CAR_Public/190205.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, February 5, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 26

                            Headlines

1700 CAFE: Refugio Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
525 GRAND STREET: Espino Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Made Unsolicited Calls, Bellenger Suit Says
ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES: Dismissal of FDCPA Claims in Powell Affirmed
ALPHA CONSTRUCTION: Certification of Workers' Case Sought

APTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL: Vaughn Seeks Unpaid Wages, Reimbursements
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Wong Sues over Fin'l Report, Share Price Drop
ARS NATIONAL SERVICES: Rodriguez Disputes Vague Collection Letter
AVCOA INC: Faces AMCO Insurance Class Suit in N.D. Illinois
BAYER AG: Motion to Decertify Class in Farar Suit Denied

BLUHM & ASSOCIATES: Witt Sues over Debt Collection Practices
CAPIO PARTNERS: Taylor Disputes Collection Letter
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Geiger Suit Granted Class Certification
CORE INSTITUTE: Marin Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
CORRECTIONS CORP: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Grae Suit

CREDIT CONTROL: Radicchi Suit in NY Asserts FDCPA Violation
DAE & ASSOCIATES: Denied Engineers Overtime Premiums, Says Suit
EMMELLE DESIGN: Suarez Seeks Unpaid Min., Overtime Wages
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Olson Sues Over Vague Collection Letter
FIESTA FLOORING: Hawthorne Hits Misclassification, Seeks OT Pay

FINISAR CORP: Klein Files Suit Over Mutation Merger Deal
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Massari Sues Board Over Sale to Risley Affiliates
GLV INC: Court Certifies Class in Mullen ICFA/IPFSA Suit
HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: Kinlock Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
HELP AT HOME: Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended Phillips FLSA Suit Denied

JACK PHELAN CHEVROLET: Salespersons Seek Unpaid Wages
JEUNESSE LLC: Xiong Appeals Ruling in Aboltin Suit to 11th Cir.
JO-ANN STORES: Ledo Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
KENNETH LASSITER: Dean-Bey et al. Seek to Certify Prisoners Class
LOGITECH INC: Reconsideration of June/Aug. Orders in Porath Denied

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Feb. 18 Identification of Experts Due in Kempf
MDL 2323: Attys' Fees/Costs Bid in NFL's Concussion Injury Suit OKd
MDL 2741: Anglin Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Bargy Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Belsome Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2741: Bernard Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Hatfield Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Hatmaker Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Larke Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: McDaniel Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MIMOSA HOUSE: Castillo Files Suit in Ca. Super. Ct.
MM 879: California Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Cruz Suit
MM 879: Court Certifies Classes & Subclasses in Cruz Suit
MPKS INC: Green Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages
MYCLEAN INC: Shortchanges Cleaner's Wages, Suit Says

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Alvarez Files Personal Injury Class Action
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Blunt Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Caldwell Files PI Class Action
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Charles Files PI Class Action in Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Keith Suit for Personal Injury

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Flamish Files Personal Injury Class Action
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Fletcher Suit Asserts Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Gholson Sues for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hanson Files Personal Injury Class Suit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Jensen Brings Class Action for Personal Injury

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Mackey Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: McGrier Files PI Class Action in Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Ruo Files Personal Injury Class Suit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Simmons Suit Asserts Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Wasil Files Class Action for Personal Injury

NAVIENT CORP: Bid to Certify Class Withdrawn without Prejudice
NEW YORK PIZZERIA: Ettorre Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
NEW YORK: MG Suit Challenges Institutionalization in State Prison
NISSAN NORTH: Mass. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Costa Suit
NUTRISYSTEM INC: Klein Challenges Sale to Tivity Health

NUTRISYSTEM INC: Shaev Sues Over Trivity Merger Deal
OGLETREE & DEAKINS: Knepper Suit Moved to C.D. California
PAPA JOHN'S: Burnham FLSA Suit Has Conditional Class Certification
PARRENT SMITH: Griffin FCRA Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. Calif.
PELLEGRINI VINEYARDS: Website not Blind-friendly, Claims Traynor

PERSONNEL STAFFING: Final Class Cert. Bid Filed in Haack et al.
PET MEDS: Fischler Files Suit Under ADA in S.D. New York
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Madinya Suit
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Andrews Seeks Damages Over Dental Floss
RADIUS GLOBAL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Henry FDCPA Suit

ROBY CRESCENT: Court Certifies Quinn's FLSA Collective Action
SANTA BARBARA HOSPITALITY: Ingraham Appeals Order in Byrne Suit
SERVICE OF PROCESS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Swinter TCPA Suit
SIMM ASSOCIATES: Nieto Appeals N.D. Illinois Ruling to 7th Cir.
SOGOU INC: Luo Sues Over Share Price Drop from Mismanagement

