
resolution of the Arkansas appeal and the Burlington County
motion.

The trial court also ordered that Kalsky provide the deed to the
property to be held in escrow and that Kalsky was restricted from
further encumbering the property as security pursuant to Rule
2:9-6(a)(2).  The Plaintiff did not appeal the order granting the
stay of the sheriff's sale.  Thus, enforcement of the order on
appeal is currently stayed.

On appeal from the trial court's Dec. 19, 2017 order granting the
Plaintiff's motion to levy and sell the property, the Defendants
raise the following points for the Court's review:

     i. The Court should vacate the decision as it fails to
consider and resolve valid due process objections to the Arkansas
Judgment.

     ii. In the alternative, the Court should have held proceedings
in abeyance pending resolution of Kalsky's challenges to the
validity of the judgment.

     iii. The decision should be vacated and remanded, because it
is unclear, ambiguous, and fails to comply with r. 1:7-4.

The Defendants' appeal focuses on the legal issue of whether
Arkansas had personal jurisdiction over them such that the Arkansas
judgment should be given comity in New Jersey.

Having considered the record and applicable legal principles, the
Court finds that the trial court failed to properly consider the
Defendants' objections to the personal jurisdiction of the Arkansas
court before affording full faith and credit to the Arkansas
judgment.  Although domestication of a foreign judgment is not
generally an opportunity to collaterally attack the judgment of the
court of a sister state, New Jersey courts will not give full faith
and credit to a the judgment where the court of the sister state
lacked jurisdiction or where there was a denial of due process.
The Defendants were entitled to raise objections to personal
jurisdiction both in Arkansas and New Jersey.

Moreover, the trial court's decision does not substantively address
the objections to the jurisdiction of the Arkansas court raised by
the Defendants.  The trial court did not address whether the
Arkansas court had personal jurisdiction over either Kalsky or
Gen-Kal.  With such a cursory analysis, the trial court failed to
ensure that the Arkansas judgment was issued by a court of
competent jurisdiction in possession of valid personal jurisdiction
over the Defendants.

Consequently, the Court vacated the trial court's Dec. 19, 2017
order granting the Plaintiff's motion to levy and sell Kalsky's
property and remanded the case to the trial court to consider the
Defendants' objections to personal jurisdiction of the Arkansas
court.  Additionally, it directed the trial court to hold any
further proceedings in abeyance pending the resolution of the
Arkansas appeal and the Burlington County motion.  In the absence
of special equities, a New Jersey court should dismiss or stay a
New Jersey action pending the resolution of a "first-filed" action
in another forum.

In the case, the issue of personal jurisdiction may be addressed by
either the Arkansas Court of Appeals or the Burlington County
court.  All other proceedings should be stayed pending a
determination by those tribunals.  The Court does not predict the
outcome of any remand proceedings, but noted that the trial court
may not necessarily be bound by the ruling of the Arkansas Court of
Appeals, to ensure that the Defendants' objections to the
jurisdiction of the Arkansas court are fully considered.

The Court reversed and remanded.  It does not retain jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 15, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/nDReli from Leagle.com.

Klein Law Group, PLLC, attorneys for appellants (Andrew M. Klein --
AKlein@KleinLawPLLC.com -- on the briefs).

Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, PC, attorneys for
respondent (G.G. Troublefield -- GTroublefield@carellabyrne.com --
and Christopher J. Buggy, of counsel and on the brief).


GREYSTONE PARK: Patients Subject to Violence, Drug Trafficking
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sulaiman Abdur-Rahman, writing for The Trentonian, reports that
current and former patients at the Morris Plains-based Greystone
Park Psychiatric Hospital have filed a federal class-action lawsuit
alleging they have been subjected to a culture of violence, illegal
drugs and overcrowded confinement in violation of their
constitutional rights.

The lawsuit, filed Dec. 17 in U.S. District Court in New Jersey,
names Gov. Phil Murphy, New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal,
Esq. and other high-level state officials as defendants and seeks
to improve patient care and services at Greystone while also
demanding "other equitable and further relief as the Court deems
just and proper."

The New Jersey Public Defender's Office helped four plaintiffs file
the lawsuit, which cites data from the last six years that show
Greystone had an "astronomical rate of violence," according to the
complaint.

"In 2016, 1,816 assaults were reported; of those, 654 were with
injury," the lawsuit says of the Greystone violence. [GN]


HARRAH'S NC: Bid for Attorneys' Fees & Costs in Clark Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HARRAH'S NC CASINO COMPANY, LLC,
d/b/a Harrah's Cherokee Casino Resort, Harrah's Cherokee Valley
River Casino and Hotel; and BROOKS ROBINSON, Defendants, Civil Case
No. 1:17-cv-00240-MR-DLH (W.D. N.C.), Judge Martin Reidinger of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
Asheville Division, denied the Defendants' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Non-Taxable Costs.

On Aug. 31, 2017, Clark, on behalf of himself and all
similarly-situated individuals, filed a Class Action Complaint
against Defendant Harrah's Casino for unpaid wages, overtime
compensation, and statutory penalties resulting from Defendant
Harrah's Casino's willful failure to compensate gaming floor
employees with proper pay, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

On Oct. 18, 2017, Defendant Harrah's Casino filed a motion to
dismiss the Complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(7).  On Nov.
8, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, adding Brooks
Robinson as an individual Defendant.  The Court thereafter denied
the Defendant's motion to dismiss as moot due to the filing of the
Amended Complaint.  Then, on Nov. 21, 2017, Defendant Harrah's
Casino filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint,
also under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(7).  On Feb. 5, 2018, the
Defendant Robinson also filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint on the same grounds.

On April 27, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed a Memorandum and
Recommendation on the motions to dismiss.  He recommended that the
Defendants' motions under Rule 12(b)(1) be denied because the Court
has subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims but
recommended that the Defendants' motions under Rule 12(b)(7) be
granted for failure to join a necessary party under Rule 19.

The Plaintiff and Defendants filed objections to the Memorandum and
Recommendation and their respective replies.  On Sept. 28, 2018,
the Court entered an Order overruling the parties' objections and
accepting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the Defendant
Harrah's Casino's motion to dismiss be granted under Rule 12(b)(7).
It further held that the granting of Defendant Harrah's Casino's
motion to dismiss warranted the granting of Defendant Robinson's
motion to dismiss as well.  On the same day, the Clerk entered
Judgment in accordance with the Court's Order.

On Oct. 12, 2018, the Defendants timely filed a motion for
attorney's fees and non-taxable costs pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 54(d) and Local Rule 54.1.  On Oct. 26, 2018, the
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the Court's Sept. 28, 2018
Order granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  

The Defendants argue two grounds for the award of attorney's fees,
express authorization under the NCWHA, N.C. Gen. Stat. Section
95-25.22(d), and the Court's inherent equity power based on the
Plaintiff's alleged bad faith.  They argue that the Plaintiff's
action was "frivolous" because the Plaintiff prosecuted the action
despite clear authority mandating its dismissal, citing Yashenko v.
Harrah's NC Casino Co., LLC.

Upon careful review, Judge Reidinger finds that the Magistrate
Judge's recitation of the underlying relevant factual history as
set forth in his prior Memorandum and Recommendation is correct,
and it is therefore adopted in its entirety.

He also finds that while Yashenko is certainly "instructive" as to
whether the Plaintiff erred by failing to join the Tribal Casino
Gaming Enterprise as a necessary and indispensable party to the
lawsuit under Rule 19, Yashenko does not "clearly mandate"
dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims.  The Plaintiffs' case was
based, in part, on a good faith attempt to distinguish Yashenko and
was, therefore, not frivolous.   Further, even if the Court were to
find that the Plaintiffs' action was frivolous, the decision to
award the fees is discretionary with the trial court.  The Judge
declines to exercise such discretion in the instant case.

In addition, he finds that the Defendants fail to provide any legal
or factual support for its argument that the Plaintiffs acted in
bad faith.  Instead, they rely on the same arguments used in
support of its claim that the Plaintiffs' action was frivolous,
which were also insufficient in that context.  

For these reasons, Judge Reidinger declined to exercise the Court's
inherent authority to award attorney's fees to the Defendants.  He
denied the Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Non-Taxable
Costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 16, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/A8iEL7 from Leagle.com.

Joseph Clark, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by James B. Zouras --
Jzouras@stephanzouras.com -- Stephan Zouras, LLP, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey A. Leon -- Jeff@QULegal.com -- Quantum Legal LLC, pro hac
vice & Philip J. Gibbons, Jr. -- Pgibbons@stephanzouras.com --
Gibbons Leis, PLLC.

Harrah's NC Casino Company, LLC, doing business as, Defendant,
represented by Jennifer T. Williams -- jtwilliams@cozen.com --
Cozen O'Connor, pro hac vice, Patrick McQuillan Aul --
paul@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor, Susan N. Eisenberg --
seisenberg@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor, pro hac vice & Tracy L.
Eggleston -- teggleston@cozen.com -- Cozen & O'Conner.

Brooks Robinson, Defendant, represented by Jennifer T. Williams,
Cozen O'Connor, Patrick McQuillan Aul, Cozen O'Connor, Susan N.
Eisenberg, Cozen O'Connor & Tracy L. Eggleston, Cozen & O'Conner.


HARRAH'S NC: Bid for Attorneys' Fees & Costs in Humble Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARLOTTE HUMBLE, SHARON ISACKSON, JUSTIN HUMBLE,
TREVOR SIMMONS, MARGARET HOOVER, BELINDA KING, and JENNIFER SPAYTH
BROWNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. HARRAH'S NC CASINO COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a
Harrah's, Harrah's Cherokee Valley River Casino, and Harrah's
Cherokee Casino Resort, Defendant, Civil Case No.
1:17-cv-00262-MR-DLH (W.D. N.C.), Judge Martin Reidinger of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
Asheville Division, denied the Defendant's Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Non-Taxable Costs.

On Sept. 18, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a Collective and Class
Action Complaint against Defendant Harrah's Casino for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and the North
Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA").  On Nov. 2, 2017, the
Plaintiffs filed an Amended Collective and Class Action Complaint
to assert additional factual allegations in support of their
claims.  On Nov. 16, 2017, Defendant Harrah's Casino filed a motion
to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint under Rules 12(b)(1)
and 12(b).  

On June 1, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed a Memorandum and
Recommendation on the motion to dismiss.  He recommended that the
Defendant's motion under Rule 12(b)(1) be denied because the Court
has subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims but
recommended that the Defendant's motion under Rule 12(b)(7) be
granted for failure to join a necessary party under Rule 19.  The
Plaintiffs and the Defendant filed objections to the Memorandum and
Recommendation and their respective replies.

On Sept. 28, 2018, the Court entered an Order overruling the
parties' objections and accepting the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation that the Defendant Harrah's Casino's motion to
dismiss be granted under Rule 12(b)(7).  On the same day, the Clerk
entered Judgment in accordance with the Court's Order.

On Oct. 11, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Order granting the Defendant's motion to
dismiss to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  The
next day the Defendant filed a motion for attorney's fees and
non-taxable costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)
and Local Rule 54.1.

The Defendant argues two grounds for the award of attorney's fees,
express authorization under the NCWHA, and the Court's inherent
equity power based on the Plaintiff's alleged bad faith.  The
Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' action was "frivolous"
because they prosecuted the action despite clear authority
mandating its dismissal, citing Yashenko v. Harrah's NC Casino Co.,
LLC.

Upon careful review, Judge Reidinger finds that the Magistrate
Judge's recitation of the underlying relevant factual history as
set forth in his prior Memorandum and Recommendation is correct,
and it adopted in its entirety.

He also finds that while Yashenko is certainly "instructive" as to
whether the Plaintiff erred by failing to join the Tribal Casino
Gaming Enterprise as a necessary and indispensable party to the
lawsuit under Rule 19, Yashenko does not "clearly mandate"
dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims.  The Plaintiffs' case was
based, in part, on a good faith attempt to distinguish Yashenko and
was, therefore, not frivolous.   Further, even if the Court were to
find that the Plaintiffs' action was frivolous, the decision to
award the fees is discretionary with the trial court.  The Judge
declines to exercise such discretion in the instant case.

In addition, he finds that the Defendant fails to provide any legal
or factual support for its argument that the Plaintiffs acted in
bad faith.  Instead, it relies on the same arguments used in
support of its claim that the Plaintiffs' action was frivolous,
which were also insufficient in that context.  

For these reasons, Judge Reidinge declined to exercise the Court's
inherent authority to award attorney's fees to the Defendant.  He
denied the Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Non-Taxable
Costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 16, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/IDBPX1 from Leagle.com.

Charlotte Humble, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Sharon Isackson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Justin Humble, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Trevor Simmons,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Margaret Hoover, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Belinda King, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & Jennifer Spayth Browning, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Leslie J. Bryan -- leslie.bryan@lawrencebundy.com -- Lawrence &
Bundy LLC, pro hac vice, Lovita T. Tandy -- ltandy@tandylegal.com
-- pro hac vice, Thomas Robinson Bundy, III --
thomas.bundy@lawrencebundy.com -- Lawrence & Bundy, pro hac vice &
Todd R. Ellis -- todd@toddellislaw.com -- Law Office of Todd Ellis,
P.A.

Harrah's NC Casino Company, LLC, doing business as, Defendant,
represented by Jennifer T. Williams -- jtwilliams@cozen.com --
Cozen O'Connor, pro hac vice, Patrick McQuillan Aul --
paul@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor, Susan N. Eisenberg --
seisenberg@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor, pro hac vice & Tracy L.
Eggleston -- teggleston@cozen.com -- Cozen & O'Conner.


HAWAII: DOE Gets Extension to ACLU's Title IX Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Diane Ako, writing for KITV Honolulu, reports that an update now on
a federal lawsuit against the state Department of Education. The
DOE now has until Jan. 18 to respond to the ACLU of Hawaii's
lawsuit accusing it of not complying with Title IX. That's
according to the ACLU, which says it agreed to the extension
requested by the DOE.

The ACLU filed the suit on Dec. 6 on behalf of two Campbell High
female students.  Title IX is a federal law requiring equal sports
opportunities for boys and girls.

DOE communications director Lindsay Chambers said in a statement on
Dec. 28: "We cannot comment on the specific allegations in the
lawsuit due to pending litigation. However, the Department of
Education takes this issue very seriously.

"Equitable access to a quality public education -- including
extracurricular and elective activities -- is at the core of the
Department's commitment to student excellence and success. As part
of this commitment, the Department has completed improvements to
athletic facilities at the following schools and has requested $45
million in capital improvement funding for fiscal years 2020 and
2021 for gender equity:

   Locker Room Improvements - Kealakehe HS, Leilehua HS, Mililani
HS, Moanalua HS

   New Female Locker Rooms - Kaiser HS, Kalani HS, Kahuku High &
Intermediate, McKinley HS

New Softball Fields/Softball Field Improvements (this is a list of
current/newly completed fields and does not reflect all fields) --
Campbell HS, Castle HS, Kaimuki HS, Kaiser HS, Kapolei HS, King
Kekaulike HS, Konawaena HS, Mililani HS, Moanalua HS, Pahoa HS,
Radford HS, Roosevelt HS, Waialua HS, Waipahu HS."

In response, the ACLU of Hawaii's deputy director, Kit Grant, told
KITV4: "We're pleased to see the DOE's statement committing itself
to gender equity, but unfortunately the allegations in our
complaint tell a different story with respect to the DOE's actual
treatment of female student athletes that goes well beyond
facilities.

We filed the class action lawsuit against the DOE after ten months
of trying and failing to get it to show that it is aware of the
severity of the violations, and has a plan to treat female athletes
equally. Facilities are a good start, but true equity will require
change in thinking, approach, and priorities throughout the DOE
system. And that takes a comprehensive plan.

Our plaintiffs have suffered real harm, lowered opportunities, and
even retaliation - and we're grateful to them for having the
courage to stand up and try to make sure the girls that come after
them don't have to deal with the same inequities."[GN]


HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: Faces Class Action Over Hep, HIV Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Janoski, writing for North Jersey Record, reports that a
former patient has filed a class-action lawsuit against a Midland
Avenue surgery center whose poor sterilization practices may have
exposed nearly 3,800 former patients to hepatitis B, hepatitis C
and HIV during medical procedures earlier in 2018.

The three-count lawsuit was filed on Dec. 28 in state Superior
Court in Hackensack by Lauren Marrero, the patient, and her
husband, Julio. It claims the HealthPlus Surgery Center in Saddle
Brook was negligent, careless, reckless and guilty of "wanton
misconduct -- on a continuing basis" for exposing patients to the
dangerous pathogens.

"The Defendant knew or should have known that the sterilization
procedures at their facility were insufficient and posed a
substantial risk of harm to the Plaintiffs and others similarly
situated between January 1, 2018 and September 7, 2018," the
lawsuit read.

The suit also blamed the center for not properly vetting, training
or supervising its medical staff.

The Marreros say the center's negligence resulted in physical pain,
emotional anguish, distress, fear and anxiety, among other things,
the suit read. They seek compensatory damages, interest and
attorney's fees.

Previous coverage: Two employees fired from facility that may have
exposed thousands to HIV, hepatitis

Mark Manigan, a Roseland attorney representing the center, declined
to comment on the lawsuit.

The lawsuit is the first to be filed against HealthPlus, which the
New Jersey Department of Health ordered closed after a Sept. 7
investigation revealed poor drug storage methods, an outdated
infection control plan and a failure to properly clean and
disinfect medical hardware and instruments, according to a report
released on Dec. 28. The center reopened three weeks later when
state inspectors found it had fixed the issues.

Anyone who stayed for a procedure at HealthPlus from January to
Sept. 7 may have been exposed, the Health Department has said. But
the risk of infection is low, the department added.

Still, 3,778 former patients -- including Marrero -- received
letters the week of Christmas urging them to be tested for the
diseases.

"What a thing to wake up to," said Michael Maggiano, the Fort Lee
attorney representing the Marreros. "They need to know what
happened. They need to know how this happened. Because when they
walked into this facility, they trusted HealthPlus . . . [Lauren
Marrero] feels betrayed."

But at a morning news conference, Mr. Manigan continued to blame a
pair of now-fired employees for failing to follow proper
sterilization procedures. Both were let go in September for
performance-related issues, he said.

"The investigation revealed that, by and large, the lapses that
occurred were attributable to a handful of people who have been
removed," Mr. Manigan told reporters. "They've been replaced …
HealthPlus deeply regrets this incident, but it is proud of how
it's responded to it, and it's committed to continuing to perform
admirably going forward."

The center's nursing director also resigned Sept. 6 -- just one day
before the Health Department closed HealthPlus. Mr. Manigan has
declined to say if the resignation was directly related to the
complaint and subsequent closure.

Mr. Maggiano, the Marreros' attorney, dismissed Mr. Manigan's
statements on Dec. 29. The blame could not be shifted onto the
shoulders of individual employees, he said.

"This is about an insidious, systemic failure of a major caregiver
institution of Bergen County," Mr. Maggiano said. "The answer can't
be, 'Well, we've fired two people.'"

Yan Moshe, the Long Island real-estate mogul who owns the center
and another like it in Hackensack, did not attend the news
conference and has not spoken directly to the media.

The Hackensack facility has also been cited in the past for failing
to meet safety regulations. But Mr. Manigan said Mr. Moshe does not
plan to change his organization's management hierarchy in response
to the complaints.

"Mr. Moshe is confident in his current complement of managing staff
and clinical staff," Mr. Manigan said.

Betty McCabe, the HealthPlus administrator, is not expected to
resign, he added.

Mr. Moshe bought Meadowlands Hospital Medical Center in December
2017 despite having no experience running a hospital. Now called
Hudson Regional Hospital, it is the facility to which HealthPlus is
referring patients for testing.

The center is paying for the tests, Mr. Manigan said on Dec. 29.

State regulators have also investigated Excel Surgery Center, which
Moshe previously owned, according to previous reporting by The
Record. Investigators found the center failed to report a parking
lot car fire that caused a building evacuation and wasn't using
proper procedures for administering multi-dose vials of medication
in the operating room. The center later filed correction plans with
the state, which was accepted.

At HealthPlus, investigators found a staff member failed to
adequately wet and disinfect a stretcher that held a sheet
containing what appeared to be a blood stain, according to the
report. They also found workers had crowded too many loose
instruments into a small bag used to disinfect medical instruments,
precluding total sterilization. And that other sterilized
instruments had rust-like stains.

Anyone who needs to be tested because of the exposure in Saddle
Brook can call 1-888-507-0578 to schedule an appointment. [GN]


HEALTHPLUS: May Have Exposed Patients to HIV, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Steve Janoski, writing for NorthJersey.com, reports that a former
patient has filed a class-action lawsuit against a Midland Avenue
surgery center whose poor sterilization practices may have exposed
nearly 3,800 former patients to hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV
during medical procedures earlier this year.

The three-count lawsuit was filed on Dec. 28 in state Superior
Court in Hackensack by Lauren Marrero, the patient, and her
husband, Julio. It claims the HealthPlus Surgery Center in Saddle
Brook was negligent, careless, reckless and guilty of "wanton
misconduct — on a continuing basis" for exposing patients to the
dangerous pathogens.

"The Defendant knew or should have known that the sterilization
procedures at their facility were insufficient and posed a
substantial risk of harm to the Plaintiffs and others similarly
situated between Jan. 1, 2018 and Sept. 7, 2018," the lawsuit
read.

The suit also blamed the center for not properly vetting, training
or supervising its medical staff.

The Marreros say the center's negligence resulted in physical pain,
emotional anguish, distress, fear and anxiety, among other things,
the suit read. They seek compensatory damages, interest and
attorney's fees.

Mark Manigan, Esq. -- mmanigan@bracheichler.com -- a Roseland
attorney representing the center, declined to comment on the
lawsuit.

The lawsuit is the first to be filed against HealthPlus, which the
New Jersey Department of Health ordered closed after a Sept. 7
investigation revealed poor drug storage methods, an outdated
infection control plan and a failure to properly clean and
disinfect medical hardware and instruments, according to a report
released on Dec. 28. The center reopened three weeks later when
state inspectors found it had fixed the issues.

Anyone who stayed for a procedure at HealthPlus from January to
Sept. 7 may have been exposed, the Health Department has said. But
the risk of infection is low, the department added.

Still, 3,778 former patients -- including Marrero -- received
letters the week of Christmas urging them to be tested for the
diseases.

"What a thing to wake up to," said Michael Maggiano, Esq. the Fort
Lee attorney representing the Marreros. "They need to know what
happened. They need to know how this happened. Because when they
walked into this facility, they trusted HealthPlus . . . . [Lauren
Marrero] feels betrayed."

But at a Dec. 29 morning news conference, Manigan continued to
blame a pair of now-fired employees for failing to follow proper
sterilization procedures. Both were let go in September for
performance-related issues, he said.

"The investigation revealed that, by and large, the lapses that
occurred were attributable to a handful of people who have been
removed," Manigan told reporters. "They've been replaced . . . .
HealthPlus deeply regrets this incident, but it is proud of how
it's responded to it, and it's committed to continuing to perform
admirably going forward."

The center's nursing director also resigned Sept. 6 -- just one day
before the Health Department closed HealthPlus. Manigan has
declined to say if the resignation was directly related to the
complaint and subsequent closure.

Maggiano, the Marreros' attorney, dismissed Manigan's statements
Dec.29. The blame could not be shifted onto the shoulders of
individual employees, he said.

"This is about an insidious, systemic failure of a major caregiver
institution of Bergen County," Maggiano said. "The answer can't be,
‘Well, we've fired two people.'"

Yan Moshe, the Long Island real-estate mogul who owns the center
and another like it in Hackensack, did not attend the news
conference and has not spoken directly to the media.

The Hackensack facility has also been cited in the past for failing
to meet safety regulations. But Manigan said Moshe does not plan to
change his organization's management hierarchy in response to the
complaints.

"Mr. Moshe is confident in his current complement of managing staff
and clinical staff," Manigan said.

Betty McCabe, the HealthPlus administrator, is not expected to
resign, he added.

Moshe bought Meadowlands Hospital Medical Center in December 2017
despite having no experience running a hospital. Now called Hudson
Regional Hospital, it is the facility to which HealthPlus is
referring patients for testing.

The center is paying for the tests, Manigan said on Dec. 29.

State regulators have also investigated Excel Surgery Center, which
Moshe previously owned, according to previous reporting by The
Record. Investigators found the center failed to report a parking
lot car fire that caused a building evacuation and wasn't using
proper procedures for administering multi-dose vials of medication
in the operating room. The center later filed correction plans with
the state, which was accepted.