SPRING ENERGY: Holland Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
TEZOS SECURITIES: Pumaro LLC et al. Seek to Certify Class
THRIVE COLLECTION: Faircloth Sues Over Unfair Collection Practices
TIGER EYE: Fails to Properly Pay Delivery Drivers, Adkinson Says
TIMEPAYMENT CORP: Denied O'Neill Overtime Premiums, Says Suit

TOUGH MUDDER: Suit Over Mudderella Boston Removed to Dist. Ct.
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Berry Suit
UBER TECH: Glasgo Sues Over Unwanted SMS Ad Messages
UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Hmong People's Suit
UNIV OF ARIZONA: Health Plan Excludes Gender Dysphoria, Toomey Says

WAYFAIR INC: Goodstein Sues Over Share Price Drop
WESTERN EXPRESS: Elmy Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
WHITE CONTRACTING: Rosas Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay

                            *********

1700 CAFE: Refugio Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Bertin Refugio, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. 1700 Cafe & Bake, LLC and Kerrim Jivani, Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-00192 (S.D. N.Y., January 10, 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.

1700 Cafe & Bake, LLC does business as a "Tim Hortons" restaurant
and bakery, with a principal place of business at 1700 Richmond
Avenue, Staten Island, New York 10314, where Refugio worked as a
baker. He claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week
without being paid overtime. [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


525 GRAND STREET: Espino Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
----------------------------------------------------
Luis Jaime Vargas Espino, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 525 Grand Street, LLC and
Alphonse Dipilato, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00335 (S.D. N.Y.,
January 11, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime
wages and redress for failure to provide itemized wage statements
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor
Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a pizzeria, located at 525
Grand St, New York, NY 10002 under the name "Alphonso's Pizzeria
Trattoria" where Espino worked as a dishwasher, pizza maker, cook,
cashier and delivery worker. He worked in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, spread-of-hours and
overtime compensation for the hours that they worked. Defendants
also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked.
Vargas' actual duties, in payroll records, was as a delivery worker
instead of as a non-tipped employee, thus allowing Defendants to
pay Espino above the tip-credit rate, but below the minimum wage.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Made Unsolicited Calls, Bellenger Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
GINA BELLENGER, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No.
0:19-cv-60205-WPD (S.D. Fla., January 23, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making
calls to the Plaintiff and Class Members using an "automatic
telephone dialing system" and an "artificial or prerecorded voice"
without their prior express consent.

Accounts Receivable Management, Inc., is a professional corporation
and citizen of the state of Florida with its principal place of
business located in Miramar, Florida.

ARM provides accounts receivable management solutions in the United
States.  The Company offers debt collection services, as well as
enables its customers to pay debts online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
          110 SE 6th Street
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD.
          4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Telephone: (312) 283-3814
          Facsimile: (773) 496-8617
          E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com


ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES: Dismissal of FDCPA Claims in Powell Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph A. Greenaway Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit affirmed District Court order granting Aldous' motion
to dismiss the case, FITZROY POWELL, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Appellant, v. ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES,
P.L.L.C.; JOHN DOES 1-25 (Case No. 18-1461) (3d Cir.).

The case is a putative class action brought by Fitzroy Powell
against Aldous, a law firm in Utah that acts as a debt collector.
In a letter dated Jan. 21, 2017, Aldous sought to collect from
Powell a debt owed to Diamond Wireless.  Powell alleges that the
debt settlement letter Aldous sent him violated sections 1692e(3),
(5), and (10) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").


Powell filed suit.  He premised those allegations on his view that
the letter could mislead the least sophisticated consumer to
believe that an attorney at Aldous was meaningfully involved in
collecting the debt, and that Aldous could commence legal action
against said consumer.  That, in turn, would not only violate
sections 1692e(3) and (5), but also section 1692e(10) and 1692e
more generally, as the letter could constitute using false,
deceptive, or misleading representations to attempt to collect a
debt.

Aldous filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the
District Court granted that motion.  The District Court concluded
that the letter sufficiently disclaims meaningful attorney
involvement, and merely states that failure to pay the debt at all
may have a negative impact on one's creditt.  It does not threaten
legal action or suggest that a suit is imminent.

Powell appealed.  The crux of Powell's case is that Aldous's letter
is a debt collection letter from a law firm, which uses the firm
letterhead, and includes numerous legal terms of art such as
"amnesty," "obligation," and "settlement."  This is despite the
fact that the letter simultaneously acknowledges that no lawyer
from the firm has been admitted to practice in the debtor's state.
In Powell's view, such a letter violates section 1692e(3) because
it implies meaningful attorney involvement where there was none; it
violates section 1692e(5) because it implies that a lawsuit could
be instituted by Aldous when it cannot; and section 1692e(10)
because it could be read to have two or more meanings on each of
those points, one of which is inaccurate.

Aldous counters that the letter is FDCPA-compliant because it
contains an attorney disclaimer -- a statement disclaiming that an
attorney has personally reviewed the debtor's account—placed on
the "front and center" of the letter, as opposed to on the back.
To that effect, Aldous argues that its letter is consistent with
our decision in Lesher v. Law Offices of Mitchell N. Kay, PC.

Judge Greenaway holds that both parties miss the mark.  He finds
that Powell's argument is ultimately unhelpful because the letter
does include language intended to clear up any misimpression that
Aldous was acting as an attorney and that there was meaningful
attorney involvement.  Aldous, on the other hand, puts undue weight
on the placement of the disclaimers.  But he also considered the
collection letters at issue in their totality, and concluded that
they falsely implied that an attorney, acting as an attorney, was
involved in collecting the relevant debt.

Powell's section 1692e(5) claim also fails because, for the reasons
provided by the District Court, the Judge also concludes that the
letter would not lead the least sophisticated consumer to believe
that a lawsuit was being threatened.  In so holding, because
Powell's arguments related to his section 1692e(10) claims depend
on the same facts and arguments as those for his sections 1692e(3)
and (5) claims, the Judge does not find the sort of ambiguity
Powell suggests in support of his section 1692e(10) claim.

Bases on the foregoing, Judge Greenaway affirmed the District
Court's dismissal of Powell's FDCPA claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/D8vG1G from Leagle.com.


ALPHA CONSTRUCTION: Certification of Workers' Case Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned PEDRO TORRES-TINAJERO, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiffs, vs. ALPHA CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRIAD, INC., JUDITH J.
BAUTISTA, and JEFFREY W. ALLEY, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00160-WO-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs move the Court on
Jan. 23, 2019, for an order:

   1. certifying the Plaintiff as the class representative of the
      class defined as:

      "all construction or concrete workers employed by defendant
      Jeffrey W. Alley in the construction enterprise operated by
      the Defendant Jeffrey W. Alley for at least one workweek at
      any time in in the time period starting with the first
      workweek ending on or after March 1, 2016 3 through the date

      final judgment is entered in this action, and who were not
      paid all wages when due by Jeffrey W. Alley at one and one-
      half times the regular hourly wage rate disclosed to them
      pursuant N.C.Gen.Stat. sections 95-25.13(1)-(2) for all
      hours worked in those same workweeks when the total of hours

      worked in any such workweek exceeded 40 in the same
      workweek"; or

      "all construction or concrete workers employed by defendant
      Jeffrey W. Alley in the construction enterprise operated by
      defendant Jeffrey W. Alley for at least one workweek at any
      time in in the time period starting with the first workweek
      ending on or after March 1, 2016 through the date final
      judgment is entered in this action, and who were not paid
      all wages when due by Jeffrey W. Alley at one and one-half
      times the regular hourly wage rate as required by
      N.C.Gen.Stat. sections 95-25.4 for all hours worked in those

      same workweeks when the total of hours worked in any such
      workweek exceeded 40 in the same workweek."

   2. directing Jeffrey W. Alley to deliver to the Law Office of
      Robert J. Willis, P.A., 488 Thompson Street, Pittsboro,
      North Carolina 27312, Tel: (919) 821-9031, a list of the
      full names, last known addresses, last known telephone
      and/or cellphone number(s), and last known, if any were
      known, e-mail addresses of those persons whom defendants
      Jeffrey W. Alley, Judith J. Bautista Alley, and/or Alpha
      Construction of the Triad, Inc. paid or used at any time in
      the period from March 1, 2016 through the present date to
      perform any construction or concrete work for Jeffrey W.
      Alley, Alpha Construction of the Triad, Inc. or Alpha
      Construction of NC, Inc.; and

   3. granting permission to send Notice by U.S. Mail, postage
      prepaid, First class delivery, to the putative members of
      the Rule 23(b)(3) class, the last known mailing address
      available for each such putative member, as provided to the
      Plaintiff's counsel by defendant Jeffrey W. Alley.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Robert J. Willis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, P.A.
          P.O. Box 1828
          Pittsboro, NC 27312
          Telephone: (919) 821-9031
          Facsimile: (919)821-1763
          E-mail: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com

APTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL: Vaughn Seeks Unpaid Wages, Reimbursements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus A. Vaughn, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Aptive Environmental, LLC and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG19002062 (Cal.
Super., January 10, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime wages and interest
thereon, redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal
periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon
separation of employment, reimbursement of business-related
expenses, failure to maintain time-keeping records, injunctive
relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees,
costs and interest under California Labor Code and applicable
Industrial Wage Orders.