At HealthPlus, investigators found a staff member failed to
adequately wet and disinfect a stretcher that held a sheet
containing what appeared to be a blood stain, according to the
report. They also found workers had crowded too many loose
instruments into a small bag used to disinfect medical instruments,
precluding total sterilization. And that other sterilized
instruments had rust-like stains.

Anyone who needs to be tested because of the exposure in Saddle
Brook can call 1-888-507-0578 to schedule an appointment.[GN]


HUNTER WARTFIELD: Lee Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hunter Wartfield,
Inc. The case is styled as Jaramail Lee, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hunter Wartfield,
Inc. and John Does 1 - 25, Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-00164-JSM-AAS (M.D. Fla., January 22, 2019).

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

Hunter Warfield, Inc. provides debt collection and asset
investigation services. It specializes in multi-housing,
commercial, funeral care, and educational markets, as well as
serves educational-student housing and student loans, military
housing, utility billing, building and medical supply, and auction
bid defaults. The company was founded in 1983 and is based in
Tampa, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Zeig, Esq.
   Zeig Law Firm, LLC
   3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
   Hollywood, FL 33024
   Tel: (754) 217-3084
   Fax: (754) 217-3084
   Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


INDIANA: Drivers Sue over Discriminatory and Excessive Toll Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
THE OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; CHUTKA
TRUCKING LLC; MARK ELROD D/B/A M R ELROD; and B.L. REEVER
TRANSPORT, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ERIC HOLCOMB, in his capacity as Governor
of the State of Indiana; JOE MCGUINNESS, in his capacity as
Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Transportation; THE
INDIANA FINANCE AUTHORITY; DAN HUGE, in his capacity as Indiana
Public Finance Director; MICAH G. VINCENT, in his capacity as a
member of the Indiana Finance Authority; KELLY MITCHELL, in her
capacity as a member of the Indiana Finance Authority; OWEN B.
MELTON, JR., in his capacity as a member of the Indiana Finance
Authority; HARRY F. MCNAUGHT, JR., in his capacity as a member of
the Indiana Finance Authority; RUDY YAKYM III, in his capacity as a
member of the Indiana Finance Authority; and ITR CONCESSION COMPANY
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00086-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind., Jan. 9,
2019) seeks to challenge the constitutionality of a system of tolls
imposed by the ITR Concession Company LLC (ITRCC), under the
direction of Governor Holcomb, the Commissioner of the Indiana
Department of Transportation (INDOT), and the Indiana Finance
Authority (IFA) on certain commercial motor vehicles (CMVs)
traveling on the Indiana East West Toll Road.

According to the complaint, the toll system imposed by the
Defendants is unconstitutional.  The motor carriers and truck
drivers operating on the toll road were required to pay
discriminatory and excessive toll.

Indiana is a Midwestern U.S. state known for its farmland and
renowned auto race. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael R. Limrick, Esq.
          Riley H. Floyd, Esq.
          HOOVER HULL TURNER LLP
          111 Monument Circle, Suite 4400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 822-4400
          E-mail: mlimrick@hooverhullturner.com
                  rfloyd@hooverhullturner.com
          
               - and -
          
          Paul D. Cullen, Esq.
          Paul D. Cullen, Jr., Esq.
          Kathleen B. Havener, Esq.
          Charles R. Stinson, Esq.
          Katherine L. Quiniola, Esq.
          THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1101 30th Street NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 944-8600
          E-mail: pdc@cullenlaw.com
                  pxc@cullenlaw.com
                  kbh@cullenlaw.com
                  crs@cullenlaw.com
                  klq@cullenlaw.com


INEOS STYROLUTION: Foth Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Foth and Aaron Lucus on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated persons, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. INEOS
Styrolution America, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00460 (N.D.
Ill., January 22, 2019) is a class action under the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and a collective action arising under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), for Defendant's failure to
pay Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class for all hours worked,
including overtime wages.

The Company schedules Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class working in
maintenance responsibilities for 8.5 hour shifts, which include a
30 minute unpaid meal break. In addition, the Company schedules
members of the Plaintiff Class working in operations, logistics and
the lab for 12 hour shifts without a specified meal break. Thus,
because Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class typically work at least
5 days per week, they are scheduled to work 40 hours or more per
week, says the complaint.

Thus, the Company failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Plaintiff
Class at a rate of one and one-half times their regular hourly rate
of pay for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in individual
workweeks, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff Anthony Foth is an adult resident of Elwood, Illinois.
Foth worked at Styrolution for 29 years and retired on January 4,
2018.

Plaintiff Aaron Lucus is an adult resident of Dwight, Illinois.
Lucus began working for Styrolution in March 2015, and currently
remains employed by the Company.

Defendant is a Delaware corporation doing business in Illinois,
within this judicial district. Defendant is an "enterprise" engaged
in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Marc J. Siegel, Esq.
     Bradley Manewith, Esq.
     James D. Rogers, Esq.
     SIEGEL & DOLAN LTD.
     150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: (312)878-3210
     Fax: (312)878-3211
     Email: msiegel@msiegellaw.com
            bmanewith@msiegellaw.com
            jrogers@msiegellaw.com


J. FLETCHER CREAMER: Shortchanges Workers' Pay, Benefits, Says Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gilberto Saucedo, Leonardo Yanes, Marlon Hernandez, Gerald Alvarez,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. J. Fletcher Creamer & Sons, Inc., Cream Ridge
Construction Co., Inc., River Contracting, LLC, John Fletcher
Creamer, Jr., Joseph Walsh, Albino Oliveira, Robert Campos, Theresa
Warren, Joanne Gebbia, John Does 1-100, Jane Does 1-100 and ABC
Corps 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00247 (D. N.J., January 8,
2019), seeks monetary losses, including interest, monetary judgment
in lieu of fringe benefits, overtime compensation for time worked
in excess of forty hours per work week at the applicable prevailing
wage rates, treble, liquidated damages and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment interest at the maximum
legal rate and such other and further relief under the New Jersey
Prevailing Wage Act.

Defendants jointly operate as a general contractor doing public
works projects with the State of New Jersey where Plaintiffs work
are general laborers. They claim to have rendered overtime work
without being paid; required to report for work prior to their
scheduled start time to load material and tools into commercial
trucks and then drive them to worksites, but were not paid for
their off-the-clock time; and accuse Defendants of creating false
timesheets and signed false certifications to hide their true
wages. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Matthew R. Mendelsohn, Esq.
      David M. Freeman, Esq.
      David A. Mazie, Esq.
      MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
      103 Eisenhower Parkway
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Tel: (973) 228-0391
      Email: mrm@mazieslater.com
             dfreeman@mazieslater.com
             dmazie@mazieslater.com

             - and -

      Joshua F. McMahon, Esq.
      SCHILLER MCMAHON LLC
      123 South Avenue East
      Westfield, NJ 07090
      Tel: (908) 233-4840
      Email: Jfm@schillermcmahon.com


J.M. SMUCKER: E.D. New York Transfers Forsher Suit to N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GRAHAM FORSHER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE J.M.
SMUCKER CO., Defendant, Case No. 15 CV 7180 (RJD) (SMG) (E.D.
N.Y.), Judge Raymond J. Dearie of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York granted the Defendant's motion to
transfer venue to the Northern District of Ohio.

Forsher brings the putative class action on behalf of a proposed
class of individuals who purchased Jif Natural Peanut Butter Spread
from the Defendant.  He brings a series of claims for false
advertising, unfair and deceptive business practices, breach of
warranty and fraud.  In sum and substance, the Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendant's "natural" labeling is deceptive because the
sugar contained in the Defendant's peanut butter might be derived
from genetically modified sugar beets, which reasonable consumers
would not consider "natural."

On Dec. 12, 2018, more than three years after the Plaintiff filed
his complaint and three months after the Court vacated the Order
staying the action, the Defendant, for the first time, requested
the Court consider a proposed motion to transfer venue pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) to the Northern District of Ohio -- where
the Defendant is headquartered and incorporated.

The Plaintiff opposes the Defendant's motion and argues that venue
is proper in the Eastern District of New York, but concedes that if
the Court deems transfer appropriate, the case should be
transferred to the Northern District of California, where he
purchased the Defendant's product.

Judge Dearie finds that a transfer of venue is appropriate.  As an
initial matter, and notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant
waived its right to challenge the Plaintiff's venue selection
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391 or 28 U.S.C. Section 1406(a),
the venue is improper in the district.  This determination, in
combination with considerations of convenience, justice and common
sense, counsel in favor of transferring the action to the Northern
District of Ohio pursuant to Section 1404(a).  For these reasons,
he granted the Defendant's motion to transfer venue to the Northern
District of Ohio.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 16, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/39oRWn from Leagle.com.

Graham Forsher, Plaintiff, represented by George Volney Granade,
II, Reese LLP, Melissa W. Weiner, Halunen & Associates & Michael
Robert Reese -- mreese@reesellp.com -- Reese LLP.

The J.M. Smucker Co., Defendant, represented by Adrianne K.
Rosenbluth -- arosenbluth@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn/Chicago,
Christopher Hynes -- chynes@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP &
Ronald Y. Rothstein -- rrothste@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn
LLP.


JANNAH'S REAL ESTATE: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Stroop Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry D. Stroop and Chad Cate, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Jannah's Real Estate,
LLC, Hani's Texas Tires 1 Inc., Hani's Texas Tires 2 Inc., Hani's
Texas Tires 6-33 Inc., Al-Wahban Texas Tire LLC, Hani Al-Wahban,
Mustafa Al-Wahban and Omar Al-Wahban, Individually, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00055-RP (W.D. Tex., January 23, 2019) is a
collective action seeking to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees,
litigation costs, costs of court, and pre judgment and post
judgment interest under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 ("FLSA").

The Defendants willfully committed violations of the FLSA by
failing to pay all of their employees minimum wage for hours worked
under forty per week and overtime premiums for hours worked in
excess of forty hours per week, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs Jerry D. Stroop and Chad Cate reside in Abilene, Texas.

Jannah's Real Estate, LLC, Hani's Texas Tires 1 Inc. and Hani's
Texas Tires 2 Inc., Hani's Texas Tires 6-33 Inc. and Al-Wahban
Texas Tire LLC are domestic corporation formed and existing under
the laws of the State of Texas.  The individual Defendants are also
residents of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
     Moreland Verrett, PC
     2901 Bee Cave Rd, Box L
     Austin, TX 78746
     Phone: (512) 782-0567
     Fax: (512) 782-0605
     Email: doug@morelandlaw.com


JCREW INC: Haggar Sues Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------
Elia Haggar and Kyo Hak Chu, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jcrew,
Inc., and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00457-DSF-KS (C.D. Cal., January 22, 2019) seeks to secure
redress against Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully and equally
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people.

The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA") and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act ("UCRA"), asserts
the complaint.

Because Defendants' website, https://www.jcrew.com/, is not fully
or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in
violation of the ADA, Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Plaintiffs are residents of California, County of San Francisco.
Plaintiffs are legally blind, visually-impaired handicapped
persons, and members of a protected class of individuals under the
ADA.

Jcrew, Inc. is a California corporation, with its headquarters in
California. The Defendant conducts a large amount of its business
in California, and the United States as a whole. These stores
constitute places of public accommodation. Defendant's stores
provide to the public important goods and services. The Defendant's
website provides consumers with access to an array of goods and
services including store locators, information about products, gift
cards, and special events, access to holiday specials and
promotions, access to apply for credit, and other products and
services which are available online and in retail stores for
purchase.

Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names, identities, and
capacities of the defendants sued herein as Does 1 to 10.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Bobby Saadian, Esq.
     Thiago Coelho, Esq.
     WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
     3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Phone: (213) 381-9988
     Facsimile: (213) 381-9989


JEREMY SPENCE: Silver-Miller Files Crypto Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Cali Haan, writing for Crowdfund Insider, reports that Florida law
firm Silver Miller is making quite a name for itself as it files
yet another class action lawsuit against a crypto Ponzi scheme
called "Coin Signals" allegedly pervaded by Jeremy Spence of New
York, Jaime Cruz-Herrera of New Jersey and associates.

According to a related press release, Silver Miller is also leading
class actions against the Coinbase, Kraken, and Cryptsy crypto
exchanges, the BitConnect pyramid scheme, and "against
pre-functional token ICO promoters Tezos and Monkey Capital."

The case, which is being pursued in the Southern District of New
York on behalf of ten plaintiffs so far, claims that Mr. Spence,
with help from "hype man" Cruz-Herrera, "solicited followers from
around the world to join him on social media channels (including
Telegram and Discord) and online discussion groups focussed on
cryptocurrency," and, ". . . from behind the veil of the
Internet…represented to plaintiffs and others that he was
operating several different hedge funds including the ALTS FUND,
the LONG TERM FUND…and COIN SIGNALS MEX FUND…as well as managed
entry to an Initial Coin Offering (the 'Evermarkets ICO')."

The complaint of civil action claims that: "In actuality, SPENCE
was nothing more than a young, energetic con man operating a
classic Ponzi scheme," one who possessed none of the necessary
accreditation to carry out fiduciary responsibilities on behalf of
investors.

The filing also states that neither the hedge fund nor any of the
projects were properly registered with relevant authorities, nor
were they following pertinent regulations.

The accused also allegedly invested other people's money without
proper care or assurances and may have accumulated 1300 Bitcoins
from clients (worth more than $10 million dollars) at the top of
the scheme.

Mr. Spence is also alleged to have claimed he'd be able to wring
outsized returns of "20X" from crypto markets.

When the alleged Ponzi began to "crumble" in late 2018, the lawyers
say Spence refused to allow investors to withdraw funds and
"proffered untenable excuses about 'hacks' and 'family' emergencies
as a way to stall for time to plot his next move."

The lawyers also claim that, at the time of the filing (December
26th), the funds are still being held, "under equally unwarranted
and unjust means."

Plaintiffs are seeking the restoration of Bitcoins they transferred
to Spence, monetary penalties, "imposition of a constructive trust
over the assets collected by Spence" and a trial by jury. [GN]


JRC FITNESS: Faces Rivera TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JRC Fitness, Inc. The
case is styled as Carmen Judith Rivera, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JRC Fitness, Inc.
doing business as: SHAPES FITNESS FOR WOMEN MIRAMAR and Shapes
Franchising, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-60180-MGC (S.D.
Fla., January 21, 2019).

This is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

JRC Fitness, Inc. is a Health club in Miramar, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
   Hiraldo P.A.
   401 E. Las Olas Blvd. Ste 1400
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
   Tel: (954) 400-4713
   Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

      - and -

   Michael Eisenband, Esq.
   Eisenband Law, P.A.
   515 E Las Olas Blvd, Suite 120
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 533-4092
   Email: meisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

      - and -

   Ignacio Javier Hiraldo, Esq.
   1200 Brickell Ave, Suite 1950
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (786) 496-4469
   Email: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com



K12 INC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Calif. Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
K12, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 23, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2018, that an agreement in principle has
been reached to settle the remaining claim in In Re K12 Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 4:16-cv-04069-PJH.  

On July 20 and September 15, 2016, two securities class action
lawsuits—captioned Babulal Tarapara v. K12 Inc., et al., Case No.
3:16-cv-04069, and Gil Tuinenburg v. K12 Inc., et al., Case No.
3:16-cv-05305, respectively—were filed against the Company, two
of its officers and one of its former officers in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

On October 6, 2016, the Court consolidated the cases and
recaptioned the matter as In Re K12 Inc. Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 4:16-cv-04069-PJH.  

On August 30, 2017, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims
alleging false or misleading statements and omissions related to
Scantron results and the quality and effectiveness of K12's
academic services and offerings.

On September 5, 2018, and as a result of a Court ordered mediation,
the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
remaining claim concerning disclosure of a notice of non-automatic
renewal of a managed school contract.

K12 said, "Although we believe that the remaining claim in this
matter lacked merit, we agreed to settle the case to avoid
continued distraction and management time, and our insurance
carriers agreed to pay $3.5 million into a settlement fund for the
purported class and attorneys' fees and costs. This proposed
settlement is subject to final documentation and court approval."

K12 Inc., a technology-based education company, together with its
subsidiaries, provides online curriculum, software systems, and
educational services to facilitate individualized learning for
students primarily in kindergarten through 12th grade in the United
States and internationally. K12 Inc. was founded in 2000 and is
headquartered in Herndon, Virginia.


KANN ENTERPRISES: Faces Jurado Suit in Kern California
------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Kann Enterprises, Inc. The case is captioned as MIKE JURADO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. KANN ENTERPRISES, INC.; and TRIUNE LOGISTICS, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. BCV-19-100066 (Cal. Super., Kern Cty., Jan. 9,
2019). The case is assigned to Judge Stephen D. Schuett.

KANN Enterprises, Inc. offers freight and material handling
services. The company was incorporated in 1988 and is based in
Shorewood, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 322-4772
          Facsimile: (424) 322-4775


LEGALLY MINE: Court Sets Aside Default Judgment in Eliasieh Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KASRA ELIASIEH, Plaintiff, v. LEGALLY MINE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-03622-JSC (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (i) denied as moot the Plaintiff's motion
for default judgment, and (ii) granted the Defendant's motion to
set aside default.

Eliasieh filed the putative class action against the Defendant,
alleging violation of state law.  In October 2016, the Plaintiff
signed up for an asset protection plan with Legally Mine aimed at
physicians such as himself.  In doing so, he authorized Legally
Mine to charge his personal credit card $7,800.  He later
determined that the program was likely a scam and sought to cancel
the plan and obtain a refund.

After failing to receive a refund, the Plaintiff filed the action
against the Defendant on June 18, 2018, on his behalf as well as on
behalf of a class of (1) California physicians and dentists who had
signed up for an asset protection plan with Defendant in the last
four years, and (2) California physicians and dentists who had
signed up for an asset protection plan with Defendant using a
credit card.  The Plaintiff's complaint alleges violation of
California consumer protection statutes as well as other state law
contract-based claims.

A little less than a month later, the Defendant sought and obtained
a 45-day extension of time to answer or file a responsive pleading
so that further negotiation may be attempted to resolve and settle
the matter.  It thereafter failed to timely file a responsive
pleading, and two days after the deadline to do so, the Plaintiff
moved for entry of default which was granted a few days later.  A
month later, the Plaintiff moved for entry of default judgment and
the same day, Oct. 12, 2018, the Defendant moved to set aside
default.

The Court declined to take any action on the Defendant's motion to
set aside default because the Defendant's counsel was not admitted
to practice in the Court.  Two weeks later, the Defendant's counsel
notified the Court of her admission and the Court set a hearing on
the motions for default judgment and to set aside default.  Shortly
thereafter, the parties filed a stipulation to move the hearing
dates because the Defendant had obtained new counsel, which the
Court granted.  The parties then filed another stipulation allowing
Defendant to refile its motion to set aside default (because it was
erroneously based on California rather than federal law) and to
amend the briefing schedule on the Plaintiff's motion for default
judgment.  The Court granted this stipulation as well.

The Defendant insists that there is good cause to set aside the
default because it did not engage in culpable conduct, it has
meritorious defenses, and the Plaintiff will not be prejudiced.
The Plaintiff concedes that the Defendant has meritorious defenses
but insists that the Defendant's failure to respond was culpable
and that it will be prejudiced should default be set aside.

Magistrate Judge Corley finds that there is no dispute that in
response to the Complaint, the Defendant's in-house counsel reached
out to the Plaintiff to resolve the issue informally.  While the
Defendant thereafter failed to timely file an answer, Mr. Hillery's
declaration and the attached email attest that he was waiting for a
response from the Plaintiff to his request for a settlement offer.
The Defendant's conduct may well have lacked the necessary care,
but it does not rise to the level of culpability.  No such intent
is found in the case.

Next, the Magistrate finds that the Plaintiff does not dispute that
the Defendant could raise meritorious defenses.

Finally, she finds that if there had been no default, the Defendant
would likely have moved to compel arbitration.  The Plaintiff is in
no different position with respect to any motion to compel
arbitration than if the Defendant had timely answered and
thereafter moved to compel arbitration.  She says a default
judgment gives the Plaintiff something of a windfall by sparing her
from litigating the merits of her claim because of her opponent's
failure to respond; vacating the default judgment merely restores
the parties to an even footing in the litigation.

For the reasons she stated, Magistrate Judge Corley granted the
Defendant's motion to set aside default, and denied as moot the
Plaintiff's motion for default judgment.  The Defendant will file
an answer or responsive pleading within 21 days of the Order.  The
initial case management conference is scheduled for March 7, 2019
at 1:30 p.m. and a joint case management conference statement will
be filed by March 1, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 15, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/IUB705 from Leagle.com.

Kasra Eliasieh, Plaintiff, represented by David Michael
Rosenberg-Wohl -- david@hrw-law.com -- Hershenson Rosenberg-Wohl,
APC.

Legally Mine, LLC, Defendant, represented by John Ellis Lattin, IV
-- John@JohnLattinLaw.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP & Thuy Thanh
Nguyen -- thuycup@gmail.com.


LOCKHEED MARTIN: COBRA Notice Lacks Details, Angela Hicks Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA HICKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 83065938 (Fla. Super., Hillsborough Cty., Jan. 9, 2019) alleges
that the Defendant failed to provided required notices of the
Plaintiff's right to continued health care coverage under the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's COBRA notice omits
critical pieces of information. The plan administrator of a
group-health plan shall provide a COBRA notice written in a manner
calculated to be understood by the average plan participant.
Without information on when COBRA coverage ends, or where to send
payments, or who is the Plan Administrator, a notice simply is not
written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average plan
participant.

Lockheed Martin Corporation, a security and aerospace company,
engages in the research, design, development, manufacture,
integration, and sustainment of technology systems, products, and
services worldwide. Lockheed Martin Corporation was founded in 1909
and is based in Bethesda, Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com


LOVELY BRIDE: Dennis Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lovely Bride LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Derrick
U Dennis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Lovely Bride LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00406
(E.D. N.Y., January 21, 2019).

Lovely Bride LLC is an Indie Bridal Shop for Designer Wedding
Dresses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
   Shalom Law, PLLC.
   124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
   Kew Gardens, NY 11374
   Tel: (516) 807-1748
   Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com



LY BROTHERS: Denied Ruelas Breaks, Wage Statements, Reimbursements
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lizette Ruelas, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. LY Brothers Corporation and Does 1 through
100, Defendants, Case No. RG19001774 (Cal. Super., July 25, 2018),
seeks redress for Defendants' failure to authorize or permit
required meal periods; statutory penalties for failure to provide
accurate wage statements; and waiting time penalties in the form of
continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages
due upon separation of employment.  The Plaintiff further asserts
non-reimbursement of business-related expenses, and failure to
maintain time-keeping records, and seeks injunctive relief and
other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
interest under California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Wage
Orders.

LY Brothers Corporation operates as Sugar Bowl Bakery where Ruelas
worked as hourly-paid, non-exempt employee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      AIWAZIAN LAW FIRM
      410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Tel: (818) 265-1020
      Fax: (818) 265-1021


MARLBOROUGH GALLERY:  Breaches ADA, Dawson Suit Asserts
-------------------------------------------------------
Marlborough Gallery Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Deshawn Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Marlborough Gallery Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00582 (S.D. N.Y., January 21, 2019).

Marlborough Gallery Inc was founded in 1992. The company's line of
business includes operating sports, amusement, and recreation
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Vetter et al. Suit over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vickie Vetter and others commenced a class action lawsuit against
Marriott International, Inc., on account of the company's failure
to secure and safeguard its customers' personally identifiable
information, such as passport information, customers' names,
mailing addresses, and other personal information, as well as
credit and debit card numbers and other payment card data.

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.