Aptive -- https://www.goaptive.com/ -- operates a pest-control
company with locations all over the US. Vaugh worked as an hourly,
non-exempt employee in their Alameda CA location. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Dalia Khalili, Esq.
      Brittany R. Gibson, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
      Email: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
             dkhalili@maternlawgroup.com
             bgibson@maternlawgroup.com


ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Wong Sues over Fin'l Report, Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
SPENCER WONG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ARLO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., MATTHEW
McRAE, CHRISTINE M. GORJANC, PATRICK C.S. LO, and ANDREW W. KIM,
the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00372-BLF (N.D. Cal., Jan. 22,
2019), is a federal securities class action on behalf of persons
and/or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Arlo common
stock pursuant or traceable to the Arlo's false and/or misleading
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the
Arlo's August 3, 2018 initial public offering, who were damaged.

According to the complaint, Arlo was incorporated in 2018 and is
headquartered in San Jose, California. The Company provides smart
connected devices that can purportedly monitor environments in
real-time using its cloud-based platform. This is accomplished by
using a Wi-Fi or cellular network Internet connection in the
Americas, Europe, the Middle-East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific
regions. By using Arlo's cloud-based platform, consumers may engage
in real-time with their families and businesses from any location
with an internet connection. Arlo also offers Wi-Fi- and
LTE-enabled cameras, advanced baby monitors, and smart security
lights.

On August 6, 2018, Arlo filed its prospectus for an initial public
offering with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Arlo sold
11,747,250 shares of common stock at $16.00 per share in its IPO,
for proceeds of approximately $167.4 million, net of underwriting
discounts and commissions, purportedly to be used for general
corporate purposes.

Arlo was a wholly-owned subsidiary of NETGEAR, Inc. before the IPO.
NETGEAR offers products enabling networking, broadband access, and
network connectivity. NETGEAR owned approximately 84.2% of the
shares of Arlo's outstanding common stock after the IPO.

On November 30, 2018, Arlo announced its "flagship wire-free
security camera system" called Arlo Ultra.  The Company touted a
"newly designed rechargeable battery" that would purportedly enable
the Ultra product to provide 4K Ultra HD resolution with high
dynamic range, color night vision, and advanced image processing.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) there was a flaw and/or quality issue with Arlo's newly
designed battery for its Ultra camera systems; (ii) this flaw
and/or quality issue with the Ultra battery could result in a
shipping delay of Arlo's Ultra product; (iii) such a shipping delay
endangered Arlo's chances of launching the Ultra product in time
for the crucial holiday season; (iv) such a shipping delay would
allow Arlo's competitors to capitalize on the Ultra product's
missed launch, thereby increasing their own market share; (v)
Arlo's consumers had been experiencing battery drain issues and
other battery-related issues in connection with recent firmware
updates; (vi) because of the foregoing, Arlo's fourth quarter 2018
results and consumer base would be negatively impacted; and (vii)
as a result, Arlo's Registration Statement was materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On December 3, 2018, Arlo reported a delay in shipments of Ultra,
citing "a quality issue with the battery from one of its suppliers"
that was discovered during the product's final testing phase. As a
result of the delay, Ultra also lowered its fourth quarter 2018
financial guidance, advising investors that it anticipated "net
revenue to be in the range of $125 million to $130 million,
non-GAAP gross margin to be approximately 10%, and non-GAAP
operating loss to be approximately 20% of revenue." Following this
news, Arlo's stock price fell $2.75 per share, or 22.86%, to close
at $9.28 on December 3, 2018. This constituted a decline of $6.72,
or approximately 42%, from the IPO price of 3 $16.00 per share. As
a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1557
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (818) 532-6499
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

ARS NATIONAL SERVICES: Rodriguez Disputes Vague Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ARS National Services, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 700486/2019, (N.Y. Sup., January 9, 2019), seeks damages
and remedies pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
New York General Business Law.

On or about January 10, 2018, Rodriguez received a letter
attempting to collect a past due debt to NBT Bank that did not
state the original amount of the loan yet listed several entries of
"interests" and "charges" with "zero," thus creating confusion.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Simon Goldenberg, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF SIMON GOLDENBERG, PLLC
      818 East 16th
      Brooklyn, NY 11230
      Tel: (347) 640-4357
      Fax: (347) 472-0347


AVCOA INC: Faces AMCO Insurance Class Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
AMCO Insurance Company v. Avcoa, Inc. and Joshua Moyer,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00480 (N.D. Ill., January 23, 2019), seeks declaratory
judgment arising from an insurance-related dispute.

The case docket notes that this is related to a case in another
court styled as JOSHUA MOYER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AVCOA, INC., Case No. 2018-CH-14539
(Ill. Cir., Cook Cty.).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan L. Schwartz, Esq.
          GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP
          311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2450
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 572-8411
          E-mail: jschwartz@goldbergsegalla.com


BAYER AG: Motion to Decertify Class in Farar Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Farar, the Plaintiff v. Bayer
AG, the Defendant, Case 3:14-cv-04601-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge William H. Orrick entered an order on Jan. 22, 2019:

a. granting, in part, a motion to strike expert testimony.

   -- Mathiowetz and Martin were disclosed as "damages" experts in
      late 2018. Therefore, neither expert can testify in Phase I
      of the trial because their testimony as to materiality or
      reliance was not timely disclosed. Accordingly, Mathiowetz
      is not able to testify as to her survey question regarding
      whether consumers would continue to purchase OAD after being

      informed that the product does not provide any benefits with

      respect to heart health, immunity, or energy for an
      otherwise healthy person who eats a balanced diet. That
      testimony is struck and excluded. Mathiowetz will be allowed

      to testify in Phase II as to her survey question showing
      that slightly less than one-third of consumers of such
      products take multivitamins at the recommendation of a
      health professional. In Phase II, Martin may generally rebut

      plaintiffs' damages calculations. See Martin Report (Dkt.
      No. 244-4) Section X. However, Martin may not testify as to
      an "insurance benefit" providing "value" to consumers,
      unless a foundation is laid through a medical expert or
      otherwise admissible testimony showing that a specific
      percentage of the population is borderline  with respect to
      nutrient deficiencies and could, therefore, benefit
      nutritionally from a multivitamin supplement as an
      "insurance policy." Martin's "market evidence" opinions
      based on sales data pre and post-use of the Challenged
      Statements and her statistical analyses are struck because
      they go to materiality and were not timely disclosed. Martin

      may not testify as to her theory of "market value" for
      consumers who are not nutrient deficient. Therefore,
      Martin's testimony and opinions on those topics are struck
      and excluded.

b. denying a motion to decertify class.

   -- The motion relies exclusively on the materiality and
      reliance-related testimony of Mathiowetz and Martin that has

      been struck. That alone requires denial of the motion. In
      addition, the securities cases on which Bayer relied that
      discuss rebuttal of the fraud-on-the-market presumption are
      inapposite. The consumer protection cases cited by Bayer are

      also inapposite as they address situations where discovery
      demonstrated that defendant's representations were not
      uniform, that consumers saw different representations or
      significant numbers were not exposed to the representations
      at all, or where some consumers were shown to have known the

      truth about the alleged misrepresentations but purchased the

      product/service in any event. None of those issues are
      presented in this case. Given the structure and requirements

      of the consumer protection claims at issue in this case,
      utilizing a presumption of reliance based on materiality and

      the need (for some of the claims only) to show reliance,
      there is no disconnect with the "full refund" damages model
      and no Comcast problem. There is a sufficient connection
      between the claims -- the Challenged Statements were
      material, and for some, relied upon) and the plaintiffs'
      theory that the product was of no nutritional value to the
      vast majority of consumers to support the full-refund model.

c. directing Plaintiffs to proceed with their punitive damages
   claim under Florida law only.

   -- Bayer had fair notice from the complaint that punitive  
      damages were being sought. Plaintiffs' error in specifically

      identifying punitive damages under the wrong statute has not

      been shown to have prejudiced Bayer, nor has Bayer shown how

      plaintiffs have failed to "litigate" the issue of
      punitive damages. Whether the evidence at trial supports an

      award of punitive damages under Florida law is another  
      matter, which can be tested post-trial as necessary.

d. deciding Plaintiffs' Motions in Limine:

   1. denying motions in Limine Nos. 1 and 9.

   -- Testimony regarding the named plaintiffs' relationships to
      class counsel is permitted for the limited purpose of
      showing bias and lack of individual reliance on the
      Challenged Statements. Bayer may not elicit testimony or
      make argument as to the named plaintiffs' financial motives
      given those relationships. A limiting instruction will be
      provided.

   2. denying motion in Limine No. 2.

   -- Bayer does not intend to and should not characterize named  
      plaintiffs' damages in any way, but Bayer can discuss  
      circumstances surrounding named plaintiffs' purchase of OAD

      and any continued use of multivitamins after this suit was
      filed.

   3. grating motion in Limine No. 3.

   -- Bayer does not intend to present any evidence as to absent
      class member damages in Phase I.

   4. granting motion in Limine No. 4.

   -- The parties appear to agree on the distinction between what

      can be shown/argued in Phase I and Phase II. Plaintiffs must

      show in Phase II that products provide no nutritional  
      benefit to majority of consumers.

   5. granting motion in Limine No. 5.