The case is captioned as, VICKIE VETTER, CYNTHIA DEESE, LEE SLAGLE,
DALE SMITH, RHONDA STEVENS, NIKOLE JORDAN, CURTIS PAYNE, STACEY
WOLLMAN, KAREN RAMBAT, CATHERINE CARLBERG, SCOTT DIAS, MARETTA
LEITKA, ANTHONY MALFI, LAWRENCE PERLMUTTER, ANDREW ROSE, DAVID
SPARKS, JOAN KNUDSON, ELLEN KOWITT, BURNEASE RAGIN, GRETCHEN EHLE,
PATRICE MATTHEWS, KEVIN WALLS, TONEKIA SHOWELL, DOREEN WHELAN,
ROBERT BLUESTONE, KAREN DAVIS, RONALD MICHAEL FESCHAK, DOROTHY
ODIE, CAROL OSTAPCHUK, EDWARD SIPERSTEIN, MARIA WOOTEN, CURTIS
CUMMINGS, JON GOLDBERG, LATAUSHA GRIFFIN, DANIELLE HAYES, VIRGINIA
HOWELL, MONICA JOHNSON, BEVERLY RICKS, THERESA SYKES, FELICIA
WALLACE, JEAN WASKIEWICZ, JULIE DUCHSHERER, BARBARA ERICKSON,
BEVERLY LOUK, SHANE SOMERVILLE, KIANA BELCHER, KEVIN BERRY, PETER
TAPLING, EDGAR VAYNSHTEYN, AMBER HELTON, JULIE YOUNG, JASON YOUNG,
MARY JO JUREY, MICHAEL RAPP, MARLON GAINES, KUMAR RASHAD, SONJA
SCOTT, KYLE JASKI, ANGELA SONNIER, MARJORIE WHEELER, DEBRA WHIDDON,
LINDA WINSEY, RUTHANNE CARPENTER, MAY DESROCHERS, JEFFREY KEMP,
MARK ROTONDI, KAREN RUSSELL, JERI HOLT-MINTER, RICHARD RYANS,
MICHAEL BUNKER, DEBRA MICHAUD, MICHAEL BLICHER, GRAVES DE ARMOND,
MICHAEL FREELAND, STEVE GAJEWSKI, ROBERT KAISER, SUSAN MCINTOSH,
JOEL ROSSON, IRA WEINTRAUB, MELISSA WHITE, CHARLES WILLIAMS, GERALD
WILLIAMS, DENNIS WOOLDRIDGE, SUSAN BEVERLEY, NATHAN FINNEY, EDWARD
HANLEY, SHEILA HARRISON, OLIVIA MAY, JANLISA PARRIS, DARREL PARRIS,
JOE TAYLOR, SHAUN YURTKURAN, HOLGER MEYER, YVETTE BUTLER, SHELIA
CANIPE, DOROTHY DAVIS, MARK DUFFEY, LINDA KITE, RICK SABATH, DEBRA
TALLEY, ERIC GAULT, CAROL BLOOD, KATHLEEN CHRISTENSEN, MICHELLE
FEATHERSTONE, JACK MILAM, LUCY KARL, TAMIKA JACKSON, JUDY MILLS,
CHRIS MORRIS, LISA FREDERICKSON, JOSEPH THRONEBERRY, EDWARD BAKER,
TANESHA BORADGIAK, CRYSTAL CHAMBERS, LISA FRITZ, LAURENE GALLWAY,
PHYLLIS HECKER, JEFFREY RAHN, ANNE SANTO, VINCENT SAVARESE, ANNE
SAVARESE, CURTIS WEAVER, BRAD BARRINGER, ANGELA GRESH, CHALISE
MORRIS, DAVID MOYER, DEIDRINELLE ROUSE, TAMIKA SIMMONDS, SUSAN
MULLINS, SAMI DIFUNTORUM, STEVEN OWENS, CHERYL CASTOR, MICHAEL
CASTOR, PRUDENCE CONCERT-WHITE, SHAWN SEELEY, MELISSA YURKANIN,
RICARDO VAQUER, MARY ELLEN DAVEY, CHRISTOPHER PRATT, VANCE EDWARD
EICHELBERGER, JUSTIN PALMER, DAVID SECRIST, JOHN GILLILAND, CHARLES
HANSON, AMANDA ARNOLD, DOUGLAS BLAKE, CARLA ENGLE, JANICE
FRAZIER-SCOTT, BETSY GENTRY, JANET WENDER, RONZELLA WRIGHT-LOFTLY,
DEANA CANNON, KENNETH DAVIS, SCOTT GIDEON, JERNARD GRIGGS, DONNA
HUGHES, PATRICIA HUIZAR, SELMA RODRIGUEZ, BRUCE SANDERS, BEVERLY
TOOKEY, JOHN WALLER, JONATHAN DODART, RUTH PATRICIA ROSADOS, RONALD
KOTZ, DAVID MELENDEZ, ASIM PADH, MICHAEL RAIMONDI, JENINNE PITTS,
CHRISTOPHER DAVIES, RIK LEWIS, CHRISTINA OLSEN, JOHN SIMMONS, JODY
STEPHENS, GORDON THOMAS, JEFFREY OELHAFEN, BRENDA BURR, SARAH
KORWAN, and KENT SPENCE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00094-RWT (D. Md., Jan. 9, 2019).[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James P. Ulwick, Esq.
          KRAMON & GRAHAM PA
          One South Street, Suite 2600
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 752-6030
          Facsimile: (410) 539-1269
          E-mail: julwick@kg-law.com

               - and -

          Melissa H. Maxman, Es.
          Erica Lai, Esq.
          COHEN & GRESSER LLP
          2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 851-2071
          E-mail: mmaxman@cohengresser.com
                  elai@cohengresser.com

               - and -

          Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
          Douglas J. MacNamara, Esq.
          Sally Handmaker Guido, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
                  dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
                  sguido@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -


          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dlcfirm.com
                  akeller@dlcfirm.com

               - and -

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          Steven Nathan, Esq.
          Megan E. Jones, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street NW Suite 650
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
                  snathan@hausfeld.com
                  mjones@hausfeld.com


MARY-ANNE MARTIN: Art Gallery Sued for ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Mary-Anne Martin Fine Art, Ltd. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Deshawn Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mary-Anne Martin Fine Art, Ltd.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00583 (S.D. N.Y., January 21, 2019).

Mary-Anne Martin|Fine Art is devoted to the promotion and sale of
Latin American Art.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


MBT FINANCIAL: Faces Pauli Securities Suit in Michigan
------------------------------------------------------
MBT Financial Corp. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that the company is facing a
derivative and putative class action lawsuit entitled, Christopher
Pauli v. MBT Financial Corp, et al.

On January 18, 2019, MBT was sued by Christopher Pauli, a purported
MBT stockholder, on behalf of himself and all MBT stockholders
other than the named defendants and their affiliates.  The
complaint is a derivative and putative class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Southern Division, captioned Christopher Pauli v. MBT Financial
Corp, et al., naming each MBT director, and MBT as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that MBT and the Individual Defendants have
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 by omitting certain material information from First
Merchants' Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), which includes
First Merchants' prospectus with respect to the shares of First
Merchants' common stock to be issued to MBT stockholders in the
proposed merger and the MBT proxy statement for the MBT special
stockholders' meeting to be held on February 14, 2019.  

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

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

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


MDL 1566: Remand of Remaining Actions in Antitrust Suit Suggested
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert C. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada suggested remand of cases, In re WESTERN STATES WHOLESALE
NATURAL GAS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 2:05-CV-01331-RCJ-PAL,
MDL No. 1566, Nos. 2:03-cv-01431-RCJ-PAL, 2:06-cv-00233-RCJ-PAL,
2:06-cv-00267-RCJ-PAL, 2:06-cv-00282-RCJ-PAL,
2:06-cv-01351-RCJ-PAL, 2:07-cv-00987-RCJ-PAL,
2:07-cv-01019-RCJ-PAL, 2:09-cv-00915-RCJ-PAL (D. Nev.), to their
respective transferor courts for trial.

The consolidated cases arise out of the energy crisis of 2000-2002.
The Plaintiffs (retail buyers of natural gas) allege that the
Defendants (natural gas traders) manipulated the price of natural
gas by reporting false information to price indices published by
trade publications and by engaging in "wash sales."

In 2003, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML")
transferred seven class action cases from various districts in
California to the District as Multidistrict Litigation Case No.
1566, assigning Judge Pro to preside.  Since then, the JPML has
transferred in several more actions from various districts
throughout the United States.

Between 2003 and 2015, Judge Pro ruled on many motions to remand,
to dismiss, and for summary judgment.  He also approved several
class settlements.  Several parties settled on their own.  One or
more of the cases have been to the Court of Appeals twice and to
the Supreme Court once.

Specifically, in 2007, the Court of Appeals reversed several
dismissals under the filed-rate doctrine and remanded for further
proceedings.  In 2013, the Court of Appeals reversed several
summary judgment orders, ruling that the Natural Gas Act did not
preempt state law anti-trust claims and that certain Wisconsin- and
Missouri-based Defendants should not have been dismissed for lack
of personal jurisdiction.  The Supreme Court granted certiorari as
to preemption under the Natural Gas Act and affirmed.  The case was
soon thereafter reassigned to the Court when Judge Pro retired.
The Court issued several dispositive orders and denied class
certification in applicable cases.

On March 27, 2018, the Court of Appeals reversed the Court's ruling
that Reorganized FLI, Inc. was entitled to summary judgment based
on a release in a previous action.  On Aug. 1, 2018, the Court of
Appeals ruled that Sinclair Oil Corp.'s claims were similarly not
released; nor were they precluded.  On Aug. 6, 2018, the Court of
Appeals reversed the Court's grant of summary judgment to
CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. on the merits of the claims under
Wisconsin's antitrust statutes, as well as the Court's denials of
class certification.

The Plaintiffs in the remaining cases have asked the Court to
suggest remand to the JPML.  The Defendants have opposed the
motions and filed additional dispositive motions.  

Judge Jones granted the Motions for Suggestion of Remand.  He held
he will not address the additional dispositive motions (or leave to
file them) unless the JPML declines to remand the applicable
case(s).

Pursuant to JPML Rule 10.1(b)(i), he recommended the remand of
these actions to their respective transferor courts.  After three
rounds of pretrial motion practice over the past two decades, a
previous judge of the District was reversed twice, and the Court
has been reversed once.  The Judge is of the opinion, having had
the Court's grants of summary judgment reversed, that dispositive
motion practice should be concluded, and the matters should proceed
to trial in the transferor courts.  Further delay is inappropriate.
Only class certification remains (in the five of the eight
remaining actions that are class actions), and given the Court of
Appeals' reversal of the Court's denials of class certification,
the transferor courts are better positioned to apply the relevant
states' laws in these complex matters.  The Judge respectfully
suggested remand of these actions for trial.

Any party may file a copy of the Order with the JPML.  The Judge
denied without prejudice the Motions (ECF Nos. 2999, 3053, 3082,
3084); and denied as moot the Motions (ECF Nos. 3065, 3068, 3086,
3087, 3090).

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 16, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/zhm3Mu from Leagle.com.

Reorganized FLI, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Donald D. Barry --
dbarry@inlandnet.net -- Barry Law Offices, L.L.C., Eric I. Unrein,
Cavanaugh, Biggs & Lemon, P.A., Gary D. McCallister --
gdm@mccallisterlawgroup.com -- Gary D. McCallister & Associates,
LLC, Isaac Diel, Sharp McQueen P.A. & Thomas H. Brill, Law Office
of Thomas H. Brill, pro hac vice.

Western Gas Resources, Inc., Defendant, represented by James E.
Scarboro -- james.scarboro@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter LLP,
Jessica Brody, Arnold & Porter & Matthew Douglas --
matthew.douglas@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter.


MEDSPA DEL MAR: Mazzariol Files Class Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medspa Del Mar, LLC.
The case is styled as Carol N Mazzariol, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Medspa Del Mar, LLC,
a Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-10015-KMM (S.D. Fla., January 22, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as breach of
Statutory Actions.

MedSpa Del Mar in Naples, Florida specializes in Spa Treatments &
Cosmetic Procedures.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
   Edelsberg Law PA
   19495 Biscayne Blvd 607
   Aventura, FL 33180
   Tel: (305) 975-3320
   Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

      - and -

   Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
   14 NE 1st Ave STE 1205
   Miami, FL 33131
   Tel: (404) 797-9696
   Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com


MEISLIN PROJECTS: Dawson Suit Asserts ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Meislin Projects LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Deshawn Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Meislin Projects LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00584 (S.D. N.Y., January 21, 2019).

Meislin Projects LLC is in the Civic and Social Associations
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Kumar Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHOK KUMAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00246-SJF-ARL (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 11, 2019)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein
and referred to Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay.

Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC provides collection and accounts
receivable management services to lenders, debt purchasers, and
universities in the United States. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau LLC
was founded in 1934 and is headquartered in Williamsville, New York
with an additional office in Rochester, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan L Gentile, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA
          110 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 100
          Floral Park, NY 11001
          Telephone: (212) 675-6161
          Facsimile: (212) 675-4367
          E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com


MERRIN GALLERY: Dawson Suit Alleges Breach of Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Merrin Gallery Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Deshawn Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Merrin Gallery Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00585 (S.D. N.Y., January 21, 2019).

The Merrin Gallery Inc. is an Art gallery in New York City, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal



MICHAEL N. ALTMAN: Violates Disabilities Act, Says Dawson
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael N. Altman Fine Art & Advisory Services, LLC is facing a
class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Deshawn Dawson, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Michael
N. Altman Fine Art & Advisory Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00586 (S.D. N.Y., January 21, 2019).

Michael N. Altman Fine Art & Advisory Services, LLC is an Art
gallery in New York City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal



MICHAEL WERNER: German Art Gallery Faces ADA Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Werner, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Deshawn Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Michael Werner, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00588 (S.D. N.Y., January 21, 2019).

Michael Werner, Inc. is a German art gallery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


MICHELE BEINY: Faces Dawson ADA Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Michele Beiny, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Deshawn Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Michele Beiny, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00589 (S.D. N.Y., January 21, 2019).

Michele Beiny, Inc. specializes in 18th and early 19th century
English and Continental porcelain and European faience, as well as
objets de vertu, Renaissance jewelry and contemporary ceramics and
glass.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


MIDLAND CREDIT: Felix Mickens Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FELIX MICKENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.; and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Case No. 3:19-cv-00310-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., Jan. 9, 2019)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Michael A. Shipp and
referred to Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.

Midland Credit Management, Inc., a licensed debt collector, assists
customers in resolving past-due financial obligations through
various education and payment plans. The company was founded in
1953 and is based in San Diego, California. Midland Credit
Management, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group,
Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
          280 Prospect Ave. 6G
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 803-6611
          Facsimile: (866) 596-4973
          E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com


MINDBODY INC: Faces 4 Merger-Related Class Action Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Mindbody, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission dated January 29, 2019, that the company
has been named as defendant in four class action lawsuits related
to its merger agreement with Torreys Parent, LLC.

On December 23, 2018, MINDBODY, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Torreys Parent,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and Torreys Merger Sub,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent,
providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company
(the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent. On January 23, 2019, the Company filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a
definitive proxy statement (the "Definitive Proxy Statement") with
respect to the special meeting of MINDBODY stockholders scheduled
to be held on February 14, 2019 in connection with the Merger (the
"Special Meeting").

In connection with the Merger, after the Definitive Proxy Statement
was filed, four stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed:

     (i) in the United States District Court of Delaware, captioned
Sabatini v. MINDBODY, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00138-UNA;

    (ii) in California Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County,
captioned Schmit v. MINDBODY, Inc. et al., Case No. 19CV-0043;

   (iii) in the United States District Court of Central District of
California, captioned Tran v. MINDBODY, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-00638; and

    (iv) in the Court of Chancery of Delaware, captioned Ryan v.
MINDBODY, Inc. et al., Case No. 2019-0061.

The Complaints generally allege, among other things, that MINDBODY
and the members of its Board of Directors purportedly omitted
material information from the Proxy Statement and that the Merger
and the process that led to it was procedurally and substantively
flawed.

The Complaints also allege claims against the members of the
Company's Board of Directors and, in the case of the Ryan
Complaint, Vista Equity Partners Management, LLC. The Complaints
seek, among other things, additional disclosure of facts relating
to the Merger and/or injunctive relief.

Mindbody said, "Additional similar lawsuits may be filed in the
future. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations in
the Complaints lack merit and will vigorously defend against these
and any subsequently filed similar actions. If additional similar
complaints are filed, absent new or different allegations that are
material, the Company will not necessarily disclose such additional
filings."

Mindbody, Inc. operates a cloud-based business management software
and payments platform for the small and medium-sized businesses in
the wellness services industry. Mindbody, Inc. was founded in 2001
and is headquartered in San Luis Obispo, California.


MIREILLE MOSLER: Dawson Sues Art Gallery Under ADA
--------------------------------------------------
Mireille Mosler, Ltd. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Deshawn Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Mireille Mosler, Ltd., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00591 (S.D. N.Y., January 21, 2019).

Mireille Mosler, Ltd. is an Art gallery in New York City, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


MITCHELL-INNES & NASH: Violates ADA, Dawson Suit Asserts
--------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell-Innes & Nash, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Deshawn Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Mitchell-Innes & Nash, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00592 (S.D. N.Y., January 21, 2019).

Founded by Lucy Mitchell-Innes and David Nash, who previously
headed the worldwide Contemporary and Impressionist & Modern Art
divisions of Sotheby's, Mitchell-Innes & Nash places exemplary
contemporary artists within a historical context, revealing a
continuity of ideas and aesthetic virtuosity from the Modern era
through the present day.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal


MIXOLOGY CLOTHING: Kevin Garey Alleges ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Mixology Clothing Company LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Kevin Garey, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mixology Clothing Company LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00579 (S.D. N.Y., January 21, 2019).

Mixology Clothing Company is a boutique established in 2009 with
the goal of offering "moderately priced designer brands for the
Intermix look and shopping experience at Zara prices."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
   Shalom Law, PLLC.
   124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
   Kew Gardens, NY 11374
   Tel: (516) 807-1748
   Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


MNUCHIN GALLERY: Dawson Asserts Breach of ADA in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mnuchin Gallery LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Deshawn Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Mnuchin Gallery LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00594 (S.D. N.Y., January 21, 2019).

Mnuchin Gallery LLC is an art gallery in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
   Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
   300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
   Brooklyn, NY 11201
   Tel: (917) 299-6612
   Fax: (929) 575-4195
   Email: joseph@cml.legal



MONSANTO CO: Blitz Appeals Class Cert. Denial to 7th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Thomas Blitz filed an appeal from a court ruling in his
lawsuit entitled Thomas Blitz v. Monsanto Company, Case No.
3:17-cv-00473-wmc, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 22, 2019, Judge
William M. Conley denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class
of similarly situated Wisconsin consumers.

In the putative class action, Mr. Blitz claims that the statement
on the label of Defendant Monsanto's Roundup(R) product misled him
into believing it was safe to use around people and pets because
the active ingredient targeted an enzyme only found in plants,
inducing him to purchase the product and causing him pecuniary
loss.

The appellate case is captioned as Thomas Blitz v. Monsanto
Company, Case No. 19-8001, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner THOMAS BLITZ, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Mary C. Turke, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP
          613 Williamson Street
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 237-1775
          E-mail: mary@turkestrauss.com

Defendant-Respondent MONSANTO COMPANY is represented by:

          John Rosenthal, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          1700 K Street N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006-3817
          Telephone: (202) 282-5785
          E-mail: jrosenthal@winston.com


MORNINGSTAR INC: Amended Green RICO Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL D. GREEN, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MORNINGSTAR INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT LLC, PRUDENTIAL INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC, and
PRUDENTIAL RETIREMENT INSURANCE AND ANNUITY COMPANY, Defendants,
Case No. 17 C 5652 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss the amended
complaint with prejudice.

Green first filed the putative nationwide class action in August
2017 alleging that the Defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") because they rigged an
investment advice program to automatically select Green's 401(k)
retirement plan's mutual funds for him based on which funds shared
the most fees with the Defendants.

participates in his employer's (Rollins Inc.) 401(k) retirement
plan, which allows participants to contribute a pre-tax portion of
their salaries and wages that their employer can match to encourage
individuals to save for retirement.  The participants then choose
how the Rollins Plan allocates their savings through investing them
among a variety of designated mutual funds.  Prudential Retirement
sold a free, optional computer program named GoalMaker to the
Rollins Plan to support and advise the individuals in making their
investment decisions.

GoalMaker automatically allocates a retirement plan participant's
savings among various investment options based on the participant's
age, income, savings rate, and other data.  Morningstar originally
developed the technology, but Green alleges that in 2012
Morningstar and potentially one or more of the Prudential
Defendants modified it to generate revenue sharing fees for the
Prudential Defendants by limiting the investment options available
to Green and other plan participants.

Green claims that he would have paid lower fees for his retirement
plan investments had GoalMaker not pushed him to invest his savings
in funds that kicked the revenue sharing fees back to the
Prudential Defendants.  Instead, the Defendants configured the
computer software to automatically steer Green away from
diversifying his investments among the options available in the
Plan.

The Defendants so restricted the number and identity of investment
options that GoalMaker used through consulting meetings and
additional work together.  In other words, GoalMaker did not
consider the Plan's entire menu of designated investment options.
In fact, GoalMaker only utilized seven of the 16 designated
investment options offered by the Plan.  Then it automatically made
Green's investment decisions for him based not on what was in
Green's financial interest but what was in the Defendants'.  These
high-cost investments caused Green to pay unwarranted fees on his
retirement savings.

The Court granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss that complaint
in March 2018 because Green did not plausibly allege that the
Defendants conducted themselves in an enterprise that engaged in a
pattern of racketeering activity.  Green subsequently amended his
complaint to cure these flaws, but the Defendants once again moved
to dismiss arguing that Green failed to do so.

Green argues that the Defendants associated in-fact to form an
enterprise to intentionally and systematically influence retirement
plan participants to use GoalMaker to invest their savings in
high-fee mutual funds that send revenue sharing fees to the
Defendants.  The Defendants contend that Green failed to adequately
allege standing, his RICO claim, and that the statute of
limitations does not bar his claim.

Judge Kendall finds that the amended complaint suffers from the
first flaw its predecessor did: failure to allege that the
"enterprise" was anything more than a run-of-the-mill business
deal.  Green also failed to allege that the revenue sharing fees
were not disclosed or non-consensual.  Becuase of it, he cannot
adequately state a pattern of racketeering activity.  Even if Green
so alleged, the fact remains that Rollins' and Green's actions
deprived the defendants of any ability to enrich the Defendants at
Green's expense.

For the same reasons Green cannot allege a pattern of racketeering
activity, the Judge holds that the Plaintiff also cannot allege
that the Defendants caused his injury.  Green's claim is
impermissibly attenuated because the sequence of events that must
occur to injure him involves too many intervening and independent
decisions.   Because the independent decisions of Rollins and Green
make the causal chain too attenuated, Green fails to plausibly
allege proximate cause, and consequently the Court need not analyze
but-for causation.

Finally, the Judge finds that although the statute of limitations
is a defense that Green need not anticipate nor refute in his
complaint, his allegation that the enterprise began in 2012
facially shows that the statute bars relief.

Judge Kendall concludes that Green may be able to plausibly allege
a garden-variety state law fraud claim, but a federal RICO action
is not the proper vehicle for such a claim.  She accordingly
granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 16, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/a75wxq from Leagle.com.

Michael D Green, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Austin Patrick Tighe, Jr., Nix
Patterson & Roach LLP, Garrett W. Wotkyns --
gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
LLP, pro hac vice, Elena N. Liveris, Law Offices of Michael M.
Mulder, James A. Bloom -- jbloom@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns, LLP, pro hac vice, John J.
Nestico -- jnestico@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns, LLP, pro hac vice & Michael M. Mulder,
Law Offices of Michael M. Mulder.

Morningstar, Inc. & Morningstar Investment Management LLC,
Defendants, represented by Craig Christopher Martin --
cmartin@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Amanda S. Amert --
aamert@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Ashley Marie Schumacher --
aschumacher@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Brienne M. Letourneau
-- bletourneau@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Cristina
Covarrubias -- ccovarrubias@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP &
Howard Steven Suskin -- hsuskin@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP.

Prudential Investment Management Services LLC, Defendant,
represented by Edward Bellamy Lefebvre -- tlefebvre@pullcom.com --
Pullman & Comley, LLC, pro hac vice, Joel S. Feldman --
JFELDMAN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Mark Bruce Blocker --
MBLOCKER@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Tara Azad Amin --
TAMIN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin Llp, James T. Shearin --
jtshearin@pullcom.com -- Pullman & Comley, pro hac vice, Kevin P.
Zimmerman -- KEVIN.ZIMMERMAN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin Llp &
Maria D. Melendez -- MMELENDEZ@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro
hac vice.

Prudential Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, Defendant,
represented by Joel S. Feldman, Sidley Austin LLP, Mark Bruce
Blocker, Sidley Austin LLP, Tara Azad Amin, Sidley Austin Llp,
Kevin P. Zimmerman, Sidley Austin Llp & Maria D. Melendez, Sidley
Austin LLP, pro hac vice.