   -- If presumption of reliance based on materiality established

      in Phase I, in Phase II that presumption continues but Bayer

      may come forward with evidence of the nutritional value of
      OAD products to class members to prove the offset.

   6. denying, in part, motion in Limine No. 6.

   -- Consistent with rulings above, Martin or other experts may
      testify as to "insurance benefit" in Phase II only when
      there has been expert or otherwise admissible testimony
      quantifying the number or percentage of consumers who are
      borderline nutrient deficient and who could, therefore,
      receive nutritional benefits from taking OAD products.

   7. denying motion in Limine No. 7.

   -- But Mathiowetz and Martin  may testify in Phase II on
      topics identified above.

   8. denying Motion in Limine No. 8.

   -- Bayer may explore named plaintiffs' use of other
      multivitamins.

   9. denying Motion in Limine No. 10.

   -- Bayer may explore with plaintiffs in Phase I their use of
      multivitamins for the purpose of challenging their reliance
      on the Challenged Statements.

  10. partly granting Motion in Limine No. 11.

   -- Bayer agrees there is no need to discuss this in Phase I,  
      but Bayer will generally be allowed to test the named  
      plaintiffs' reliance on the Challenged Statements, and in  
      Phase II will be allowed to introduce evidence of consumers

      using multivitamins on advice of health professionals.

  11. denying Motion in Limine No. 12.

   -- Bayer and plaintiffs can explore whether non-party witnesses

      take multivitamins.

e. deciding Defendant's Motions in Limine:

   1. denying motions in Limine Nos. 1-3.

   -- Plaintiffs may introduce evidence of Bayer's advertising and

      marketing materials which, although now not relevant to
      stipulated-to materiality, are relevant to the actual or
      implied falsity of the Challenged Statements and Bayer's
      motivation and conduct.

   2. denying Motion in Limine No. 4.

   -- It is unclear what Bayer wants me to exclude or rule

   3. denying motion in Limine No. 5.

   -- The Plaintiffs may introduce evidence of harm from taking
      multivitamins.

   4. denying Motion in Limine No. 6.

   -- Plaintiffs may introduce evidence regarding lack of  
      substantiation to support their actual or implied falsity  
      claim, but I may give a limiting instruction as necessary to

      clarify that the burden to prove  actual or implied falsity

      remains on plaintiffs.

   5. denying motion in Limine No. 7.

   -- Admissibility of news articles will be addressed on a
case-by-case basis but, if offered to.[CC]

Attorneys for PlaintiffS:

          Jeffrey M. Tillotson, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Patton, Esq.
          Jim Goff, Esq.
          TILLOTSON LAW
          1807 Ross Ave Ste 325
          Dallas, TX 75201-8040
          Telephone: (214) 382-3043
          E-mail: jpatton@tillotsonlaw.com
                  jtillotson@tillotsonlaw.com
                  jtillotson@tillotsonlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Zevin, Esq.
          STANLEY LAW GROUP
          6116 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1500
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 443-4301
          Facsimile: (214) 443-0358

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Sean Eskovitz, Esq.
          James M. Rosenthal, Esq.
          Kieran G. Gostin, Esq.
          Alexandra M. Wash, Esq.
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (424) 291-9655
          Facsimile: (202) 847-4005
          E-mail: seskovitz@wilkinsonwalsh.com
                  jrosenthal@wilkinsonwalsh.com
                  kgostin@wilkinsonwalsh.com
                  awalsh@wilkinsonwalsh.com

BLUHM & ASSOCIATES: Witt Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
NOAH WITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE LAW OFFICE OF MITCHELL D. BLUHM &
ASSOCIATES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-60199-CMA (S.D.
Fla., Jan. 23, 2019), alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has dispatched thousands
of consumer debt collection letters to Florida consumers without
first obtaining a license to collect consumer debts in the State of
Florida as mandated by section 559.553 of the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act. On March 30, 2010, the Eleventh Circuit
unequivocally pronounced that the failure to register oneself in
the State of Florida as a "Consumer Collection Agency" constitutes
a valid basis for an alleged violation of the FDCPA.

The Law Offices of Mitchell D. Bluhm & Associates, LLC is a law
firm based in Texas that specializes in third-party debt
collection.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954 907-1136
          Facsimile: 855 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com

CAPIO PARTNERS: Taylor Disputes Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------
Alicia Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Capio Partners, LLC and CF Medical, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00091, (S.D. Ind., December 10, 2019),
seeks actual and statutory damages, costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendants operate a nationwide debt collection business and
attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every state,
including consumers in the State of Indiana. Taylor was unable to
pay a number of medical bills, which included numerous debts she
allegedly owed for medical services. Defendants sent Ms. Taylor a
collection letter attempting to collect three defaulted medical
debts, including a debt from August 19, 2011. However, said letter
did not disclose that the debt was time-barred and instead, lumped
the time-barred debt in with two timely debts -- making it appear
as if all of the debts were the same and were fully collectible,
notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
      Angie K. Robertson, Esq
      PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
      9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
      Palos Hills, IL 60465
      Tel: (708) 974-2900
      Fax: (708) 974-2907
      Email: davephilipps@aol.com
             mephilipps@aol.com
             angie@philippslegal.com

             - and -

      John T. Steinkamp, Esq.
      5214 S. East Street, Suite D1
      Indianapolis, IN 46227
      Tel: (317) 780-8300
      Fax: (317) 217-1320
      Email: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Geiger Suit Granted Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned LOUIS GEIGER, CHRISTINA
GOMEZ, AMANDA HAYNES, PRISCILLA ESCARCEGA, and GARA BOOTEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS COMPANY, LLC, and
TWC ADMINISTRATION LLC, the Defendants, Case No. CV 18-158-DMG
(GJSx) (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an order on
Jan. 23, 2019:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for
      class certification:

      a. certifying class with regard to the booting up/shutting
         down off-the-clock, wage statement, and waiting time
         penalty claims, defined as:

         "all persons who, at any time in the 4 years preceding
         the filing of this lawsuit through the date of final
         disposition or final judgment in this action, are/were
         employed by Defendants (one or more of them) as a non-
         exempt dispatcher in Defendants' El Segundo, California
         office ("Class Members")";

      b. declining to certify the following classes:

         --  The late meal period sub-class;

         --  The second meal period sub-class;

         --  The rest period sub-classes; and

         --  The off-the-clock sub-class relating to the opening
             and closing of software programs;

      c. appointing Louis Geiger, Christina Gomez, Amanda Haynes,
         and Gara Booten as representatives of the certified
         class;

      d. appointing Rhonda H. Wills, of the Wills Law Firm, PLLC,
         and George P. Moschopolous, of the Law Office of George
         Moschopolous, APC as class counsel;

   2. granting Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification
      under the Fair Labor Standard Act, with the following
      modified definition of the collective action:

      "any person who was employed by Defendants (one or more of
      them) at Defendants' El Segundo, California dispatch center
      as a non-exempt dispatcher and who is owed wages and/or
      penalties for unpaid overtime hours worked in excess of 40
      hours in a workweek at any time within the three years
      preceding the date that such person files a written consent
      to become a party plaintiff in this action, Geiger, et al.
      v. Charter Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. CV 18-158-
      DMG (GJSx)"; and

   3. directing the parties to meet and confer regarding a
      schedule of deadlines for class notice and notice to
      potential FLSA opt-in plaintiffs, opt-in deadline, and any
      additional discovery. The parties shall also file a written
      joint status report regarding the meet and confer efforts
      and the agreed-upon schedule no later than seven days from
      the date of the Order.[CC]

CORE INSTITUTE: Marin Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
-----------------------------------------------------
Nathalia Marin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Core Institute, LLC (d/b/a Core Medical
Group), Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-60074 (S.D, Fla., January 9,
2019), seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Defendant is a healthcare facility that focuses on functional and
complementary medicine through the use of bioidentical hormone
therapy, IV therapy and nutraceutical therapy. To promote its
services, it allegedly sent unsolicited text messages en masse.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
      EDELSBERG LAW, PA
      19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 975-3320
      Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

             - and -

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: 305-479-2299
      Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


CORRECTIONS CORP: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Grae Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NIKKI BOLLINGER GRAE, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONS
CORPORATION OF AMERICA, DAMON T. HININGER, DAVID M. GARFINKLE, TODD
J. MULLENGER, and HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-2267 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Aleta A. Trauger of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville
Division, (i) denied the Motion to Certify Class filed by
Amalgamated Bank, as Trustee for the LongView Collective Investment
Fund; and (ii) denied as moot CoreCivic's Motion for Evidentiary
Hearing.

CoreCivic is a publicly traded real estate investment trust that
owns and operates private prisons and detention facilities.
Amalgamated is the lead Plaintiff in a putative class action
against CoreCivic and four CoreCivic executives for securities
fraud, based on the Defendants' history of making allegedly false
and/or misleading public statements about the quality of
CoreCivic's services and its history of performance relative to the
expectations of its federal clients, particularly the Federal
Bureau of Prisons ("BOP").

Among the more prominent and frequently repeated deficiencies at
CoreCivic's BOP facilities were CoreCivic's failures to provide
necessary medical care and testing to inmates, despite its
facilities' receiving numerous notices of deficiencies from the BOP
informing the company of the BOP's expectations and concerns.
CoreCivic's facilities were also allegedly poorly and inadequately
staffed, leading to problems with inmate safety and security.