NEW PRIME: Arbitration Ruling in Oliveira Class Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NEW PRIME INC., Petitioner, v. DOMINIC OLIVEIRA, Case
No. 17-340 (U.S.), Judge Neil Gorsuch of the Supreme Court of the
United States affirmed the court of appeals' judgment that that it
lacked authority under the Federal Arbitration Act to order
arbitration.

The Act requires courts to enforce private arbitration agreements.
But like most laws, this one bears its qualifications.  Among other
things, Section 1 says that "nothing herein" may be used to compel
arbitration in disputes involving the "contracts of employment" of
certain transportation workers.  And that qualification has sparked
these questions: When a contract delegates questions of
arbitrability to an arbitrator, must a court leave disputes over
the application of Section 1's exception for the arbitrator to
resolve?  And does the term "contracts of employment" refer only to
contracts between employers and employees, or does it also reach
contracts with independent contractors?  Because courts across the
country have disagreed on the answers to these questions, the Court
took the case to resolve them.

New Prime is an interstate trucking company and Dominic Oliveira
works as one of its drivers.  But, at least on paper, Mr. Oliveira
isn't an employee; the parties' contracts label him an independent
contractor.  Those agreements also instruct that any disputes
arising out of the parties' relationship should be resolved by an
arbitrator -- even disputes over the scope of the arbitrator's
authority.

Eventually, a dispute did arise.  In a class action lawsuit in
federal court, Mr. Oliveira argued that New Prime denies its
drivers lawful wages.  The company may call its drivers independent
contractors.  But, Mr. Oliveira alleged, in reality New Prime
treats them as employees and fails to pay the statutorily due
minimum wage.  In response to Mr. Oliveira's complaint, New Prime
asked the court to invoke its statutory authority under the Act and
compel arbitration according to the terms found in the parties'
agreements.

That request led to more than a little litigation of its own.  Even
when the parties' contracts mandate arbitration, Mr. Oliveira
observed, the Act doesn't always authorize a court to enter an
order compelling it.  In particular, Section 1 carves out from the
Act's coverage "contracts of employment of workers engaged in
foreign or interstate commerce."  And at least for purposes of the
collateral dispute, Mr. Oliveira submitted, it doesn't matter
whether you view him as an employee or independent contractor.
Either way, his agreement to drive trucks for New Prime qualifies
as a contract of employment of a worker engaged in interstate
commerce.  Accordingly, Mr. Oliveira argued, the Act supplied the
district court with no authority to compel arbitration in this
case.

Naturally, New Prime disagreed.  Given the extraordinary breadth of
the parties' arbitration agreement, the company insisted that any
question about Section 1's application belonged for the arbitrator
alone to resolve.  Alternatively, and assuming a court could
address the question, New Prime contended that the term "contracts
of employment" refers only to contracts that establish an
employeremployee relationship.  And because Mr. Oliveira is, in
fact as well as form, an independent contractor, the company
argued, Section 1's exception doesn't apply; the rest of the
statute does; and the district court was (once again) required to
order arbitration.

Ultimately, the district court and the First Circuit sided with Mr.
Oliveira.  The court of appeals held, first, that in disputes like
this, a court should resolve whether the parties' contract falls
within the Act's ambit or Section 1's exclusion before invoking the
statute's authority to order arbitration.  Second, it held that
Section 1's exclusion of certain "contracts of employment" removes
from the Act's coverage not only employeremployee contracts but
also contracts involving independent contractors.  So under any
account of the parties' agreement in the case, the court held, it
lacked authority under the Act to order arbitration.

In approaching the first question for the Court, Judge Gorsuch
finds that one thing becomes clear immediately.  While a court's
authority under the Arbitration Act to compel arbitration may be
considerable, it isn't unconditional.  Given the statute's terms
and sequencing, he agrees with the First Circuit that a court
should decide for itself whether Section 1's "contracts of
employment" exclusion applies before ordering arbitration.  

The Judge explains that a delegation clause is merely a specialized
type of arbitration agreement, and the Act operates on the
additional arbitration agreement just as it does on any other.  So
a court may use §§3 and 4 to enforce a delegation clause only if
the clause appears in a "written provision in a contract evidencing
a transaction involving commerce" consistent with Section 2.  And
only if the contract in which the clause appears doesn't trigger
Section 1's "contracts of employment" exception.  In exactly the
same way, the Act's severability principle applies only if the
parties' arbitration agreement appears in a contract that falls
within the field Sections 1 and 2 describe.  He acknowledged as
much some time ago, explaining that, before invoking the
severability principle, a court should determine that the contract
in question is within the coverage of the Arbitration Act.

That takes the Court to the second question: Did the First Circuit
correctly resolve the merits of the Section 1 challenge in the
case?  The Judge finds that if the term "contracts of employment"
refers only to contracts that reflect an employer-employee
relationship, then Section 1's exception is irrelevant and a court
is free to order arbitration, just as New Prime urges.  But if the
term also encompasses contracts that require an independent
contractor to perform work, then the exception takes hold and a
court lacks authority under the Act to order arbitration, exactly
as Mr. Oliveira argues.

Judge Gorsuch concludes that when Congress enacted the Arbitration
Act in 1925, the term "contracts of employment" referred to
agreements to perform work.  No less than those who came before
him, Mr. Oliveira is entitled to the benefit of that same
understanding today.  Accordingly, his agreement with New Prime
falls within Section 1's exception, the court of appeals was
correct that it lacked authority under the Act to order
arbitration, and the judgment is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 15, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/GraknP from Leagle.com.

Theodore J. Boutrous -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Attorneys for Petitioner, New Prime Inc.

Jennifer D. Bennett -- jbennett@publicjustice.net -- Public
Justice, Attorneys for Respondent, Dominic Oliveira.

Richard Pianka, ATA Litigation Center, for American Trucking
Associations, Inc.

Andrew John Pincus -- apincus@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown, LLP,
for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America.

Gerson H. Smoger, Smoger and Associates, for American Association
for Justice.

Paul Damien Cullen, Jr. -- pxc@cullenlaw.com -- The Cullen Law
Firm, PLLC, for Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association,
Inc.

D. Michael Dale , Northwest Workers' Justice Project, for STEVE
VISCELLI, DOMINGO AVALOS, GABRIEL PROCEL, BRION GRAY, JAMES ZUBER,
HECTOR ZELAYA, DESIREE ANN WOOD, THE WAGE JUSTICE CENTER AND REAL
WOMEN IN TRUCKING, INC.

Brianne Jenna Gorod, Constitutional Accountability Center, for
Constitutional Accountability Center.

Andrew Michael Grossman -- agrossman@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler LLP, for Cato Institute.

Robert G. Hulteng -- rhulteng@littler.com -- Littler, Mendelson,
P.C., for Customized Logistics and Delivery Association.

Scott Lawrence Nelson, Public Citizen Litigation Group, for Public
Citizen, Inc.

Sachin Sharadkumar Pandya -- sachin.pandya@uconn.edu -- University
of Connecticut School of Law, for Historians.

Anna Purna Prakash -- aprakash@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, for
Employment Law Scholars.

Benjamin G. Robbins, New England Legal Foundation, for New England
Legal Foundation.

Peter Romer-Friedman -- prf@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden
LLP, for Statutory Construction Scholars as Amicus Curiae.

Catherine Kiley Ruckelshaus -- cruckelshaus@nelp.org -- Nat'l
Employment Law Project, for Teamsters Int'l Union, National
Employment Law Project, Economic Policy Institute, National
Employment Lawyers Assn.

Sheldon Whitehouse, for Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.

Karla Enid Zarbo, Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts, for
Massachusetts, et al.


NKM CORP: Faces Honeywell ADA Violation Suit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
N K M Corporation, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Cheri Honeywell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. N K M Corporation, Inc. doing
business as: Curtis Inn and Suites, a Florida Profit Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-60193-WPD (S.D. Fla., January 22,
2019).

N.K.M. Corporation, Inc. (trade name Curtis Inn) is in the Motels
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
   Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
   200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: service@advocacypa.com


NUTRISYSTEM INC: Frechter Securities Suit Questions Sale to Tivity
------------------------------------------------------------------
HAROLD FRECHTER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. NUTRISYSTEM, INC., DAWN M. ZIER, MICHAEL J. HAGAN,
ROBERT F. BERNSTOCK, PAUL GUYARDO, JAY HERRATTI, MICHAEL D. MANGAN,
BRIAN P. TIERNEY, ANDREA WEISS, PATRICIA HAN, and BENJAMIN A.
KIRSHNER, Case No. 1:19-cv-00087-UNA (D. Del., January 16, 2019),
seeks to enjoin the Defendants from taking any steps to consummate
a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Nutrisystem will be
acquired by Tivity Health, Inc., or, in the event the Proposed
Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the
Defendants' alleged wrongdoing.

On December 9, 2018, Nutrisystem's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Tivity
Health and Tivity Health's wholly owned subsidiary, Sweet
Acquisition, Inc.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
Nutrisystem shareholders, upon the closing of the Merger, will
receive, in exchange for each share of Nutrisystem common stock
they own, $38.75 in cash, without interest, and 0.2141 of a share
of Tivity Health common stock.  Upon completion of the Merger,
Merger Sub will merge with and into Nutrisystem, with Nutrisystem
surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Tivity Health.

The Plaintiff alleges that the filed Form S-4 Registration
Statement omits certain material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders it false and misleading, in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  He contends that
the Registration Statement omits material information concerning
the opinion rendered by Evercore Group L.L.C., the firm retained by
the Company, which found that the Merger Consideration was fair,
from a financial point of view, to Nutrisystem's shareholders.  He
asserts, among other things, that the Proxy omits material
information in connection with Evercore's Discounted Cash Flow
("DCF") Analysis, which Evercore performed in connection with its
fairness opinion.

Nutrisystem is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Nutrisystem is a popular health and wellness company.  As described
in the Registration Statement, Nutrisystem "is a provider of weight
management products and services, including nutritionally balanced
weight loss programs sold primarily online and over the telephone
and multi-day kits and single items available at select retail
locations." The Company claims to have assisted "millions of people
lose weight" over the course of more than 45 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Carl L. Stine, Esq.
          Adam J. Blander, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
          E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com
                  ablander@wolfpopper.com


NVIDIA CORP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a global investors rights law
firm, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased NVIDIA Corporation ("NVIDIA" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: NVDA) securities between August 10, 2017
and November 15, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). NVIDIA
investors have until February 19, 2019 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

On November 15, 2018, NVIDIA significantly cut its revenue guidance
for the fiscal fourth quarter, revealing that revenue would decline
by over 7% in the quarter—a significant departure from the 17%
growth investors had been led to expect. NVIDIA attributed its poor
financial results to surging inventory of midrange GPUs that built
up in the channel before the rapid fade of cryptocurrency mining.
On this news, shares of NVIDIA declined by 29% over the ensuing two
trading sessions, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements, and failed to disclose that: (1) revenue growth
attributed to NVIDIA's gaming GPUs was driven, in significant part,
by surging demand among cryptocurrency miners; (2) NVIDIA did not
have visibility into its inventory channel and was unable to adapt
to changes in the cryptocurrency markets; and (3) as cryptocurrency
prices began to plummet, NVIDIA masked slowing growth by continuing
to push mid-range GPUs into the channel, which caused inventory
levels to skyrocket and ultimately left NVIDIA with over three
months of excess inventory in its channel.

If you purchased shares of NVIDIA during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than February 19, 2019 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters please;

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


NVIDIA: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Misleading Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Alcorn, writing for Tom's Hardware, reports that The Schall
Law Firm, which specializes in securities class-action lawsuits and
shareholder rights litigation, joined other firms in filing class
action lawsuits against Nvidia. The pending litigation claims
Nvidia made false and misleading statements to its shareholders
regarding how it could manage reduced demand from the
cryptocurrency market.

In 2017's cryptocurrency craze sent PC component pricing into the
stratosphere as everyone from casual users to massive Chinese
cryptocurrency mining outfits snapped up GPUs at an astounding
rate. That led to shortages and price gouging in the graphics
market and had the knock-on effect of increased prices for other
components, as well.

AMD responded to the increased GPU demand by boosting production,
while Nvidia began stuffing the channel to help push pricing back
to sane levels. But then the crypto craze fizzled as the value of
Bitcoin plunged, dragging down the other virtual currencies.
Suddenly a flood of used graphics cards hit the market at low
prices, exacerbating the reduced demand in retail channels. That
left Nvidia with "one to two quarters" of oversupply for some of
its graphics cards, most notably the GTX 1060. The oversupply
purportedly delayed the release of the Turing 2060 cards and also
led to the first of many punishing rounds of losses for Nvidia in
the stock market.

Now the Schall Law Firm is encouraging incensed investors who have
lost more than $100,000 (£77,560, $140,330 AU) to join its
class-action lawsuit, saying:

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. NVIDIA touted its ability to monitor the
cryptocurrency market and make rapid changes to its business as
necessary. The Company claimed to be "masters at managing our
channel, and we understand the channel very well." NVIDIA also
claimed to the market that any drop off in demand for its GPUs
amongst cryptocurrency miners would not negatively impact the
Company's business because of strong demand for GPUs from the
gaming market. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about NVIDIA,
investors suffered damages.

Much of the lawsuit hinges on Nvidia's messaging around its ability
to predict and react to changes in the cryptocurrency market, but
that's a difficult proposition given the dynamics of modern
cryptocurrency mining. Miners often use graphics cards for multiple
purposes, such as gaming for enthusiasts and cloud applications for
commercial users, so gauging a customers' intent when they purchase
a graphics card is nearly impossible.

The lawsuit against Nvidia for its messaging is one of several
[1,2,3], which only adds to the company's woes. Since October 1,
Nvidia's stock has lost 53% of its value due to the crypto crash
and the US trade war with China (the Chinese market accounts for
~20% of Nvidia's sales). Several of the company's customers, like
Apple, Google, Amazon, and Facebook, also announced they are
developing their own AI chips, seemingly threatening Nvidia's
stranglehold on the lucrative data center GPU market. Intel's new
graphics cards and AMD's 7nm data center Radeon Instinct GPUs also
loom on the horizon, so the company is beset by challenges on all
sides.

AMD has also suffered at the hands of the stock market due to its
oversupply of graphics cards, but its diversified portfolio of both
CPUs and GPUs has helped insulate the company from extreme losses.
Meanwhile, Nvidia is solely reliant upon graphics technology.

Nvidia has a spate of new Turing cards on the market, with more,
like the GeForce RTX 2060, coming to market soon. The latest
industry speculation predicts the RTX 2060 will launch on January
7th, which means that Nvidia has likely worked through most of its
excess GTX 1060 inventory. In either case, the pending lawsuits
suggest Nvidia's oversupply will continue to have repercussions
over the months to come. [GN]


OATMEALS LLC: Faces Bunting Suit under ADA in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oatmeals LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Rasheta
Bunting, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Oatmeals LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00421 (E.D. N.Y., January 22, 2019).

OatMeals is a single-item specialty cafe focusing only on oatmeal,
offering nearly 30 signature sweet and savory oatmeal bowls and
various oat-based pastries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11217
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


OCLARO INC: Monteverde & Assocs to Lead in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California appointed Karri as the Lead Plaintiff and
his counsel Monteverde & Associates PC as the Lead Counsel in the
case, SAISRAVAN BHARADWAJ KARRI, Plaintiff, v. OCLARO INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-03435-JD (N.D. Cal.).

In the putative securities class action, Karri has filed his
unopposed motion to be appointed the Lead Plaintiff pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA").  He also asks
the Court to appoint the law firm of Monteverde & Associates PC to
represent the class as the Lead Counsel.

Karri is the sole Plaintiff in the action.  While other cases were
filed against some of the same Defendants, they have since been
voluntarily dismissed.  Karri is the only putative class member
seeking to serve as the Lead Plaintiff.

Judge Donato finds that Karri has met the certification
requirements of Section 78u-4(a)(2)(A), including ownership of
4,700 shares of Oclaro, Inc. common stock prior to the consummation
of its merger with Lumentum Holdings, Inc.  The Plaintiff has
established the largest financial interest in the relief sought by
the class.  He has also provided notice to putative class members
in a widely circulated national business-oriented publication in
accordance with the PSLRA's requirements and the Court's prior
order.  Consequently, the Judge appointed him as the Lead Plaintiff
and Monteverde & Associates PC as the Lead Counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 15, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/R65Gwu from Leagle.com.

SaiSravan Bharadwaj Karri, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Eldridge Bower
-- dbower@monteverdelaw.com -- Monteverde & Associates PC.


PACIFIC GAS: E.D. Cal. Enters Final Judgment in Greer Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California entered final judgment in the
case, BECKY GREER, TIMOTHY C. BUDNIK, ROSARIO SAENZ, IAN CARTY,
HALEY MARKWITH, and MARCIA GARCIA PESINA, individually and as class
representatives, Plaintiffs, v. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,
IBEW LOCAL 1245, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 1:15-cv-01066-EPG (E.D. Cal.).

The Court previously granted final approval of class action
settlement, attorneys fees, costs, enhancement award, and claims
administration expenses.  The parties have now filed a declaration
from a representative of the claims administrator confirming that
all settlement funds have been disbursed.  Accordingly, the
Magistrate Judge entered the final judgment and ordered that the
parties act in accordance with the terms in the settlement
agreement.  She directed the Clerk of the Court to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 16, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/v9qt5u from Leagle.com.

Becky Greer, Individually and as Class Representatives, Timothy C.
Budnik, Individually and as Class Respresentatives, Rosario Saenz,
Individually and as Class Representatives, Ian Carty, Individually
and as Class Relpresentatives, Haley Markwith & Maria Garcia
Pesina, Plaintiffs, represented by Charles Swanston, Fitzpatrick,
Spini & Swanston, Erin Tsitidis Huntington --
ehuntington@wjhattorneys.com -- Wanger Jones Helsley PC, Michael S.
Helsley -- mhelsley@wjhattorneys.com -- Wanger Jones Helsley PC &
Patrick D. Toole -- ptoole@wjhattorneys.com -- Wanger Jones Helsley
PC.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Robert
G. Hulteng -- rhulteng@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Aurelio J.
Perez -- aperez@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Joshua D.
Kienitz -- jkienitz@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.

IBEW Local 1245, Defendant, represented by Eileen B. Goldsmith --
egoldsmith@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, Philip C.
Monrad -- pmonrad@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder, LLP & Peder
J. Thoreen -- pthoreen@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon
LLP.

Tanvir Ahjaz, Claimant, pro se.

IBEW Local 1245 Union, Movant, represented by Alexander Jordan
Pacheco & Philip C. Monrad, Leonard Carder, LLP.


PARADE MANAGEMENT: Rodriguez Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yaritza Rodriguez, and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff,
v. Parade Management Limited Liability Company and all other
affiliated entities and/or joint employers and Bharat Desai,
individually, Mahesh Patel, individually and Bhavesh Patel,
individually, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00223 (D. N.J., January 8,
2019), seeks compensation for all hours due and overtime hours for
which they have not been properly compensated, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit and for all other
appropriate relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

Parade Management operates Burger King franchises where Brown was
employed as a restaurant worker with the title of assistant manager
at their Roselle Park, Carteret, Rahway and Elizabeth restaurants.
He worked approximately 45 hours per week but was rarely paid one
and one half times his regular rate of pay for his hours worked
over forty in a workweek, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      301 N Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      Email: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com
             AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com


PARTSFLEET LLC: Faces Hamrick FLSA Suit in M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Partsfleet, LLC. The
case is styled as Curtis Hamrick, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Partsfleet, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-00137-CEM-DCI (M.D.
Fla., January 22, 2019).

The lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Partsfleet, LLC is an automotive, truck, trailer and heavy
equipment parts distributor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
   Morgan & Morgan, PA
   20 N Orange Ave 14th Flr
   Orlando, FL 32802-4979
   Tel: (407) 420-1414
   Fax: (407) 245-3401
   Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com


PITTSBURGH MEDICAL: Cost Award Order in Camesi FLSA Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAREN CAMESI; ERIN O'CONNELL; LORI SHAFFER; DINAH
BAKER, on behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly
situated, Appellants, v. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER;
UPMC HEALTH SYSTEM; UPMC BEDFORD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; UPMC BRADDOCK;
UPMC MCKEESPORT; UPMC NORTHWEST; UPMC PRESBYTERIAN; UPMC ST.
MARGARET; MAGEE WOMANS HOSPITAL OF UPMC; MERCY HOSPITAL OF
PITTSBURGH; MONTEFIORE HOSPITAL; MONTEFIORE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL;
WESTERN PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE AND CLINIC; CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF
PITTSBURGH OF THE UPMC HEALTH SYSTEM; UPMC LEE; UPMC HORIZON; UPMC
HOLDING COMPANY, INC.; UPMC HEALTH NETWORK, INC.; JEFFREY A.
ROMOFF; GREGORY PEASLEE; UPMC 401A RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN; UPMC
403B RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN; UPMC BASIC RETIREMENT PLAN, Case Nos.
17-3476, 18-1112 (3d Cir.), Judge Midge Rendell of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's
reinstatement of its denial of the Appellants' motion to vacate or
reduce the award of costs in the amount of over $300,000 to the
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and multiple related
entities.

The Appellants filed a complaint on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated employees, alleging that the Appellees' policy
of automatically deducting a 30-minute meal break from certain
employees' pay violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
After the District Court granted conditional certification of the
collective action, the parties proceeded with discovery on final
certification, which was both voluminous and contentious,
particularly with regard to Appellees' electronically stored
information.  

The Appellants insisted on broad ESI productions, and after
attempts to negotiate the terms of future productions, the
Appellees moved for a protective order.  In response, the
Appellants moved to compel the search and production of the
requested ESI.  The District Court denied the Appellees' motion and
granted the Appellants', ordering production essentially identical
to that requested by the Appellants and requiring its completion
within four months of the order.  

After some time and attempts to comply with the District Court's
order, the Appellees filed another motion for a protective order,
alleging that the resulting production would include approximately
65 million pages of documents and arguing that it would be
impossible to complete within the timeframe set by the Court and
without enormous cost.  The parties then stipulated to a consent
order to stay any further discovery pending certification motions.
The District Court approved the order.

Upon the parties' respective motions to certify and decertify the
class action, the District Court granted the Appellees' motion and
denied the Appellants' motion, thereby dismissing the claims of the
unnamed Plaintiffs without prejudice.  The Appellants voluntarily
dismissed their claims with prejudice in order to appeal the
decertification of the class.  The Court, in turn, dismissed the
Appellants' appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that their
voluntary dismissal was an impermissible attempt to create finality
for purposes of an appeal.

The Appellees filed a bill of costs in the District Court,
requesting a total of $319,655.80.  Of that amount, the Appellees
sought $310,000 for copying costs incurred after the District Court
ordered them to comply with the Appellants' discovery requests but
before discovery was stayed.  The District Court Clerk taxed costs
in the amount of $317,572.40, which included the whole amount
requested for copying costs.

The Appellants moved for review of the award and asked the District
Court to reduce or vacate it.  They also asked the Court to
exercise its discretion to deny the Appellees' request for costs
because they claimed that the high amount awarded was due to the
Appellees' bad behavior during discovery, that the Appellants are
unable to pay the full amount awarded, and that assessing costs
attributable to the claims of both the four named Plaintiffs and
the more than 2,800 unnamed Plaintiffs against only the former
group would be inequitable.

Instead, however, the District Court confirmed the Clerk's award.
The Appellants appealed the District Court's order to the Court,
arguing, among other things, that the copying costs sought by the
Appellees were not recoverable under Section 1920 pursuant to its
holding in Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp.,
674 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2012).  In a non-precedential opinion, the
Court vacated and remanded to the District Court, suggesting that
it consider holding an evidentiary hearing or taking additional
evidence to determine if these costs are taxable pursuant to its
narrow construction of Section 1920(4).

On remand, the District Court held an evidentiary hearing, at which
the Appellees presented the testimony of two witnesses.  First, the
Appellees' lead counsel testified to the events surrounding the
discovery dispute and his knowledge of the activities performed by
Knoll Ontrack.  Second, Yakov Zylbershlag, Vice President of the
"client experience" team at Knoll Ontrack and a former client of
the ESI vendor, testified primarily to the meaning of "Process to
Ontrack Inview."  The Appellants cross-examined each of these
witnesses but did not present any of their own witnesses or
evidence.  Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the
District Court reinstated its order denying the Appellants' motion
to vacate or reduce the award.

The Appellants filed the timely appeal.  They advance three
challenges to the award of costs.  First, they urge that the award
does not comply with Section 1920 because the activities that it
credited were not for "making copies" and those copies were not
"necessarily obtained for use in the case."  Second, they argue
that the award does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(d)(1) because it is contrary to the FLSA and because Appellees
cannot be considered prevailing parties.  Finally, they argue that
the District Court abused its discretion in awarding costs under
the circumstances of the case.

First, Judge Rendell agrees with the District Court that the taxed
activities were for making copies that were "necessarily obtained
for use in the case."  Accordingly, the charges for the invoice
items labeled "Process to Ontrack Inview" are recoverable under
Section 1920.

Next, she concludes that theAppellees are the "prevailing parties"
encompassed by Rule 54(d)(1), and the award of costs complies with
it.  She finds that the possibility that a losing party will be
compelled to compensate the other side for its costs would not
"entirely eviscerate the purpose of the FLSA.  Instead, it should
cause parties to litigation to pause and calculate the risks of
pursuing meritless or marginal claims.  Also, a defendant can still
be the "prevailing party" where a plaintiff's claims are dismissed
without prejudice.  Moreover, although very few other courts have
addressed this particular issue, the vast majority of those courts
have concluded that a defendant can be a prevailing party against
unnamed plaintiffs who have voluntarily dismissed their claims.

Finally, the Judge finds that the District Court did not abuse its
discretion in taxing costs against the Appellants that were also
attributable to the unnamed Plaintiffs.  The Appellants voluntarily
chose to bring their claims as a class action, and their counsel
presumably informed them of the risks of doing so.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rendell affirmed the District
Court's reinstatement of its denial of the Appellant's motion to
vacate or reduce the amount of costs awarded to the Appellees.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 15, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/vKHbrO from Leagle.com.


PLANET FITNESS: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jody Steward, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Planet Fitness Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 9:19-cv-80091-KAM (S.D. Fla.,
January 23, 2019) is an action against Defendant to secure redress
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

The Defendant utilized a combination of hardware and software
systems to send the text messages at issue in this case. The
systems utilized by Defendant have the capacity to store telephone
numbers using a random or sequential generator, and to dial such
numbers from a list without human intervention. The Defendant's
unsolicited text messages caused Plaintiff actual harm, including
invasion of his privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on
seclusion, trespass, and conversion. The Defendant's text messages
also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption to his daily
life, says the complaint.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal
conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of
individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of
herself and members of the class, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies.

Plaintiff is a natural person who, at all times relevant to this
action, was a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida.

Defendant is a Delaware corporation whose principal office is
located at 4 Liberty Ln, W, Hampton, NH 03842. Defendant directs,
markets, and provides its business activities throughout the State
of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


POLARITYTE INC: Pomerantz to Lead in Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE POLARITYTE, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, THIS
DOCUMENT RELATES TO: All Actions, Case No. 2:18-cv-510-JNP,
Consolidated with No. 2:18-cv-514-DB (D. Utah), Judge Jill N.
Parrish of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah,
Central Division, (i) granted the Motions of Yedid Lawi for
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Counsel, and (ii)
denied the Motions for Appointment of Movant Michael A. Motto as
Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Counsel.

Plaintiff Jose Moreno filed the private federal securities class
action complaint on June 26, 2018, alleging violations by the
Defendant of section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, as well as
violations of section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by Denver Lough,
M.D., Ph.D. and Jeff Dyer ("Individual Defendants").  PolarityTE is
a biotechnology and regenerative biomaterials company incorporated
in Delaware with its principal place of business in Salt Lake City,
Utah.  It is listed on the NASDAQ under ticker symbol "COOL."

The parties allege that PolarityTE's misconduct occurred over the
period from March 31, 2017 to June 22, 2018 in the following
manner.  First, on April 7, 2017, PolarityTE purchased a patent
from Dr. Denver Lough, which had been rejected by the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office ("USPTO") one week prior.  Then, on May 29,
2018, PolarityTE filed an S-8 registration but failed to disclose
the rejection of the Lough Patent.

On June 4, 2018, the USPTO issued a final rejection of the Lough
Patent, which PolarityTE also failed to disclose.  On June 25,
2018, Citron Research published a report on the Lough Patent and
PolarityTE's failures to disclose.  PolarityTE's stock price fell
sharply from closing at $38.97 on June 22, 2018 to opening at
$25.60 on June 26, 2018.  The stock closed at $28.14 on une 26,
2018.

On June 26, 2018, Moreno filed the suit in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Utah on behalf of a purported class of all
persons or entities that purchased shares of PolarityTE during the
Class Period.  In compliance with 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4
(a)(3)(A), on June 27, 2018, Moreno's counsel, Block & Leviton LLP,
published an announcement that it had filed a securities fraud
class action against PolarityTE, giving other shareholders until
Aug. 27, 2018 to file motions to be appointed lead plaintiff.

On July 6, 2018, Lawi filed a nearly identical class action
complaint, also in the Court, alleging the same facts and alleged
violations during the same Class Period.  On Aug. 27, 2018, Michael
A. Motto moved for appointment as the lead Plaintiff in the action.


Also on Aug. 27, 2018, Lawi moved for consolidation of the two
competing class actions and for appointment as the lead Plaintiff
in the action.  Lawi has selected two law firms to serve as co-lead
counsel: Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, LLC; both of whom
appear qualified and ready to vigorously conduct the proposed
litigation. Lawi has also proposed a "Liaison Counsel," Harper Law,
PLC.  On Sept. 7, 2018, Motto filed a notice of Non-Opposition to
Lawi's motion.

On Nov. 28, 2018, the Court granted the motion to consolidate the
related cases and gave all parties 14 days to oppose Lawi's motion
(until Dec. 12, 2018).  No parties opposed Lawi's motion.

Lawi asserts that his total estimated loss is $21,470.  Because
Lawi's motion is unopposed, Judge Parrish will accept $21,470 as
Lawi's calculation of his approximate loss.  Moreno's on the other
hand is only $3,233, which is still significantly less than Lawi's
alleged loss.  Also, Lawi asserts that he has no conflict with any
potential class members and that he has suffered such significant
losses as to make him sufficiently interested in the outcome.  He
has  Lawi has selected three qualified law firms.  The resumes of
all three firms attest to a long, experienced history with class
action securities fraud claims.  For these reasons, the Judge finds
that Lawi meets the requirements of both typicality and adequacy.
He therefore will grant Lawi's motion to be appointed the lead
Plaintiff.

Although all proposed counsel appear qualified, Lawi has entirely
failed to justify the appointment of three separate law firms as
counsel in the matter.  The Judge is concerned that the appointment
of three law firms will only lead to exorbitant legal fees and
duplicative filings. This concern is shared by other courts and by
the PSLRA itself.  For these reasons, he reserves ruling on Lawi's
motion to appoint the lead Counsel.  

Accordingly, Judge Parrish granted (i) terminated the Motion for
Appointment of Movant Michael A. Motto as Lead Plaintiff and
Approval of Lead Counsel, and (ii) granted Lawi's Motion to Appoint
Lead Plaintiff.  He deferred ruling on Lawi's Motion to Appoint
Lead Counsel.

In so doing, the Judge appointed Yedid Lawi as the lead Plaintiff
in the case.  Within 10 days of the Order, Lawi must file
supplemental briefing as to why multiple lead counsel are
necessary, or alternatively, Lawi may amend his motion to appoint
lead counsel, proposing a single law firm as the Lead Counsel.
Lawi will file and serve a Consolidated Complaint no later than 60
days after the Court appoints the Lead Counsel.

The Defendants have 60 days after filing and service of the
Consolidated Complaint to answer or otherwise respond to the
Consolidated Complaint.  Within 90 days of service of the
Consolidated Complaint, Lawi must file a motion for class
certification pursuant to DUCivR 23-1(d).

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 16, 2019 Memorandum Decision
and Order is available at https://is.gd/6GOCsr from Leagle.com.

Jose Moreno, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Scofield --
dws@psplawyers.com -- PETERS SCOFIELD.

Yedid Lawi, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jon V. Harper --
jharper@jonharperlaw.com -- HARPER LAW PLC & Brenda Szydlo --
bszydlo@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP, pro hac vice.

Polarityte, Denver Lough & Jeff Dyer, Defendants, represented by
Kenneth B. Black, STOEL RIVES, Matthew Rawlinson --
matt.rawlinson@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS, Michael Richard Menssen
-- michael.menssen@stoel.com -- STOEL RIVES, Michele D. Johnson --
michele.johnson@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, pro hac vice,
Nicholas J. Siciliano -- nicholas.siciliano@lw.com -- LATHAM &
WATKINS LLP & Whitney B. Weber -- whitney.weber@lw.com -- LATHAM &
WATKINS LLP, pro hac vice.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Brown Alleges FDCPA Breach in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates LLC. The case is styled as Billie Chaim Brown, agent of
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00785 (D. N.J., January 21, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   YAAKOV SAKS, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext 101
   Fax: (201) 282-6501
   Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com



PRESTIGE PLUMBING: Guinn Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Elome Guinn, Thomas Hamilton, John DeGroat, and Torrein Mitchell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Prestige Plumbing & Heating Inc. and Robert Bruno,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00413 (E.D. N.Y., January 22, 2019) is
an action seeking equitable and legal relief for Defendants'
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the
New York Labor Laws ("NYLL").

The FLSA Collective Plaintiffs consist of no less than 20 similarly
situated current and former employees of the Defendants who, during
their employment with the Defendants, work or worked in excess of
40 hours per week and who were damaged due to the Defendants'
common policy and practices in violation of the FLSA including,
willfully denying them overtime wages and pay, notes the
complaint.

Plaintiffs Guinn, Hamilton, and Mitchell are individuals residing
in the State of New York. Plaintiff DeGroat is an individual
residing in the State of New Jersey. At all relevant times,
Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants.

Prestige is a domestic business corporation with its principal
place of business located at 234 Grandview Avenue, Staten Island,
New York 10303.

Bruno is an individual residing in the State of New York. At all
relevant times, Bruno was an owner of Prestige.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Nicole Grunfeld, Esq.
     Katz Melinger PLLC
     280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 460-0047
     EmaiL: ndgrunfeld@katzmelinger.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Court Tosses Opioid Crisis Claims in Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Stuart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that rejecting civil claims against 25 drug companies including
OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma, a judge ruled Wednesday that the
lawsuit by dozens of Connecticut towns and cities evinced nothing
more than a money grab.

"The cities want the money for the indirect harm they say the drug
companies caused them," wrote Judge Thomas Moukawsher with the
Hartford Superior Court. "They say they have been forced to pay for
addicts' social and medical needs and have suffered other direct
expenses the addicts themselves caused, including extra
emergency-responder expenses, consequences from drug related
crimes, etc.

"But because they are suing in an ordinary civil lawsuit their
lawsuits can't survive without proof that the people they are suing
directly caused them financial losses they seek to recoup," Judge
Moukawsher said.

Judge Moukawsher emphasized that the suit here does not allege
misleading advertising or an oversupply of drugs. Rather the cities
want the drugmakers to pay each city for the damage they allegedly
caused.

This, however, would require proof both of damage amounts amounts
and the degree of cause.

Thousands of state and local governments have brought similar
claims against drug companies in recent years, but Judge Moukawsher
is believed to be the first to rule on their merits.

New Haven, New Britain, Waterbury and Bridgeport were among the
plaintiffs.

Lawyers for them at the firm Scott + Scott have not returned a
request seeking comment.

Stamford-basedv Purdue Pharma meanwhile applauded Moukawsher's
ruling.

"We commend the judge for applying the law and concluding that
opioid manufacturers cannot be legally responsible to cities for
the indirect harms they claim they experienced as a result of the
opioid crisis," the company said in a statement. "We share these
communities' concerns about the opioid crisis, and we remain
committed to working collaboratively, bringing meaningful solutions
forward to help address this public health challenge."

The lawsuits filed by state and local governments came after Purdue
Pharma along with three of its executives, pleaded guilty in 2007
to federal charges for intentionally misrepresenting the
addictiveness of OxyContin.

Though the plea included an obligation to pay more than $600
million, OxyContin helped Purdue rake in far more than that in
profits over the years. In just the first four years of introducing
the painkiller, according to a 10-year-old paper in the American
Journal of Public Health, Purdue saw its sales grow from $48
million in 1996 to $1.1 billion in 2000.

Purdue also reached a $19.5 million settlement in 2007 with 26
states and the District of Columbia to resolve claims that it
encouraged doctors to overprescribe OxyContin. The company did not
admit wrongdoing in that settlement.

Cities and towns were hoping that the courts would treat these
lawsuits like they did with the master tobacco settlement from the
1990s.

Cigarette makers have paid out more than $100 billion over the past
20 years to compensate Americans for high rates of illness and
public health costs tied to smoking. Some of the money was supposed
to go to programs to help smokers quit.


QUALITY DATA: Faces Agazanof Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quality Data
Management, Inc. The case is captioned as AZAF AGAZANOF,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. QUALITY DATA MANAGEMENT, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00216-DSF-JEM (C.D. Cal.,
Jan. 10, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge Dale S. Fischer and
referred to Judge John E. Mcdermott.

On January 11, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California issued a summons requiring the Defendants to
answer the complaint.

Quality Data Management, Inc. considers itself a leader in
delivering quality and process improvement systems to the
healthcare industry. Through cost-efficient data collection,
integration, computation, and presentation technology, the company
provides a balanced set of measures to improve healthcare outcomes.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghann E. George, Esq.
          Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FFIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (866) 598-5042
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com %
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com


REALREAL INC: Faces Rodriguez Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Realreal Inc. The
case is styled as Leandra Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. The Realreal Inc. an unknown business entity, Defendant, Case
No. CGC19573021 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 22, 2019).

The RealReal, Inc. operates an online luxury store. It offers women
clothing, including coats, dresses, jackets, jeans, knitwear,
pants, shorts, skirts, and tops; and handbags, such as clutches,
crossbody bags, handle bags, hobos, and shoulder bags; and shoes.
The company also provides men’s products, including shoes, bags,
accessories, button-up shirts, pants, sweaters, outerwear, suiting,
ties, and fine watches; and watches and jewelry for men and women.
The RealReal, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is based in San
Francisco, California with a shop in Las Vegas, Nevada; and a
concept store in West Hollywood, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



RENT THE RUNWAY: Fischler Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN FISCHLER, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. RENT THE RUNWAY, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-00452
(S.D.N.Y., January 16, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for
its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web
site, http://www.renttherunway.com/,to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

Rent the Runway is a foreign business corporation that is organized
under Delaware law, and authorized to do business in the state of
New York.  The Defendant's corporate headquarters is located at 345
Hudson Street, in New York City.

Rent the Runway is a clothing rental establishment that allows the
public to rent designer clothing online.  The Company also operates
brick and mortar locations throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Telephone: (212) 392-4772
          E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com


RUBY IV: Court Conditionally Certifies Classes in Kidwell FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAMMY KIDWELL, et al., v. RUBY IV, LLC, et al, Civil
Action No. 18-2052 (E.D. La.), Judge Barry W. Ashe of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (1) granted
Kidwell's Motion for Conditional Class Certification; and (2)
denied Motion to Strike the Ahmad Elaal and Khalid Sharaf
Affidavits.

The case arises out of Kidwell's employment with the Defendants as
a restaurant manager, hostess, cook, and waitress at the
Defendants' International House of Pancakes ("IHOP") restaurants.
Kidwell brings the action, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly-situated individuals, against the Defendants asserting
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  

Kidwell alleges that the Defendants operate a network of IHOP
restaurants as an "enterprise engaged in commerce" within the
meaning of the FLSA, by utilizing common management, personnel,
ownership, financial controls, labor relations, personnel policies,
personnel records, payroll, and insurance programs.  She Kidwell
alleges that the Defendants failed to properly pay her wages and
those of similarly situated employees.

Kidwell seeks to represent two classes of workers pursuing FLSA
claims against the Defendants: (1) individuals to whom the
Defendants did not pay overtime compensation for hours worked over
40 in a workweek, including hostesses, managers, and other hourly
workers ("Overtime FLSA Collective"); and (2) other servers who
were not paid $7.25/hour for hours under 40 and the minimum
overtime rate of $10.88 for hours worked over 40 ("Server FLSA
Collective").

Kidwell claims that the workers in the Overtime FLSA Collective,
and those in the Server FLSA Collective, are similarly situated to
other workers in the respective classes because they have
substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are
subject to the Defendants' common practice and policy of unlawfully
failing to pay compensation as required by the FLSA.  He prays for
a declaratory judgment finding that the Defendants willfully
violated the FLSA, an award of unpaid compensation for all class
members, attorney's fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
costs.

On Sept. 19, 2018, Kidwell filed the instant motion for conditional
certification of the proposed FLSA classes.  She seeks conditional
class certification of two opt-in classes consisting of: (1) all
hourly workers working for the Defendants between June 13, 2015,
and the present ("Overtime FLSA Collective"); and (2) all servers
(waiters and waitresses) working for the Defendants between June
13, 2015, and the present ("Server FLSA Collective").  Kidwell
argues that conditional class certification is appropriate because
there are numerous hourly workers and servers employed by
Defendants who were treated like she was and were not paid overtime
or proper server wages.

She also seeks an order that: (1) approves her proposed written
notice to putative collective action members and her proposed
opt-in consent form; (2) permits her attorneys to send written
notice and opt-in forms to putative collective action members via
first-class mail, email, and text message for a 90-day opt-in
period; (3) requires the Defendants to produce to her attorneys, in
Excel format, the names, last-known addresses, email addresses,
telephone numbers, dates of employment, and work locations (by the
name of the particular Ruby/Ruba, LLC) of all putative collective
action members; (4) requires the Defendants to post the written
notice and consent forms in conspicuous locations at their
headquarters and all of their IHOP restaurant locations; and (5)
prohibits the Defendants and their management from retaliating
against any individual who exercises his or her right under the
FLSA or opts into the lawsuit.

The Defendants argue that Kidwell has not demonstrated that she was
similarly situated to the putative collective action members
because she was an exempt manager not covered by the FLSA for a
large portion of the relevant time period.  They also argue that
Kidwell has not identified any common policy or practice by which
she and the putative opt-in Plaintiffs were all aggrieved.
Further, the Defendants argue that a 60-day opt-in period is more
appropriate than 90 days.  The Defendants object to producing the
putative class members telephone numbers and to Kidwell's attorneys
calling putative collective action members or sending notice to
putative collective action members via text message.  The
Defendants filed the affidavits of Elaal and Sharaf in support of
their opposition to Kidwell's motion for conditional class
certification.  

Kidwell filed a motion to strike these affidavits arguing that they
are not made on personal knowledge or are otherwise permissible
under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  The Defendants oppose the motion to strike arguing that
the statements made in the affidavits are made on personal
knowledge or are based on information obtained by the affiants in
their positions of authority within their organization.

As to Kidwell's Motion to Strike the Elaal and Sharaf Affidavit,
Judge Ashe finds that Kidwell has not established that the
information in the affidavits relating to periods when the affiants
were not employed by the Defendants was not obtained by them as a
part of their job duties.  Accordingly, all of the issues raised by
Kidwell go to the weight, rather than the admissibility, of the
affidavits.  Therefore, Kidwell's motion to strike will be denied.

With respect to Kidwell's Motion for Conditional Class
Certification, the Judge finds that (i) although the DOL's findings
are for a preceding time period, those findings, along with the
payroll data, suggest that there likely exist numerous aggrieved
co-workers; (ii) he will not adjudicate the merits of the
Defendants' exemption defense as to Kidwell, and finds that there
is enough evidence that Kidwell is similarly situated to the
putative collective action members to allow conditional
certification; and (iii) Kidwell has adequately shown that other
workers want to join the litigation and that conditional
certification of a collective action is appropriate at this time.

The Judge also finds that given the high turnover characteristic of
the restaurant industry, notice via text message is likely to be a
viable and efficient means of communicating with many prospective
members of the collective action.  However, any text-message
notification must attach the Court-approved class notification and
opt-in forms along with the following text: "If you worked as a
server or in any other hourly position for any of the IHOP
Restaurants owned and operated by Nadia Esmail and Mohammad Esmail
since Jan. 13, 2015, you may be entitled to join a lawsuit claiming
back pay and penalties for unpaid wages or overtime.  Please refer
to the attached collective action notification form."

Finally, the Judge finds that proposed written notice dequately
apprises the potential Plaintiffs of their rights.  However, he
finds that several changes are necessary to clarify the notice:

     (a) The first paragraph under "NOTICE OF COLLECTIVE ACTION
LAWSUIT" will be replaced with the following: "TO: All servers
(waiters/waitresses) and hourly workers, including hostesses,
managers, and other hourly positions, working at an International
House of Pancakes (IHOP) restaurant owned by one or more of the
Defendants (listed in the caption above) between June 13, 2015, and
the present."

     (b) The paragraphs in the section "Why Are You Getting This
Notice?" will be replaced with the following: "You received this
Notice because the Court presiding over this lawsuit has approved
this Notice to be sent to all persons who worked as servers or
hourly workers, including hostesses, managers, and other hourly
positions, for any of the IHOP restaurants owned and operated by
the Defendants (listed in the caption above).  The Court has
conditionally certified a collective action that may affect you.
This Notice is intended to advise you of how your rights under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) may be affected by this lawsuit and
describe how to participate in the suit if you want to do so."

     (c) The paragraphs in the section "What Is This Lawsuit
About?" will be replaced with the following: "Plaintiffs allege
that Defendants (listed in the caption above) failed to pay the
minimum and/or overtime wages owed to servers and hourly workers as
required by the FLSA.  Plaintiffs seek liquidated damages equal to
their allegedly unpaid minimum and/or overtime wages.  Defendants
deny Plaintiffs' allegations.  Defendants contend that they
properly paid Plaintiffs, and the other potential class members,
and do not owe them any amount for unpaid minimum and/or overtime
wages.  At this stage, the Court has not ruled on the merits of the
case, but has authorized this Notice to inform you of your right to
join in this lawsuit if you are eligible as described below."

     (d) The paragraphs in the section "What Are Your Options?"
will be replaced with the following: "If you are eligible to join
in this lawsuit (as described above), you may do so by signing the
attached consent form and returning it to Plaintiffs' counsel in
the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope, faxing it to
504-308-1446, or emailing it to chris@williamslitigation.com or
charles@stieglerlawfirm.com, on or before [90 days from the date
that the Notice is mailed].  However, you are not required to join
this lawsuit."

     (e) The first paragraph in the section "Effect of Joining or
Not Joining the Lawsuit" will be replaced with the following:

If you send the consent form to Plaintiffs' counsel on or before
[90 days from the date that the Notice is mailed], you will be a
part of this case. Therefore, if the Plaintiffs who filed this case
win or settle the case, you may receive additional money from the
Defendants (listed in the caption above). If the Plaintiffs who
filed this case lose the case, you will not receive anything and
will be bound by the Court's decision, but you will not have to pay
anything either.

     (f) The paragraphs in the section "Defendants Cannot and Will
Not Fire You for Joining this Lawsuit" will be replaced with the
following: "Federal law prohibits Defendants (listed in the caption
above) from firing, retaliating, or discriminating against you
because you join this lawsuit.  If you join this lawsuit and are
fired or suspect any retaliation or discrimination, you may choose
to hire your own attorney, or you may be represented by Plaintiffs'
attorneys (contact information listed below) to address those
issues."

     (g) The last paragraph in the section "Your Legal
Representation if You Join" will be amended to name the Defendants'
attorneys currently enrolled in the case.

For all these reasons, Judge Ashe (i) denied Kidwell's motion to
strike the Elaal and Sharaf Affidavits, and (ii) granted Kidwell's
motion to conditionally certify the class.

He conditionally certified these classes:

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

     (2) Server FLSA Collective: 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 40 in a
workweek and/or the minimum overtime rate of $10.88 for hours
worked over 40 in a workweek.

Within 14 days of the date of the Order & Reasons, the Defendants
will provide to the Plaintiffs' counsel, in Excel format, the
names, last-known addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers,
dates of employment, and work locations (by the name of the
particular Ruby/Ruba, LLC) of all the putative collective action
members.

Kidwell's proposed written notice to putative collective action
members and proposed opt-in consent forms are approved with the
changes indicated.  The Counsel for the Plaintiffs will submit to
the Court within five days of the date of the Order & Reasons for
final approval a revised proposed written notice that incorporates
the changes.  The Counsel for plaintiffs will 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, email, and text message.

The 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, email, fax, or
electronic signature service.

The Defendants will 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 the lawsuit.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 16, 2019 Order & Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/7POFWP from Leagle.com.

Tammy Kidwell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated & Tashelle K. Sims, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher
L. Williams -- chris@williamslitigation.com -- Williams Litigation,
LLC & Charles J. Stiegler -- Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com --
Stiegler Law Firm LLC.

Ruby IV, L.L.C., Ruby Enterprises, LLC, Ruba Development Manager,
LLC, Ruby Management, Inc., Ruba, LLC, Ruba II, LLC, Ruba III, LLC,
Ruby V, LLC, Ruby VII, LLC, Ruby I.X., LLC, Ruby X, LLC, Ruby XI,
LLC, Ruby XII, LLC, Ruby XIV, LLC, Nadia Esmail & Mohammad Esmail,
Defendants, represented by Walter W. Christy --
wchristy@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips, LLP & William B.
London -- blondon@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips, LLP.


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Class Cert. Denied in Docking Fees Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge side-lined a class action challenging excessive
docking fees levied against commercial boat owners in San Francisco
on Jan. 8.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar denied a motion for class
certification brought by lead plaintiff Lil' Man in the Boat, a
private yacht company that has been running chartered excursions in
the San Francisco Bay aboard the yacht "Just Dreaming" since 2006,
using the north side dock of Pier 40's South Beach Harbor as its
pick-up and drop-off point.

In 2016, the city raised its landing fee for commercial vessels
from $160 a day to $220, and also imposed a new requirement that
commercial vessel operators hand over 7 percent of their gross
monthly revenues when the revenue fee exceeds the base landing fee
under a new landing agreement, which also forced operators to sign
a waiver saying they wouldn't sue the city.

Lil' Man in the Boat filed a federal class action against the city
in 2016 after it refused to sign the agreement and was locked out
of South Beach Harbor. Judge Tigar nixed some of the company's
claims in 2017, but the case was allowed to proceed under the
theory that the fees violated the Tonnage Clause, which restricts
states from imposing taxes on cargo, and the Rivers and Harbors
Act, which prohibits fees greater than the cost of the upkeep of
the harbor.

Lil' Man in the Boat next sought to certify two classes of
commercial vessel operators consisting of those who were asked to
sign the agreement and those who paid the fees it required. But
Judge Tigar found that there are not enough class members in either
of the proposed classes, and that if the vessel operators want to
pursue their challenge, they can each do so separately.

He also rejected the company's claim that the operators cannot sue
individually out of fear that that the city will retaliate against
them. Lil' Man in the Boat had said that the class members were too
fearful to even submit declarations supporting the lawsuit, so
could not possibly be expected to sue under their own names.

"The only evidentiary support for this is the hearsay declaration
of Lawrence Murray, the president of Plaintiff Lil' Man in the
Boat. These hearsay statements are insufficient to establish a
likelihood of retaliation," Judge Tigar wrote.

David Ongaro, an attorney representing Lil' Man in the Boat, could
not be reached for comment on Jan. 8.

A copy of the Order Denying Motion for Class Certification is
available at:

          https://is.gd/rE3kmK

The case is Lil' Man in the Boat, Inc. c v. City and County of San
Francisco, et al., Case No. 17-cv-00904 (N.D. Cal.).


SCARPA RESTAURANT: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Smith, an individual, Plaintiff, v. Scarpa Restaurant
Concepts Inc. a domestic for profit business corporation, and Main
Street Tavern LLC a domestic limited liability corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00037-TCK-FHM (N.D. Okla., January 23,
2019) is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), for
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees as a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated minimum wages and overtime compensation
for hours that Plaintiff and the others worked in excess of 40 per
workweek.

Plaintiff and those similarly situated were not paid the federal
minimum wage for their regular rate of pay for all hours that they
worked up to 40 per week in violation of the FLSA, says the
complaint. They were also not paid one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours that they worked in excess of 40
per week.

Plaintiff Katherine Smith is a resident and citizen of Rogers
County. Plaintiff was an hourly employee at the Defendants'
location in Claremore and then a salaried employee at Defendants'
location in Claremore and Tulsa.

Scarpa Restaurant Concepts Inc. is a domestic for-profit
corporation, registered to do business in the State of Oklahoma.

Main Street Tavern LLC is a domestic limited liability company,
registered to do business in the State of Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Charles C. Vaught, Esq.
     ARMSTRONG & VAUGHT, P.L.C.
     2727 East 21st Street, Suite 505
     Tulsa, OK 74114
     Phone: 918-582-2500
     Facsimile: 918-583-1755
     Email: cvaught@a-vlaw.com


SOUTH CAROLINA: Feb. 12 Fairness Hearing on Inmate Hep C Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerrel Floyd, writing for Charleston Post Courier, reports that
more than 15,000 South Carolina inmates will be tested for
hepatitis C if a federal judge officially approves a proposed
class-action lawsuit settlement.

Hepatitis C is a virus that can be passed from one patient to the
next through blood transfusions or tainted needles. In some cases,
if left untreated, the disease can lead to liver cancer and death.


The federal lawsuit, filed in 2017 by plaintiffs Russell Geissler,
Bernard Bagley and Willie James Jackson, calls for the testing and
treatment of their individual cases of hepatitis C, as well as
those of current and future inmates.

According to one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, the S.C. Department of
Corrections has also agreed to examine more than 300 inmates to
estimate the severity of the virus among South Carolina's inmate
population. The results of this examination are due to be reported
by early January.

"That's a big deal," said Christopher Bryant, Esq. --
chris@yarboroughapplegate.com -- an attorney representing the
plaintiffs. He said the Corrections Department currently does not
test for hepatitis C on a system-wide scale.

Preliminary approval of the settlement has already been granted. A
fairness hearing has been scheduled for Feb. 12 in Columbia. A
spokesman for the Corrections Department did not respond to
messages for this article.

The more challenging next step, Bryant said, is to secure funding
to treat inmates in this state who test positive for hepatitis C.

Relatively new drugs introduced to the market in recent years can
cure hepatitis C for most infected patients, but they cost about
$25,000 a person. The Post and Courier reported in November that
the S.C. Medicaid agency has spent almost $100 million on hepatitis
C treatment since 2013.

In his budget request for fiscal year 2019-20, Corrections Director
Bryan Stirling requested more than $20 million for a hepatitis C
treatment program. In his justification for the request, he said
the funding will "provide critical medications and health care
positions that will serve the ‘Hep C' inmate population for a
cure and continued monitoring to reduce the spread within our
institutions and outside population upon their release."

A 2015 study published by the World Journal of Hepatology found the
prevalence of the hepatitis C virus in prison populations can range
between 3 and 38 percent.

Bryant estimated that 95 percent of the prison population routinely
returns to the general public. That's why he said it is imperative
for people to view this as a health problem, and not just a prison
problem.

"They are at risk of infecting others unknowingly," he said.[GN]


SPO NETWORKS: Latiolais Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
Ronnie Latiolais, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. SPO Networks, Inc., Kendra Smith and Delmer
Tom Smith, Case No. 19-cv-05006, (W.D. Ark., January 8, 2019) seeks
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs,
including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay
lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.

SPO Networks owns a metal recycling plant where Latiolais worked as
an office staff when it was still owned by Smith's firm USA Metal.
She claims to have regularly worked in excess of forty hours per
week without overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STEVEN SCOTT: Underpays Caretakers, Jessica Hagen Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA HAGEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STEVEN SCOTT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 27-CV-19-533 (Minn. Dist., Hennepin Cty., Jan. 9, 2019)
seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a caretaker.

Steven Scott Management, Inc. is engaged in the management of
residential communities throughout the State of Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          A. L. Brown, Esq.
          Marcus Almon, Esq.
          CAPITOL CITY LAW GROUP, LLC
          287 East Sixth Street, Suite 20
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 705-8580
          Facsimile: (651) 705-8581


SYNNEX CORP: Continues to Defend Franchi and Zalvin Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Synnex Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated January 28, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended November 30, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself against Franchi v. Ayers, et al. and Zalvin v. Ayers,
et al. suits.

On September 10, 2018, two lawsuits were brought by and/or on
behalf of Convergys shareholders against Convergys and its board of
directors. One of the lawsuits also named as defendants SYNNEX and
two of its affiliates.

The first action, a putative class action and derivative lawsuit
(captioned Franchi v. Ayers, et al., Case No. A 1804876) (the
"Franchi Action"), was filed in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas,
Hamilton County (the "Ohio Court") against Convergys, individual
members of Convergys' board of directors, SYNNEX, Merger Sub I and
Merger Sub II, alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with
the Merger.

On September 25, 2018, the lawyers for plaintiff in the Franchi
Action stated that the additional disclosures made by Convergys are
sufficient to moot plaintiff's claims. On November 6, 2018,
plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss the Franchi Action on that
ground. On December 4, 2018, the court signed an order (entered
December 10, 2018) granting the motion and dismissing the action.
Counsel for plaintiff have indicated that they will ask the court
to award them a mootness fee, on the theory that Franchi's lawsuit
led to the additional disclosures, if they are unable to reach
agreement with defendants on such a fee. Negotiations are ongoing.

The second action, a putative class action lawsuit (captioned
Zalvin v. Ayers, et al., Case No. A 1804888) (the "Zalvin Action"
and, together with the Franchi Action, the "Actions"), was filed in
the Ohio Court against Convergys and individual members of
Convergys' board of directors, alleging breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with the Merger. The Zalvin Action seeks, among other
things, orders (i) declaring that the Merger was agreed to in
breach of the defendants' fiduciary duties or that the defendants
aided and abetted such breaches, (ii) declaring that the defendants
breached their duty of a full and fair disclosure, (iii) enjoining
the defendants from proceeding with or consummating the Merger
until the requested disclosures are made, (iv) awarding plaintiffs
compensatory damages, and (v) awarding plaintiff's costs and
attorneys' and expert fees.

On September 25, 2018, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding
derivative claims to his original class claims. On September 26,
2018, the Ohio Court denied the preliminary injunction motion and a
written order denying the motion was entered on September 28, 2018.
Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on November 16, 2018
adding allegations about the motivations of Convergys' CEO and
Convergys' board of directors and updating the previous allegations
to reflect the closing of the merger.  Defendants responded to that
complaint by filing a motion to dismiss on December 31, 2018.

Synnex  said, We believe that the Actions are without merit, and
plan to vigorously defend against these claims. However, any
adverse ruling in these cases could result in additional payments.
Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the merger
agreement and/or the merger may be filed in the future. Even if the
lawsuits are without merit, defending against these claims can
result in substantial costs and divert management time and
resources. An adverse judgment could result in monetary damages,
which could have a negative impact on our liquidity and financial
condition."

Synnex Corporation provides business process services in North and
South America, the Asia-Pacific, Europe, and internationally. It
operates in two segments, Technology Solutions and Concentrix. The
company  was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Fremont,
California.

TELADOC HEALTH: Feb. 11 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Teladoc Health, Inc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadlines listed to petition the court and further details about
the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

Teladoc Health, Inc. (NYSE: TDOC)
Class Period: March 3, 2016 - December 5, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 11, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/teladoc-health-inc-loss-form?wire=3

The lawsuit alleges that, during the class period, Teladoc Health,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) Executive Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer Mark Hirschhorn was engaged in an inappropriate
sexual relationship with a subordinate; (ii) Hirschhorn and this
subordinate engaged in insider trading to provide themselves with
undue benefits; (iii) Hirschhorn caused the subordinate to receive
promotions for which she was unqualified, thereby negatively
impacting the Company's operations; (iv) the Company's enforcement
of its own purported employment and trading policies were
inadequate to prevent the foregoing conduct; and (v) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

To learn more about the Teladoc Health, Inc. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

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


TRANS WORLD: Conditional Certification of Spack Class Partly Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAROL SPACK, TABITHA SCHMIDT, Plaintiffs, v. TRANS
WORLD ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION; RECORD TOWN, INC., Defendants,
NATASHA ROPER, Plaintiff, v. TRANS WORLD ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION,
RECORD TOWN, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-CV-1335 (TJM/CFH)
(N.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York granted in
part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Conditionally
Certify as a Collective Action.

The Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of the case as a Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action and for the Court to
authorize them to send a notice of the lawsuit to all
exempt-classified Store Managers ("SMs") who worked for the
Defendants at any time during the Collective Action Period.  The
Defendants opposed the motion.

Transworld's corporate headquarters is located in Albany, New York.
It operates over 200 retail stores in 43 states.  The "majority"
of stores are "For Your Entertainment" branded stores in shopping
malls, but there are also "a number of freestanding stores, and
vanity stores that sell unique products such a vinyl records.  The
stores are broken up into two regions and 20 districts, with one
regional manager per region and one district manager per district.
All store locations have one store manager, who reports to the
district manager.  The district manager reports to a regional
manager.  The stores range from 200 square feet to 20,000 square
feet, with one 50,000 square foot store.  The stores range between
$400,000 to $3.5 million per year in sales.

The Plaintiffs' FLSA claims seek a class consisting of persons
employed by Transworld Entertainment Corp. as SMs and SAMs at any
time three years prior to the filing of Spack's action through the
entry of judgment.

The amended complaint also alleges that defendants Trans World
Entertainment Corp. and Record Town, Inc. violated the FLSA by the
improper use of the fluctuating work week method for the collective
class consisting of SAMs.  The Plaintiffs seek court-facilitated
notice -- consisting of a proposed notice form, consent form, and
"reminder postcard" -- of the action to all the potential opt-in
Plaintiffs who were classified as exempt at any time since April 1,
2014.

The Defendants first contend that the Motion for Conditional
Certification should be denied because the Plaintiffs seek
conditional certification in a "piecemeal" fashion, seeking only to
certify the SMs in the present motion, and indicating that they
will seek to certify the SAMs at a future time.  Second, they argue
that the putative collective is fatally overbroad as it contains
both exempt and non-exempt employees, and even if limited to SMs,
the putative collective asserts two separate claims (a
misclassification claim and an off-the-clock claim) that have no
factual nexus.  Third, the Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs
have not demonstrated that they are similarly situated to the
nationwide collective insofar as they have not identified a
nationwide policy or practice that justifies certification.
Finally, they argue that discovery has demonstrated that SMs have
drastically differing accounts of their job duties" and that the
accounts given by the Plaintiffs are rebutted not only by the job
description itself and indisputable documentary evidence relating
to their own employment histories, but also by 24 other SMs who
have submitted sworn declarations.

Among other things, Magistrate Judge Hummel declines at this time
to deny conditional certification of SMs based on the fact that the
Plaintiffs seek "piecemeal" certification of SMs.  He finds that
although some discovery has taken place -- one 30(b)(6) witness has
been deposed and approximately two thousand pages of documents have
been exchanged -- the matter is still within the first stage of the
certification process, where the standard for conditional
certification is less strict.  As such, at this first stage, he
declines to deny the motion certifying the SMs solely on the ground
that it seeks to certify only as to the exempt SMs, even where the
defined collective includes both exempt and nonexempt employees and
the Plaintiffs express a desire to later certify the nonexempt
SAMs.

Next, the Magistrate finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
provide any case support where a court conditionally certified an
off-the-clock claim for employees categorized as exempt prior to
making a determination on the misclassification claim.
Accordingly, he will deny as premature the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification insofar as it relates to off-the-clock
claims for SMs.

As to the misclassification claim, the Magistrate finds that the
named Plaintiffs and the 12 opt-in SMs indicated that they worked
more than 40 hours a week performing almost entirely nonexempt
work, but were not paid for hours worked over 40 hours per week,
that they had minimal managerial responsibilities, and little
independent hiring, firing, and disciplinary authority.  He
concludes that these declarations, at this initial stage, are
sufficient to find some identifiable factual nexus which binds the
named Plaintiff and the potential class members together as victims
of a particular practice, and therefore provide a sufficient basis
for conditional collective certification.  As, it is not
appropriate for the Court at this stage to resolve inconsistencies
between affidavits or to make credibility determinations and the
undersigned concludes that the declarations satisfy the Plaintiffs'
"modest factual showing" that the Plaintiffs, and the potential
opt-in Plaintiffs, together were victims of a common policy or plan
that violated the law, he will grant the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification of their misclassification claim.

The Magistrate will grant the Plaintiffs' request insofar as they
seek the (1) names, (2) last known addresses, (3) telephone
numbers, (4) work e-mail addresses, (5) work locations, and (6)
dates of employment for all individuals employed as SMs for at
least one week, running from April 1, 2014 until the date of the
Memorandum-Decision & Order.  Given the 'inherently private' nature
of the last four digits of the potential Plaintiffs' social
security numbers, he declines to order the Defendants to produce
this information as the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that
such information is necessary to contact the potential Plaintiffs.
Similarly, the Plaintiffs have also not demonstrated the need for
the potential opt-in Plaintiffs' personal e-mail addresses, which
he declines to order the Defendants to provide, at this time.  He
will deny the Plaintiffs' requests for (1) personal e-mail
addresses, and (2) the last four digits of the social security
numbers of any potential Plaintiff whose mail is returned are
denied.  He will grant the Plaintiffs' request for the names, last
known addresses, work e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, and
dates and locations of employment.

Based on this, Magistrate Judge Hummel granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Conditionally Certify as a
Collective Action pursuant to FLSA Section 216(b).  The Plaintiffs
(i) may conditionally certify their misclassification claim as to
Store Managers; (2) are permitted to set up a website, within the
confines specified; and (3) are granted permission to send one
reminder notice by U.S. mail, within the confines specified.  The
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.

The Plaintiff's Motion to Conditionally Certify as a Collective
Action is denied in part: (1) the Plaintiffs' request to certify
their off-the-clock claim is denied; (2) the Plaintiffs' request to
allow the potential opt-in Plaintiffs to submit their consent to
join forms by e-mail, website, or fax is denied; and (3) the
Plaintiffs' request to send a reminder notice by e-mail is denied.

The Magistrate permitted the Plaintiffs to distribute, by the means
specified, the Court-authorized notice form, attached to the
Memorandum-Decision and Order.  The proposed consent form is
accepted, with the edits specified therein.  The proposed reminder
form, with the edits specified therein, is also accepted.

The Court will consider 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.

The Defendants are ordered to provide to the Plaintiffs, within 21
days of the date of the Memorandum-Decision & Order -- by Feb. 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.

The notice period is 60 days, beginning on Feb. 5, 2019 -- the date
by which the Defendants' must turn over to the Plaintiffs the
information specified -- and ending on April 6, 2019.

The Clerk of the Court serves the Memorandum-Decision & Order on
the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 15, 2019 Memorandum-Decision
and Order is available at https://is.gd/l7OO2D from Leagle.com.

Carol Spack, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by AMY CATHERINE BLANCHFIELD --
ablanchfield@mashellaw.com -- MASHEL LAW L.L.C., pro hac vice,
Carlo Alexandre C. de Oliveira, Cooper, Erving Law Firm, Peter
Douglas Valenzano -- pvalenzano@mashellaw.com -- Mashel Law LLC,
pro hac vice & Stephen T. Mashel -- smashel@mashellaw.com -- Mashel
Law LLC, pro hac vice.

Natasha Roper, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Michael J. Palitz
-- mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz Law Group, P.A.

Trans World Entertainment Corp. & Record Town, Inc., Defendants,
represented by William J. Anthony --
William.Anthony@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., Christopher
John Stevens, Jackson Lewis P.C. & Vincent E. Polsinelli --
Vincent.Polsinelli@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.


TRANSUNION RENTAL: ENE in Perez FCRA Suit Continued to Feb. 27
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, William Perez, Jr. Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Transunion Rental
Screening Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02509-LAB-BGS
(S.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California granted in
part and denied in part the parties' Joint Motion to Continue the
Early Neutral Evaluation Conference ("ENE") currently set for Jan.
30, 2019.

In the Joint Motion, the parties request that the Early Neutral
Evaluation be continued to Feb. 27, 2019 in light of te defense
counsel's previously scheduled hearing in Chicago set for Jan. 30,
2019.  Further, they request that the ENE be converted into a
telephonic, attorneys only conference in light of the fact that:
(1) the case is a putative class action, (2) the Plaintiff is
unwilling to entertain an individual settlement prior to the
discovery, and (3) the class-wide settlement is not possible before
discovery has occurred.

Magistrate Judge Skomal granted in part the Joint Motion.  He
granted the request to continue the ENE to Feb. 27, 2019 in light
of the defense counsel's preexisting scheduling conflict.  However,
he took under submission the parties' request to convert the ENE
into a telephonic, attorneys only conference pending review of the
parties' ENE briefs.

Accordingly, an Early Neutral Evaluation of the case will be held
on Feb. 27, 2019, at 1:30 p.m.

The following are mandatory guidelines for the parties preparing
for the ENE:

     1. Purpose of Conference: The purpose of the ENE is to hold a
serious discussion of every aspect of the lawsuit in an effort to
achieve an early resolution of the case. All conference discussions
will be off the record, privileged and confidential. Counsel for
any non-English speaking parties is responsible for arranging for
the appearance of an interpreter at the conference.

     2. Personal Appearance of Parties Is Required: All parties,
adjusters for insured defendants, and client representatives must
be present and have full and complete authority to enter into a
binding settlement at the ENE.  The purpose of this requirement is
to have representatives present who can settle the case during the
course of the conference without consulting a superior.  The
counsel for a government entity may be excused from this
requirement so long as the government attorney who attends the ENE
conference (1) has primary responsibility for handling the case;
and (2) may negotiate settlement offers which the attorney is
willing to recommend to the government official having ultimate
settlement authority. Other parties seeking permission to be
excused from attending the ENE in person must follow the procedures
outlined in Judge Skomal's Chambers' Rules.  Failure of any of the
above parties to appear at the ENE conference without the Court's
permission will be grounds for sanctions.  The principal attorneys
responsible for the litigation must also be present in person and
prepared to discuss all of the legal and factual issues in the
case.

     3. Confidential ENE Statements Required: No later than Feb.
13, 2019, the parties must submit confidential statements of seven
pages or less directly to Judge Skomal.  The statement must address
the legal and factual issues in the case and should focus on issues
most pertinent to settling the matter.  The statement should not
repeat facts or law contained in the Complaint or Answer.  The
statements do not need to be filed or served on opposing counsel.
The statement must also include any prior settlement offer or
demand, as well as the offer or demand the party will make at the
ENE.  The Court will keep this information confidential unless the
party authorizes the Court to share the information with opposing
counsel.  The ENE statements must be emailed to
efile_Skomal@casd.uscourts.gov.

     4. New Parties Must Be Notified by the Plaintiff's Counsel:
The Plaintiff's counsel will give notice of the ENE to parties
responding to the complaint after the date of the notice.

     5. Case Management Conference: Any objections made to initial
disclosure pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule
26(a)(1)(A)-(D) are overruled, and the parties are ordered to
proceed with the initial disclosure process.  Any further
objections to initial disclosure will be resolved as required by
Rule 26 and Judge Skomal's Chambers' Rules regarding discovery
disputes.  Accordingly:

          a. The Rule 26(f) conference will be completed by Jan.
30, 2019;

          b. The date of initial disclosure pursuant to Rule
26(a)(1)(A-D) will occur before Feb. 6, 2019;

          c. A Joint Discovery Plan will be filed on the CM/ECF
system as well as lodged with Magistrate Judge Skomal by delivering
the plan directly to chambers or by emailing it to
efile_skomal@casd.uscourts.gov, on or before Feb. 13, 2019.  The
plan must be one document and must explicitly cover the parties'
views and proposals for each item identified in Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(f)(3).  In addition, Judge Skomal requires the discovery plan to
identify whether the parties will consent to jurisdiction of a
Magistrate Judge.  The agreements made in the Discovery Plan will
be treated as binding stipulations that are effectively
incorporated into the Court's Case Management Order.

          In cases involving significant document production or any
electronic discovery, the parties must also include the process and
procedure for "claw back" or "quick peek" agreements as
contemplated by Fed. R. Evid. 502(d).  The parties should also
address whether an order providing for protection under Rule 502(e)
is needed.

          Finally, the parties must thoughtfully meet and confer
about electronic discovery and include answers to the following
questions in the Discovery Plan:

               i. Are there any preservation issues? If so, what
are they and how are the parties addressing the issues;

               ii. What form of production have the parties agreed
to? Are there any disputes with respect to the parties' preferred
form of production? What is the parties' positions respecting
Metadata;

               iii. Are there any proportionality issues?
Specifically address Rule 26(b)(2)(B) relating to inaccessible
electronically stored information ("ESI");

               iv. What have the parties decided regarding the
methodologies for identifying ESI for production? For instance,
will the parties conduct 4 key word searching, use predictive
coding, or other advanced culling techniques.  In the event the
case does not settle at the ENE, a Case Management Conference,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) will be held at
the conclusion of the settlement conference.

     6. Requests to Continue an ENE Conference: Requests to
continue ENEs are rarely granted.  The Court will, however,
consider formal motions to continue an ENE when extraordinary
circumstances exist and the other party has no objection.  If
another party objects to the continuance, counsel for both parties
must call chambers and discuss the matter with the research
attorney/law clerk assigned to the case before any motion may be
filed.  Any request for a continuance must be made as soon as
counsel is aware of the circumstances that warrant rescheduling the
conference.  Requests to continue the ENE based on preexisting
scheduling conflicts must be raised within 10 days of the Court's
issuance of the Order.

     7. Settlement Prior to ENE Conference: The Court encourages
the parties to work on settling the matter in advance of the ENE
Conference.  In the event that the parties resolve the matter prior
to the day of the conference, the following procedures must be
followed before the Court will vacate the ENE and excuse the
parties from appearing:

          A. The parties may file a Joint Motion to Dismiss and
submit a proposed order to the assigned district judge.  If a Joint
Motion to Dismiss is filed, the Court will immediately vacate the
ENE;

          B. If the parties settle more than 24 hours before the
conference but are not able to file a Joint Motion to Dismiss, they
must file a Notice of Settlement containing the electronic
signatures of counsel for all settling parties and must also
identify a date by which the Joint Motion to Dismiss will be
filed;

          C. If the parties settle less than 24 hours before the
conference, counsel for the settling parties must JOINTLY call
chambers and inform the Court of the settlement and receive Court
permission to not appear at the ENE.

Questions regarding the case or the mandatory guidelines set forth
may be directed to Magistrate Judge Skomal's research attorney at
(619) 557-2993.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 15, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/6EmHut from Leagle.com.

William Perez, Jr., Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian --
ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerounian Law Group, APC, Yana A. Hart --
yana@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart & Daniel G. Shay --
DanielShay@SanDiegoBankruptcyNow.com -- Law Offices of Daniel G.
Shay.

Transunion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Albert E. Hartmann -- ahartmann@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP,
pro hac vice, Leah Clifton Calica -- lccalica@calicalaw.com --
Michael O'Neil -- michael.oneil@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP,
pro hac vice & Raymond Y. Kim -- rkim@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith,
LLP.


UNITED STATES: D. Mass. Enters Final Judgment Against Dillon
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHEN DILLON and MICHAEL FISHER and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, Civil
Action No. 12-12289-DPW (D. Mass.), Judge Douglas P. Woodlock of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (i)
transferred the case to the District of South Carolina; and (ii)
denied with prejudice the Planitiffs' motion for class
certification and the motions for summary judgment with respect to
Plaintiff Fisher.

Dillon filed the first class action complaint in the case on Dec.
10, 2012.  In the Third Amended Complaint now framing the
litigation, Dillon and Fisher, seamen who claim to have suffered
injury on board government-owned vessels, allege that they, and
similarly situated seamen, are entitled to unearned overtime wages
as part of the unearned wages remedy under admiralty law.

Dillon, a resident of Massachusetts, was employed by Maersk Line,
Ltd. of which U.S. Marine Management, Inc. ("USMMI") is a wholly
owned subsidiary, to work on a government-owned vessel, the USNS
LOPEZ. Maersk operates the vessel under contract with the United
States Navy's Military Sealift Command.  Dillon was hired to serve
as a Qualified Member of the Engine Department, a physically
demanding job.  Dillon began his employment on the vessel on March
23, 2012 and was discharged on May 29, 2012 because of to a back
injury.  Hewas medically repatriated to the United States.

After his injury, Dillon was paid maintenance and cure as well as
unearned wages for the period of the vessel's voyage.   He was not
paid any unearned overtime wages after his discharge.

Dillon initially brought the action on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated who had not received unearned overtime wages
after medical discharge.  The proposed class consisted of civilian
seamen who had been employed by civilian contractors and had served
as crewmembers on vessels owned or chartered by the government and
administered by the Military Sealift Command, who had suffered
injury or illness in the service of the vessel, and who were paid
maintenance, cure, and unearned wages but not the overtime wages
they otherwise would have earned during the voyage.

Fisher, a member of the American Maritime Officers ("AMO") union,
was assigned by his employer, Maersk, to a position as second
assistant engineer aboard the USNS HENSON.  The USNS HENSON is a
public Geographic Survey (or T-AGS) vessel owned by the United
States and administered by the Military Sealift Command in its
Special Mission program, also known as PM2.  Fisher boarded the
USNS HENSON on Feb. 26, 2015.

Fisher, a resident of South Carolina, was injured aboard the USNS
HENSON on June 16, 2015 and was deemed not fit for duty.  He was
subsequently discharged from the vessel on June 18, 2015.
Following Fisher's discharge, Maersk paid him unearned wages in the
amount of $231.88 per day -- the amount of his daily base wages --
through the end of his maximum tour on June 26, 2015.  It did not
pay him the unearned overtime wages that he contends he would have
earned during the voyage.

During the course of discovery, Dillon served multiple requests for
admissions, including two requests on July 31, 2014.  The July 31,
2014 requested admission at issue in Dillon's motion for partial
summary judgment provided that the Defendant does not contend that
it would not have hired the Plaintiff if he had given what the
Defendant contends would be his correct responses to the inquiries
it has challenged.

The Plaintiffs move for class certification and summary judgment
for unearned overtime wages.  At the threshold, Judge Woodlock
confronts the government's contention that it is entitled to
judgment against Dillon based on an affirmative defense unique to
him.

Meanwhile, U.S. Marine Management, Inc. ("USMMI"), the General
Agent operating the vessels on the government's behalf, has been
permitted to intervene in the action.  USMMI has contended that, if
the government is granted judgment against Dillon, the case must be
transferred to the District of South Carolina, Fisher's residence.
The government supports USMMI's contention and has moved to
transfer the case to the District of South Carolina if judgment is
entered against Dillon.

Judge Woodlock finds that as a matter of fact that Dillon
intentionally made material misrepresentations and omissions to
create the false impression that his medical condition raised no
relevant issues about his ability to perform the job he sought.
Moreover, he finds that, if "proper information had been given,"
Dillon would not have been engaged for service on the USNS LOPEZ.

The Judge concludes that Dillon's course of conduct bars his claims
for unearned overtime wages and the government is entitled to
judgment on its affirmative defense.  As a result, since judgement
will be entered against him, Dillon cannot represent the claims of
any putative class in the litigation.

The Judge also concludes that the venue in the case is proper only
in the District of South Carolina, where Fisher resides.  The class
may not establish venue in the District through Dillon because he
can no longer participate in the litigation.  The Plaintiff class
has also been afforded a substantial period of time within which it
might have put forward a named representative who can properly
establish venue in this District.  It has failed to do so.
Accordingly, the Judge has no choice but to direct transfer to the
District of South Carolina, where the sole class representative,
Fisher, resides.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Woodlock directed the clerk to
enter final judgment against Dillon in the litigation.
Consequently, he granted the motion to transfer the case to the
District of South Carolina and directed the clerk to do so based
upon the operative pleading of the Third Amended Complaint in which
Fisher is now the sole named class representative.

Because litigation will continue in the District of South Carolina,
the Judge acted no further other than to deny without prejudice the
motion for class certification and the motions for summary judgment
with respect to the remaining Plaintiff Fisher, subject to further
proceedings in the District of South Carolina.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 16, 2019 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://is.gd/k7uNHk from Leagle.com.

Stephen Dillon, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Keane, Keane Law
Group, P.C., Dennis M. O'Bryan, O'Bryan Baun Cohen Kuebler
Karamanian, pro hac vice & Kirk E. Karamanian, O'Bryan Baun Cohen
Kuebler Karamanian, pro hac vice.

Michael Fisher, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Dennis M.
O'Bryan, O'Bryan Baun Cohen Kuebler Karamanian, pro hac vice.

United States of America, Defendant, represented by Sarah Keast ,
U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Torts Branch, Aviation &
Admiralty, Michael W. Kerns, US Department of Justice Torts Branch
Civil Division & Stephen M. Ketyer, U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division.

U.S. Marine Management, Incorporated, Intervenor Defendant,
represented by John J. Walsh -- walsh@freehill.com -- FREEHILL,
HOGAN & MAHAR, pro hac vice & Bradley F. Gandrup, Jr. --
brad.gandrup@fisherbroyles.com -- FisherBroyles, LLP.


UNITED STATES: D.C. App. Affirms Dismissal of Boyland Estate Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cornelia Pillard of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's decision
dismissing the case, ESTATE OF EARNEST LEE BOYLAND, ET AL.,
Appellants, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL.,
Appellees, Case No. 17-5082 (D.C. App.), in its entirety.

The Plaintiffs, representing the estates of black male farmers,
seek to submit claims of past discrimination in agricultural credit
programs to a claims-processing framework set up to resolve
Hispanic and female farmers' credit discrimination claims.  In the
lawsuit, they assert that the claims-processing framework itself
discriminatorily excluded them.  In short, they raise a
discrimination claim about the handling of discrimination claims.
They therefore identify two distinct discrimination claims, one
nested within the other: the underlying credit discrimination
claims, and the current challenge to the framework.

The case addresses whether the Plaintiff black farmers who, again,
did not file claims in Pigford v. Glickman ("Pigford I"), may now
participate in the Garcia v. Veneman/Love v. Veneman Framework
established to compensate farmers discriminated against because of
their sex or Hispanic ethnicity.

The Plaintiffs are the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists
Association, Inc. ("BFAA"), which describes itself as a
not-for-profit organization created for the specific purpose of
responding to the issues and concerns of black farmers in the
United States and abroad, and the estates of three now-deceased
black male farmers, the individual Plaintiffs, which allege that
the USDA discriminated against the farmers in lending programs
during the 1980s.  The individual Plaintiffs' current challenge to
their exclusion from the Garcia/Love Framework is pressed by the
farmers' children and grandchildren, who are also members of
Plaintiff BFAA.

In 2013, after the Pigford process had closed, Plaintiff BFAA
unsuccessfully sought to intervene in Garcia and Love to assert,
among other claims, that its members were entitled under the Equal
Protection and Due Process Clauses to participate in the
Garcia/Love Framework.  The court denied intervention because, as
relevant in the case, BFAA lacked standing to press its
constitutional challenges.  In the meantime, the three individual
Plaintiffs submitted claims to the Garcia/Love Framework.  They
received denials explaining that to participate in the Process,
they must be either Hispanic/Latino or female, and they indicated
that they're African American males.

BFAA and the individual Plaintiffs then brought the putative class
action against USDA and Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc.
They alleged that USDA and Epiq violated their Fifth Amendment due
process and equal protection rights, as well as Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, by excluding them from the Garcia/Love
Framework because of their race and sex.

The district court granted USDA's motion to dismiss the
constitutional claims.  It held that issue preclusion barred BFAA
from relitigating its standing, because the Garcia/Love court had
already decided the question.  The individual Plaintiffs also
lacked standing for much the same reason the Garcia/Love court had
given for denying BFAA's standing: their lack of opportunity to
present their discrimination claims was not fairly traceable to the
Garcia/Love Framework, but to their own failure to file timely
claims for compensation under the Pigford settlement.  The court
dismissed the Title VI claim against Epiq on the ground that the
Garcia/Love Framework was not a "program or activity" within the
meaning of Title VI, and that Epiq had not received "federal
financial assistance," a prerequisite to the statute's
applicability.

The Plaintiffs allege that the farmers whose estates they represent
experienced discrimination in USDA agricultural credit and benefit
programs-based not on sex or Hispanic ethnicity, but on their black
racial identity.  Judge Pillard holds that it is incorrect.  She
finds that the Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the framework
because they have no live underlying credit discrimination claims
to present there.

The Plaintiffs sued the USDA and Epiq, the firm USDA hired to
administer the framework, contending they unlawfully discriminated
by affording women and Hispanic claimants exclusive access to a
remedial claims framework, the very raison d'être of which was to
redress USDA's sex and ethnicity discrimination against female nd
Hispanic farmers.  The Judge holds that the claim is certainly
plausible. It is well established that, during the 1980s and 1990s,
USDA engaged in systemic discrimination on multiple grounds against
many of the farmers its programs were supposed to serve.  In fact,
it was a class action lawsuit by the Black Farmers that first
illuminated USDA's rampant credit discrimination and inspired
parallel lawsuits by Native American, female, and Hispanic farmers.
And USDA modeled the framework at issue here on the
claims-processing system it set up in settlement of the Black
Farmers' class action.

The Plaintiffs in the case never submitted claims in the Black
Farmers remedial process.  When they instead sought to present
their claims in the parallel framework for claims of discrimination
against women and/or Hispanic farmers, the claims processor turned
them away.  The Plaintiffs contend that USDA and Epiq thereby
invidiously discriminated against them based on their sex and race.
They claim that USDA violated the constitutional equal protection
guarantee and that Epiq violated the federal statutory prohibition
against discrimination by a program or activity that receives
federal financial assistance.

In assessing standing, the Judge assumes that the Plaintiffs could
prevail on those claims.  The Plaintiffs' standing nevertheless
fails for want of redressability.  The claims-processing framework
for women and Hispanic farmers, like the parallel one for black
farmers, can only make good on live claims.  Thus, even assuming
the Plaintiffs succeeded in invalidating the framework's challenged
sex and ethnicity limitations, they could not benefit unless they
had unexpired claims of credit discrimination to process there.

Because the Plaintiffs fail to allege that they have any live
claims to process in the framework they challenge, the harm they
assert from being excluded is not redressable.  The Plaintiffs'
nested claims target discrimination by USDA during the 1980s in
violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), which
prohibits discrimination in credit transactions.  ECOA's five-year
statute of limitations has long since run on most claims of that
vintage.  Congress in 1998 legislated an important but limited
exception to ECOA's time bar for farmers who had complained of
discrimination to USDA between 1981 and July 1997—a period when,
Congress found, the Department's internal system for addressing
discrimination claims was dysfunctional.  The Plaintiffs do not
allege they sought to press their claims to USDA before July 1997,
so they are ineligible to benefit from Congress's tolling of the
limitations period for farmers who did.  Their decades-old claims
are time barred.

Even if she assumed that the Plaintiffs in fact took steps before
1997 to preserve their claims and merely neglected to so specify in
their complaint, the Judge holds they would still be out of luck.
Together with everything else they allege, that would mean -- as
the district court assumed -- that they were members of the
Plaintiff class in the Black Farmers' lawsuit.  Any credit
discrimination claim a member of the Black Farmers Plaintiff class
may have had during the relevant period, whether or not actually
pursued in the remedial process established under the Black
Farmers' consent decree, is now precluded by that decree, or, for
any member who opted out, time barred.  Thus, even if the
challenged framework were not limited to women and Hispanic
farmers, it could do nothing to redress the Plaintiffs' precluded
claims.

Taking all the complaint's allegations as true, Judge Pillard
concludes that one of those hurdles necessarily blocks the way.
The Plaintiffs therefore lack standing because their injury is not
redressable -- even if they satisfy the other prongs of the
standing test, and even if they are right on the merits that the
Garcia/Love Framework violates the law.  Because the standing
defect is dispositive, she holds she needs not consider the
district court's holding that issue preclusion prevents BFAA (alone
or in addition to the individual Plaintiffs) from relitigating its
standing.  She accordingly affirmed the district court's decision
dismissing the case in its entirety.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 15, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/dw8bG9 from Leagle.com.

Robert E. Hauberg Jr. -- rhauberg@bakerdonelson.com -- argued the
cause and filed the briefs for appellants. Paul A. Robinson Jr.
entered an appearance.

Jennifer L. Utrecht, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued
the cause for appellees. With her on the brief was Charles W.
Scarborough, Attorney.

Stephen P. Murphy -- steve.murphy@lockelord.com -- was on the brief
for appellee EPIQ Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc.


UNITED STATES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arnold et al. Say
-----------------------------------------------------------
L. KEVIN ARNOLD; RALPH FULVIO; DAVID KIRSH; MARTIN LEE; MARK MUNOZ;
MATTHEW PERRY; ROBERT RIGGS; AARON SAVAGE; and JENNIFER TAYLOR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00059
(Fed. Cl., Jan. 15, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendant
unpaid overtime compensation, minimum wages, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as government
employees.

The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United
States (U.S. or US) or America, is a country composed of 50 states,
a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and
various possessions.  Beginning Dec. 21, 2018, the U.S. government
shut down certain agencies for more than a month after the Trump
administration failed to reach a compromise with Congress over the
proposed budget for the walls President Donald Trump wanted built
on the U.S.-Mexico border.  The shutdown ended Jan. 25, 2019, at 35
days, when President Trump and Congressional leaders agreed to a
stop-gap spending bill.  President Trump signed a bill that funds
the government at current levels for three weeks, until Feb. 15,
while they negotiate plans for increased border security.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jacob Y. Statman, Esq.
          SNIDER & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          600 Reisterstown Road; 7 th Floor
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653-9060
          Facsimile: (410) 653-9061
          E-mail: jstatman@sniderlaw.com


UNITED STATES: Tapia Suit Asserts Tucker Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the USA. The case is
styled as Zamantha Tapia, Mara Dunn, Jennifer Wilmont, Jennifer
Crisostomo, Kimberly Colon and Melissa Larson, on behalf of
themselves and all other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. USA, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00108-MBH (COFC, January 22,
2019).

The lawsuit arises under the Tucker Act.

The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation’s presence into the Pacific Ocean. Major Atlantic Coast
cities are New York, a global finance and culture center, and
capital Washington, DC. Midwestern metropolis Chicago is known for
influential architecture and on the west coast, Los Angeles'
Hollywood is famed for filmmaking.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jason Ellis Perry, Esq.
   Law Office of Jason Perry LLC
   10540 Galleria Street
   Wellington, FL 33414
   Tel: (203) 887-6967
   Fax: (800) 576-5648
   Email: jason.perry@jeperrylaw.com



UNITED STATES: Underpays Customs and Border Protection Officers
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELEAZAR AVALOS; and JAMES DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00048-PEC (Fed. Cl., Jan. 9, 2019)
alleges that the Defendant failed to pay a minimum wage and
overtime wages earned for the pay period beginning December 23,
2018 and ending on January 5, 2019. The Plaintiffs seek payment of
the owed wages, an equal amount of liquidated damages, and other
appropriate remedies.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as Customs and Border
Protection Officers.

The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United
States (U.S. or US) or America, is a country composed of 50 states,
a federal district, five major self-governing territories, and
various possessions.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paras N. Shah, Esq.
          NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION
          1750 H Street, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Tel: (202) 572-5500
          Fax: (202) 572-5645
          E-mail: paras.shah@nteu.org


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Partial Summary Judgment in Peterson Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, Louis J. Peterson, D.C., on behalf of Patients E, I,
K, L, N, P, Q and R, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff-Appellee. Lutz Surgical Partners, PLLC; New Life
Chiropractic, PC Plaintiffs, v. UnitedHealth Group Inc.; United
HealthCare Services, Inc.; United Healthcare Insurance Company;
United Healthcare Service LLC Defendants-Appellants. Riverview
Health Institute, on its own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UnitedHealth Group Inc.;
United HealthCare Services, Inc.; United Healthcare Insurance
Company; Optum, Inc. Defendants-Appellants. Secretary of Labor,
Amicus on Behalf of Appellees, Case No. 17-1744 (8th Cir.), Judge
L. Steven Grasz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
affirmed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment to
the Plaintiffs on the issue of liability.

The named Plaintiffs in these consolidated class action cases are
out-of-network medical providers who United intentionally failed to
fully pay for services rendered to United plan beneficiaries in
order to offset overpayments to the same providers from other
United administered plans.  The Plaintiffs, litigating under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") on behalf of
their patients, the plan beneficiaries, claim the relevant plan
documents do not authorize United to engage in cross-plan
offsetting.

United describes itself as the nation's leading health and
well-being company.  The United-administered health insurance plans
at issue are governed by ERISA as employee welfare benefit plans.
Many of these plans are self-insured, meaning the plan sponsor
(often an employer) funds the plan while United administers it.
United also administers fully-insured plans, which it both funds
and administers.

In 2007, United instituted its new aggregate payment and recovery
procedure that included cross-plan offsetting.  The class actions
were filed in 2014 by Dr. Louis J. Peterson and in 2015 by
Riverview Health Institute, each challenging United's practice of
cross-plan offsetting.  Dr. Peterson sued as an authorized
representative of his patients.  Riverview sued pursuant to an
assignment of rights in its patient agreement.

United moved to dismiss Riverview's action, in part because many of
the plans contained provisions prohibiting assignments.  The
district court denied the motion.  The district court consolidated
the two class actions for purposes of discovery and as to summary
judgment on whether the governing documents of the
United-administered plans authorized cross-plan offsetting.

United filed motions for summary judgment and Dr. Peterson and
Riverview filed motions for partial summary judgment on the issue
of liability.  The district court denied United's motions and
granted partial summary judgment to the Plaintiffs.  It rejected
United's argument that Dr. Peterson lacked authority to sue as an
authorized representative of his patients.

On the merits, the court reviewed the underlying plan documents and
concluded that, of those plans that did address offsetting, all of
those plans explicitly authorize same-plan offsetting; and not one
of those plans explicitly authorizes cross-plan offsetting.
Applying the factors set forth by the Court in Finley v. Special
Agents Mutual Benefit Association, Inc., 957 F.2d 617, 621 (8th
Cir. 1992), the district court concluded that United's
interpretation of the plan documents was not reasonable.

The district court certified its summary judgment order for
immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) and the Court
allowed United to appeal.

United advances two arguments as to why it believes Riverview and
Dr. Peterson are not authorized to bring these actions.  It argues
that Riverview lacks standing to proceed as an assignee of its
patients' claims because some of the relevant plan documents
contain an enforceable anti-assignment provision.  It also argues
that Dr. Peterson lacks standing3 because he did not sufficiently
disclose a conflict of interest with his patients, thus nullifying
the agreements granting him the authority to act as their
authorized representative.  

Judge Grasz concludes the Court lacks the appellate jurisdiction to
review the district court's order regarding Riverview, but that Dr.
Peterson does have standing.  He finds that it is not necessary to
rule on the validity of Riverview's assignments in order to
determine whether United is authorized under the plan documents to
engage in cross-plan offsetting -- the issue in the certified
summary judgment order.  True, the issue of the validity of
Riverview's assignments is in some sense antecedent to the
cross-plan offsetting issue in that it could be dispositive of
Riverview's claim.  But the mere fact that a separate and discrete
legal issue could be dispositive of a claim is not alone sufficient
to render it "fairly included" in, or "inextricably intertwined"
with, the order subject to interlocutory review.  The Court's
review of the summary judgment order is not hampered by leaving the
issue for appellate review after a final judgment.

United also argues that Dr. Peterson lacks standing because he
cannot proceed as his patients' authorized representative.  The
Judge finds that United's argument fails for two reasons.  First,
it overstates the extent of any potential conflict of interest.
Having United pay for the services provided by Dr. Peterson with
money rather than with an offset would of course be in Dr.
Peterson's interest and would also be in the patients' interest or
at least not be adverse to their interest.  Thus, there is no
meaningful conflict between Dr. Peterson and his patients.  Second,
Dr. Peterson's disclosure of the supposed conflict of interest was
sufficient.  The engagement letter signed by Dr. Peterson's
patients fairly and adequately explained United's contention that
there was a conflict of interest.  He concludes that Dr. Peterson
is authorized to bring this action as a representative of his
patients.

Finally, at issue in the interlocutory appeal is the question of
whether the plan documents allow United to engage in cross-plan
offsetting.  First, the Judge finds that nothing in the plan
documents even comes close to authorizing cross-plan offsetting,
the practice of not paying a benefit due under one plan in order to
recover an amount believed to be owed to another plan because of
that other plan's overpayment.  Second, the practice of cross-plan
offsetting is in some tension with the requirements of ERISA.

Regardless of whether cross-plan offsetting necessarily violates
ERISA, it is questionable at the very least.  Considering this,
alongside the fact that there is no plan language -- only broad,
generic grants of administrative authority -- that would authorize
the practice, leads him to conclude that United's interpretation is
not reasonable.

Because United's interpretation of the plan documents is not
reasonable, Judge Grasz affirmed the district court's grant of
partial summary judgment to the Plaintiffs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 15, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/y9C9wt from Leagle.com.

Richard Allen Lockridge -- ralockridge@locklaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Karen Riebel -- riebekh@locklaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Brian D. Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com -- for Defendant-Appellant.

Brian Hufford -- dbhufford@zuckerman.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kristen Marttila -- kgmarttila@locklaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gregory F. Jacob -- gjacob@omm.com -- for Defendant-Appellant.

Jonathan D. Hacker -- jhacker@omm.com -- for Defendant-Appellant.

Kate M. Baxter-Kauf -- kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Susanna Benson, for Amicus on Behalf of Appellee(s).

Jason Cowart -- jcowart@zuckerman.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Anton Metlitsky -- ametlitsky@omm.com -- for Defendant-Appellant.

William K. Meyer -- wmeyer@zuckerman.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Anthony F. Maul -- afmaul@maulfirm.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee.

John W. Leardi -- jwleardi@buttacilaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Paul D. Werner -- pdwerner@buttacilaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Vincent N. Buttaci -- vnbuttaci@buttacilaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Michael J. Walsh, Jr. -- mwalsh@omm.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

Kenneth A. Lazarus, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jennifer Sokoler, for Defendant-Appellant.

Andrew Goldfarb, for Plaintiff-Appellee.


VAQUITA CHEESE: Denied Perez Overtime Pay, Wage Notices, Paystubs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Perez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Vaquita Cheese, Inc., La Veserrita Cheese
Inc., Felipe Ramos, Blanca Ramos and Jimmy Ramos, Defendants, Case
No. 19-cv-00121 (E.D. N.Y., January 8, 2019), seeks compensation
for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum wage, unpaid
wages from defendants for overtime work for which they did not
receive overtime premium pay as required by law, liquidated damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law and
"spread of hours" requirements of New York Labor Law, and statutory
damages for violation of the Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Defendants owned and operated as a cheese manufacturer and
wholesaler in Brooklyn where Perez was employed as a factory worker
and driver's helper. He regularly worked seven days per week
typically working roughly twelve-hour days, all without overtime
pay. Defendants did not provide a time clock, computer punch,
timesheets, or any other method for him to track his time worked.
Perez's effective rate of pay was below the statutory federal
minimum wage throughout his employment. Defendants also failed to
provide him with written wage notices providing contact
information, regular and overtime rates and intended allowances
claimed. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WARREN COUNTY, OH: Protective Order in Adoptive Families Suit OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, has issued a
stipulated protective order in the case, Adoptive Family #1 and
Their Daughter A., et al, Plaintiffs, v. Warren County, Ohio/Warren
County Board of Commissioners Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-179
(S.D. Ohio).

The stipulated protected order covers all depositions and exhibits
taken prior to the class action hearing in the case including but
not limited to the depositions of Adoptive Family members #1-#7.
It also covers those portions of the depositions of Warren County
Children's Services ("WCCS") Director Susan Walther, former WCCS
Director Patti Jacobs, WCCS employee Melissa Pittman, and Dr.
Timothy O'Hanlon to the extent any of their testimony addresses
facts related to Adoptive Families #1-#7.  These depositions and
exhibits will be subject to discovery between and among the parties
but will otherwise be kept confidential.

By agreement of the parties, these records will be held strictly
confidential.  If any document subject to the protective order is
produced, copied, used in a deposition, or at trial, it will be
marked prominently by the party producing it with the word
"Confidential."  Any document subject to the order used at trial,
in discovery, in a deposition, expert report, pleading, or in any
other way so as to make it a potentially public record, it will be
so submitted "under seal" with prior permission of the Court, upon
motion and for good cause shown.

The Protective Order further authorizes these materials and no
others may be filed with the Court under seal as they contain
personal private and sensitive information about families and
children that are not appropriate for public disclosure.  Unless
the Court orders otherwise, all sealed documents will be filed
according to S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 5.2.

At the conclusion of the litigation, all written materials,
including copies made thereof, subject to the protective order will
be destroyed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 18, 2019 Stipulated Protective
Order is available at https://is.gd/bRtsVY from Leagle.com.

Adoptive Family #1 and Their Daughter A., Individually and on
behalf of class of similarly situated children and parents,
Adoptive Family #2 and Their Children B. and C., Individually and
on behalf of class of similarly situated children and parents &
Adoptive Family #3 and Their Children D. and E., Plaintiffs,
represented by Barbara Thornell Ginn -- Barbara@GinnLLC.com --
Jennifer Lynn Branch -- jbranch@gbfirm.com -- Gerhardstein & Branch
Co. LPA, Mary Caroline Hyatt -- chyatt@gbfirm.com -- Gerhardstein &
Branch Co LPA & Alphonse Adam Gerhardstein --
agerhardstein@gbfirm.com -- Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA.

Warren County, Ohio/Warren County Board Of Commissioners,
Defendant, represented by John Stephen Teetor --
steetor@isaacwiles.com -- Isaac Wiles Burkholder & Teetor, LLC,
Kathryn M. Horvath, Warren County Prosecutor's Office & Aaron
Michael Glasgow -- aglasgow@isaacwiles.com -- Isaac, Wiles,
Burkholder & Teetor, LLC.


WELLS FARGO: To Pay $575MM in Settlement
----------------------------------------
Rod Jackson, writing for PAHomePage.com, reports that  Pennsylvania
Attorney General Josh Shapiro disclosed on Dec. 28 that Wells Fargo
Bank N.A. will pay $575 million to settle claims the bank violated
state consumer protection laws.

Shapiro, in making the announcement, says the settlement with the
nation's biggest bank will mean some refunds to consumers and a
$16.5 million windfall for the Pennsylvania Treasury.

Wells Fargo was accused in a class action lawsuit filed by all 50
Attorneys General in the U.S. of multiple consumer protection
violations:

-- Opening millions of unauthorized accounts and enrolling
customers into online banking services without their knowledge.

-- Improperly referring customers for enrollment in third-party
renters and life insurance policies.

-- Improperly force-placing and charging more than 850,000 auto
finance customers for unnecessary and duplicative insurance
policies.

-- Failing to ensure that customers received refunds of unearned
premiums on certain optional auto finance produces.

-- Incorrectly charging customers for mortgage rate lock extension
fees.

"This bank opened millions of accounts for customers who didn't
know about them," said Shapiro in the announcement "charged auto
finance customers for insurance policies they didn't want or need,
charged mortgage customers over $100 million in unwarranted fees."

He added, "With this settlement, we are holding Wells Fargo
accountable and changing corporate conduct to protect consumers."

Under the settlement, the bank is required to pay a sum of money to
consumers who were harmed, as well as payments to each of the 50
states in which they operated.

Wells Fargo is also required to implement withing 60 days a program
through which consumers who believe they wre affected by the bank's
conduct can contact wells Fargo to be reviewed for potential
refunds.[GN]


WESLEY APARTMENT: Removes Whelan Suit to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of RYAN WHELAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESLEY
APARTMENT HOMES, LLC formerly known as: EURAMEX MANAGEMENT GROUP,
LLC; AVILA REAL EASTATE, LLC; and TURNER HILL PARTNERS, LLC,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of Georgia, County of Gwinnett (Case No.
18A70827) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on January 11, 2019. The clerk of court for the Northern
District of Georgia assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00235-SCJ. The case
is assigned to Judge Steve C. Jones.

Euramex Management Group, LLC, doing business as Wesley Apartment
Homes, LLC, engages in the investment, development, construction,
and management of real estate properties. The company focuses on
the acquisition of existing properties and development of new
apartment communities. It owns and operates various apartment units
in the metro Atlanta area. The company was founded in 1981 and is
based in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake D. Smith, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE
          1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 474-8260
          E-mail: bsmith@spencerfane.com

               - and -

          Bryant T. Lamer, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE
          1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 292-8296
          E-mail: blamer@spencerfane.com

               - and -

          Matthew B. Stoddard, Esq.
          The Stoddard Firm
          5447 Roswell Road, Suite 204
          Atlanta, GA 30342
          Telephone: (919) 280-4925
          Facsimile: (404) 842-7710
          E-mail: matt@thestoddardfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael B. Terry, Esq.
          BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP
          1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W.
          3900 One Atlantic Center
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3417
          Telephone: (404) 881-4100
          E-mail: terry@bmelaw.com

               - and -

          Naveen Ramachandrappa, Esq.
          BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP
          1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W.
          3900 One Atlantic Center
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3417
          Telephone: (404) 881-4151
          E-mail: ramachandrappa@bmelaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Arash A. Sabzevari, Esq.
          Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP
          661 Forest Parkway, Suite E
          Forest Park, GA 30297
          Telephone: (404) 366-1000
          Facsimile: (404) 361-3223
          E-mail: asabzevari@fmglaw.com

               - and -

          Michael P. Bruyere, Esq.
          Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP -Atl
          100 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30339-5948
          Telephone: (770) 818-0000
          Facsimile: (770) 937-9960
          E-mail: mbruyere@fmglaw.com


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of Kipp Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Weyerhaeuser Co. filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Kristina Kipp, et al. v. Vincent Distefano, et
al., Case No. 2-17-cv-03958, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 26, 2018, Judge
Juan R. Sanchez denied the Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration.

The Named Plaintiffs bring the products liability class action on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against
Defendant Weyerhaeuser for damages sustained after
Weyerhaeuser-produced construction materials emitted unsafe levels
of noxious formaldehyde gas, causing physical harm to the Named
Plaintiffs and their children and rendering their homes
uninhabitable.

The appellate case is captioned as Kristina Kipp, et al. v. Vincent
Distefano, et al., Case No. 19-1130, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees KRISTINA KIPP, et al., are represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
          Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq.
          Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  ldeutsch@bm.net
                  jhashmall@bm.net
                  jpolakoff@bm.net

               - and -

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER PLLP
          80 South 8th Street
          4600 IDS Center
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3249
          E-mail: drake@nka.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          One Haverford Centre
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          E-mail: steveschwartz@chimicles.com

Defendant-Appellant WEYERHAEUSER CO. is represented by:

          Mary Rose Alexander, Esq.
          Robert C. Collins, III, Esq.
          Mark S. Mester, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 876-7700
          E-mail: mary.rose.alexander@lw.com
                  robert.collins@lw.com
                  mark.mester@lw.com

               - and -

          Paul G. Gagne, Esq.
          SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
          1600 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 751-2650


WISCONSIN: Court Dismisses Al Ghashiyah Prisoner Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin granted Foster's motion to dismiss the case,
TAYR KILAAB AL GHASHIYAH, Petitioner, v. BRIAN FOSTER, Respondent,
Case No. 15-cv-514-jdp (W.D. Wis.).

Al Ghashiyah, formerly known as John Casteel, brings the case
styled as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
Section 2241.  The Petitioner is in custody pursuant to two
judgments of conviction for bank robbery entered by the Circuit
Court for Brown County in 1985 and 1986.

In a March 27, 2018 order, the Judge concluded that some of al
Ghashiyah's claims did not belong in the Section 2254 action, and
others plainly did not entitle him to relief.  But he concluded
that he raised a potential claim for relief about prison officials'
refusal to release him after he completed the state's Earned
Release Program, so he ordered the petition served on the
Respondent.  The Judge also denied his motions to proceed as a
class action and for the Judge's recusal.

The state responded by filing a motion to dismiss the petition.  Al
Ghashiyah has filed a motion for reconsideration of the March 27,
2018 order, a motion to sanction the Respondent for transferring
him to WCI without the Court's approval, and a motion to enforce a
settlement agreement that he says he made with the state.

As to the Petitioner's motion for reconsideration, Judge Peterson
finds that the Petitioner does not present any persuasive reason
for him depart from the reasoning contained in his previous orders
addressing these topics.  So he will deny his motion for
reconsideration, leaving only the Respondent's motion to dismiss
his claim about the Earned Release Program.

Al Ghashiyah's contends that prison officials refuse to release him
even though he must be released under the "Earned Release Program,"
also known as the "Wisconsin Substance Abuse Program," an
early-release opportunity for certain offenders who successfully
complete a substance-abuse treatment program.  The Judge finds that
the problem for al Ghashiyah is that the scant evidence he provides
in support of his claim is not nearly enough to plausibly show that
he qualified for release under the Earned Release Program.  It is
al Ghashiyah's burden to show that he is in custody in violation of
the Constitution or laws of the United States, and his conclusory
assertions come nowhere close to making that showing.  Therefore,
Judge will grant the Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition.

Finally, vecause reasonable jurists would not debate either my
previous or current rulings dismissing each of al Ghashiyah's
claims, the Judge will not issue him a certificate of
appealability.  The Petitioner may seek a certificate from the
court of appeals under Fed. R. App. P. 22.

For these reasons, Judge Peterson (i) granted Al Ghashiyah's motion
to supplement his response to the motion to dismiss his petition;
(ii) denied the Petitioner's motion for sanctions; (iii) denied the
Petitioner's motion to enforce a settlement agreement; (iv) denied
the Petitioner's motion for reconsideration; and (v) granted the
Respondent's motion to dismiss the Petitioner's petition for a writ
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2254.  The case is
dismissed.  The Petitioner is denied a certificate of
appealability. If petitioner wishes, he may seek a certificate from
the court of appeals under Fed. R. App. P. 22.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 18, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/1nNamv from Leagle.com.

Tayr Kilaab al Ghashiyah (khan), formerly known as John A. Casteel,
Petitioner, pro se.

Brian Foster, Respondent, represented by Aaron R. O'Neil --
oneilar@doj.state.wi.us -- HCP Consumer Law, LLC.


WOLFF SHOE: Garey Suit Alleges ADA Violation in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Wolff Shoe Company is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Kevin
Garey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Wolff Shoe Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00580
(S.D. N.Y., January 21, 2019).

Wolff Shoe Company manufactures and distributes shoes. Wolff Shoe
Company was formerly known as Wolf Shoe Manufacturing Company. The
company was founded in 1918 and is based in Fenton, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
   Shalom Law, PLLC.
   124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
   Kew Gardens, NY 11374
   Tel: (516) 807-1748
   Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com



WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: TCCWNA Claim in Luca Dismissed with Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS LUCA, JR., Plaintiff, v. WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE
CORPORATION ET AL, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00746 (W.D. Pa.),
Judge Mark R. Hornak of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania granted the Defendants' Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings, or in the alternative, Motion for
Reconsideration.

The Plaintiff filed his Class Action Complaint on June 6, 2016.
He, on behalf of himself and a purported class, avers that a hotel
reservation website for which Wyndham is responsible did not
adequately disclose the total costs associated with booking a hotel
room, thereby violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA").
The Plaintiff also avers that the website's Terms of Use violate
the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act
("TCCWNA").  He avers that consumers who use the booking website
are automatically deemed to agree to the Terms of Use, which
contain limitations on Wyndham's liability.

The Plaintiff alleges that the effect of the Terms of Use is that
it deceives consumers into thinking that the provisions are
enforceable and deters them from enforcing rights that are
otherwise provided under the law.  He, however, does not allege
that the Terms of Use caused him any actual harm in his hotel
booking process, his hotel stay, or the events leading up to the
filing of his Complaint.  The Plaintiff has not amended his
Complaint since the initiation of the suit to add any allegations
of specific harm stemming from the Terms of Use.

Wyndham responded to the Complaint with a motion to dismiss on Aug.
15, 2016, in which it argued that the Plaintiff's second claim, the
TCCWNA claim, fails because the Plaintiff suffered no injury from
the Terms of Use and thus lacked constitutional and statutory
standing to sue.  The Court denied the motion to dismiss in an
Opinion dated Feb. 15, 2017, and an amended Order dated April 19,
2017.  

The Court concluded that the Plaintiff had shown constitutional
standing based on the existence of a tangible injury, or risk of
injury -- to the Plaintiff's asserted right to redress under the
CFA.  The Court also rejected Wyndham's argument that the Plaintiff
was not an "aggrieved consumer" statutorily empowered to bring
suit.  The denial of Wyndham's motion to dismiss was without
prejudice to Wyndham reasserting its standing arguments at a later
stage in the case.  Wyndham eventually answered the Class Action
Complaint.

That later stage is now, and that direct guidance from the New
Jersey Supreme Court has arrived.  On April 16, 2018, the New
Jersey Supreme Court answered a certified question from the Court
of Appeals on what it means to be an "aggrieved consumer" under the
TCCWNA.  Wyndham filed the pending Motion, seeking dismissal of the
TCCWNA claim for lack of statutory standing on the basis that the
Plaintiff is not an "aggrieved consumer.

Because Wyndham has already filed its Answer to Plaintiff's
Complaint, and because the Court's denial of the motion to dismiss
was without prejudice to Wyndham re-asserting its arguments at a
later stage, the Court will construe the pending Motion as one for
judgment on the pleadings and not one for reconsideration.

The parties have competing interpretations of the New Jersey
Supreme Court's ruling in Spade v. Select Comfort Corp. and its
application to the instant case.  

Judge Hornak concludes that Spade simply did not extend "aggrieved
consumer" status to those who could in theory realize harm from
deceptive contract terms but do not suffer any actual harm
(monetary or otherwise) flowing from the asserted deceptive terms.
The Plaintiff candidly admitted that if the Court found his
Complaint deficient on the issue of "aggrieved consumer," he had no
further factual allegations that could save his TCCWNA claim.
Therefore, any leave to amend would be futile in the case.  The
TCCWNA claim will be dismissed from the Plaintiff's Complaint with
prejudice.  For these reasons, he granted Wyndham's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings, and dismissed Count II, the TCCWNA
claim, with prejudice.  An appropriate Order will issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 16, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/PQNmiY from Leagle.com.

THOMAS LUCA, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Carey Alexander,
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, pro hac vice, Erin G. Comite --
ecomite@scott-scott.com -- Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, Gary
F. Lynch -- glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet &
Kilpela, LLP, Joseph P. Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com --
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, Derek J. Markle, Carlson Lynch
Sweet, Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP, Jamisen A. Etzel --
jetzel@carlonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, Kelly
K. Iverson, Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP & R. Bruce
Carlson -- bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet &
Kilpela, LLP.

WYNDHAM HOTEL GROUP, LLC & WYNDHAM HOTELS AND RESORTS, LLC,
Defendants, represented by David A. Strassburger --
dstrassburger@smgglaw.com -- Strassburger, McKenna, Gutnick &
Gefsky, Kenneth Winn Allen -- winn.allen@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Ronald K. Anguas, Jr. --
ronald.anguas@kirkland.com -- Kirkland and Ellis LLP, pro hac vice
& Zachary A. Avallone -- zachary.avallone@kirkland.com -- Kirkland
& Ellis LLP, pro hac vice.


XPO LOGISTICS: Feb. 12 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until February 12, 2019 to file lead
plaintiff applications in securities class action lawsuits against
XPO Logistics, Inc. (NYSE: XPO), if they purchased the Company's
securities between February 26, 2014, and December 13, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  These actions are pending in the
United States District Courts for the District of Connecticut and
Southern District of New York.

XPO Logistics, Inc. (NYSE: XPO)
Class Period: February 26, 2014 - December 12, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 12, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/xpo-logistics-inc-loss-form?wire=3

The lawsuit alleges: XPO Logistics, Inc. made materially false
and/or misleading statements throughout the class period and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) XPO's highly touted aggressive M&A
strategy had yielded only minimal returns to the Company; (ii) XPO
was utilizing improper accounting practices to mask its true
financial condition, including, inter alia, under-reporting of bad
debts and aggressive amortization assumptions; and (iii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Get Help

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

                        About the Lawsuits

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

On December 13, 2018, Spruce Point Capital Management reported that
its lengthy investigation into XPO revealed "concrete evidence to
suggest dubious tax accounting, under-reporting of bad debts,
phantom income through unaccountable M&A earn-out liabilities, and
aggressive amortization assumptions: all designed to portray
glowing ‘Non-GAAP" results" and "financial irregularities
[covering] growing financial strain," among other findings.

On this news, the price of XPO's shares plummeted $15.77 per share,
or 26.17%.

The first case filed is Labul v. XPO Logistics, Inc., 18-cv-02062.

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


YOGAWORKS INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on December 27, 2018, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California against YogaWorks, Inc. (NASDAQ:
YOGA). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 11, 15 and 22 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933,
including allegations of issuing a series of material or false
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
pursuant and/or traceable to YogaWorks, Inc.'s initial public
offering commenced on or about August 10, 2017 and closed on August
16, 2017.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all YogaWorks, Inc.
shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and
are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may
move the Court no later than Monday, February 25, 2019 to serve as
a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so,
you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights please:

         Robin Hester, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Website: www.federmanlaw.com
         Email: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]


YOUNG AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in 1st Amended Apodaca Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, YVONNE APODACA, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. YOUNG AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY,
LOYA INSURANCE COMPANY, and EP LOYA GROUP, LP, Defendants, Case No.
CIV 18-0399 RB/JHR (D. N.M.), Judge Robert C. Brack of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint, filed on Aug. 6, 2018.

In the putative class action, Ms. Apodaca alleges that the
Defendants misrepresented the terms of her underinsured motorist
coverage.  In 2017, the Plaintiff sustained bodily injuries and
damages to her car in an automobile accident with Mr. Ben Shriver.
Mr. Shriver, who was arrested for aggravated driving while under
the influence, was at fault in the accident.

The Plaintiff had an auto insurance policy with Young America.  She
carried the New Mexico minimum auto insurance liability amounts,
which provide bodily injury coverage of $25,000 per person and
$50,000 per accident (25/50 coverage), and property damage coverage
of $10,000.  She had also purchased uninsured/underinsured (UM/UIM)
motorist coverage in the same amounts.

The Plaintiff received the full extent of bodily injury liability
coverage carried by Mr. Shriver, $25,000.  She believed that she
was also entitled to bodily injury coverage benefits from her own
UM/UIM policy and filed a claim with Young America after the
accident.  Young America denied her claim for UM/UIM bodily injury
coverage benefits, however, on the basis that it was entitled to a
full offset of Mr. Shriver's Policy payments.

When the Plaintiff purchased the UM/UIM coverage, Young America
told her that it would benefit her in the event of an accident with
an underinsured driver.  She Plaintiff avers that Young America
misrepresented information about the UM/UIM coverage, and that it
knew or should have known that the 25/50 UM/UIM coverage was
meaningless.  Young America failed to inform thePlaintiff that, due
to New Mexico's "offset" law, the 25/50 UM/UIM coverage would not
necessarily result in a payment of benefits if triggered by an
accident with a motorist who also has 25/50 coverage.
Additionally, Young America did not tell the Plaintiff about
premium costs for higher amounts of UM/UIM coverage or give her a
fair opportunity to select a higher amount of coverage.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants worked together as a
joint venture to sell automobile policies to New Mexico residents
and are jointly and severally liable for the acts and resulting
damages" alleged in her Amended Complaint.  She purports to bring
this claim on behalf of herself and other New Mexico insureds who
have been deceived by the Defendants' practices.

The matter is before the Court on the Motion of the Defendants to
Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.  The Defendants argue
that the Plaintiff does not have standing to bring suit against
either Loya Insurance Co. or EP Loya Group, LP, and that she has
otherwise failed to state a claim.

Judge Brack granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.  He dismissed (i) all of the Plaintiff's claims
against Defendants Loya and EP Loya; and (ii) the Plaintiff's
claims against Young America in Count III (violations of N.M. Stat.
Ann. Sections 59-16-20(B)-(E), (G), and (N)), Count IV (breach of
contract), and Count V (breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing). He denied the remainder of the Motion to Dismiss.

Among other things, the Judge finds that (i) the Plaintiff's
general assertions of 'joint venture,' without any factual details
whatsoever, are insufficient; and (ii) the Plaintiff's breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim (Count V) fails
for the same reason her breach of contract claim (Count IV) fails
-- she Plaintiff has not shown that Young America breached a term
of the contract or otherwise deprived her of the benefits of the
agreement.

The Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint in this matter no
later than Jan. 28, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 16, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/xV78AI from Leagle.com.

Yvonne Apodaca, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Corinne Holt, Will Ferguson &
Associates & Adrian O. Vega, Will Ferguson & Associates.

Young America Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Andrew B
Curtis -- andrew@bigbeecurtislaw.com -- Bigbee & Curtis, LLP,
Ernest E. Vargo -- evargo@bakerlaw.com -- Baker Hostetler LLP,
Kinzie Reed Johnson -- kjohnson@cthglawfirm.com -- Craig, Terrill,
Hale & Grantham, LLP, Leonard Raymond Grossman --
budg@cthglawfirm.com -- Craig, Terrill, Hale & Grantham, LLP,
Michael Mumford -- mmumford@bakerlaw.com -- Baker Hostetler LLP &
Gary Michael Bellair -- garyb@cthglawfirm.com -- Craig, Terrill,
Hale & Grantham, LLP.



                            *********

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 ***