On Aug. 11, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of
Inspector General ("OIG") published a report entitled "Review of
the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Monitoring of Contract Prisons.  The
OIG Report found that, in almost all key areas, contract prisons
had higher rates of undesirable incidents than BOP-run facilities.
The OIG Review observed that CoreCivic facilities experienced
substantially higher rates, relative to BOP institutions, of a
number of unwelcome occurrences, such as inmate fights,
inmate-on-inmate assaults, and suicide attempts/self-mutilations.

A week later, however, on Aug. 18, 2016, Deputy Attorney General
Sally Q. Yates issued a memorandum to the BOP entitled "Reducing
our Use of Private Prisons."  The Yates Memorandum concluded that
the BOP should begin the process of reducing -- and ultimately
ending -- the use of privately operated prisons.  In the wake of
the Yates Memorandum, CoreCivic's stock price dropped
precipitously.

The Yates Memorandum was eventually rescinded by a memorandum of
Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions III on Feb. 21, 2017.  The
putative class action, however, seeks to vindicate the shareholders
whose shares' value was lost when the Yate Memorandum was first
released.  

Amalgamated, which has been appointed Lead Plaintiff (Docket No.
52), has filed a Motion to Certify Class, seeking certification of
a class defined as all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Corrections Corp. of America, Inc. ("CCA") [now CoreCivic]
securities between Feb. 27, 2012 and Aug. 17, 2016, inclusive, and
who were damaged thereby.

Judge Trauger finds that because Amalgamated is unable to rely on
either the Basic presumption or the Affiliated Ute presumption, any
members of its putative class would have to establish reliance on
an individual basis.  As such, common issues of fact or law do not
predominate over individual issues of fact or law, as required by
Rule 23(b)(3).  Because Amalgamated has not set forth any other
basis for certification of the class under Rule 23(b), it is
unnecessary to consider whether it has satisfied the requirements
of Rule 23(a).  The class certification would not be permitted,
even if every requirement of Rule 23(a) were met.

The Judge stresses that the ruling is not, in any way, based on a
determination that CoreCivic and its executives were forthright in
their statements about the quality of their facilities.  Nor should
her ruling be read to rule out the possibility that members of the
public, including shareholders, may have been misled by the
defendants and harmed as a result.  

Rather, CoreCivic has merely shown that, based on the Supreme
Court's current case law regarding reliance in securities fraud
cases, the situation at issue here is one for which reliance must
be shown individually, rather than collectively.  Amalgamated,
accordingly, has not demonstrated that it is entitled to proceed on
behalf of the other investors, whose cases for reliance might be
different from its own.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Trauger denied Amalgamated's
Motion to Certify Class, and denied as moot CoreCivic's Motion for
Evidentiary Hearing.  An appropriate order will enter.

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

Nikki Bollinger Grae, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Schall --
brian@goldberglawpc.com -- Goldberg Law PC, J. Alexander Hood, II
-- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy A. Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Marc Gorrie --
mgorrie@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Michael Goldberg --
michael@goldberglawpc.com -- Goldberg Law PC, Patrick V. Dahlstrom
-- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Paul Kent Bramlett ,
Bramlett Law Offices & Robert P. Bramlett, Bramlett Law Offices.

Luvell L. Glanton, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T. Cain,
Scott & Cain.

Corrections Corporation of America, Damon T. Hiniger, David M.
Garfinkle & Todd J. Mullenger, Defendants, represented by Anna E.
Berces, Latham & Watkins, Brian T. Glennon, Latham & Watkins, LLP,
David J. Schindler, Latham & Watkins, LLP, Faraz Mohammadi, Latham
& Watkins, LLP, Milton S. McGee, III, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson,
Morgan E. Whitworth, Latham & Watkins & Steven Allen Riley, Riley,
Warnock & Jacobson.

Harley G. Lappin, Defendant, represented by Anna E. Berces, Latham
& Watkins, Faraz Mohammadi, Latham & Watkins, LLP, Morgan E.
Whitworth, Latham & Watkins & Steven Allen Riley, Riley, Warnock &
Jacobson.

CCA INVESTOR GROUP, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Paul Kent
Bramlet, Bramlett Law Offices.

Burton Siegal, Movant, represented by James A. Holifield, Jr. ,
Holifield Janich Rachal & Associates, PLLC.

Amalgamated Bank, as Trustee for the LongView Collective Investment
Fund, Movant, represented by Christopher Hamp Lyons --
clyons@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christopher
M. Wood -- cwood@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Dennis J. Herman -- dennish@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Jerry E. Martin -- jmartin@barrettjohnston.com -- Barrett
Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Kenneth J. Black --
kennyb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Willow E.
Radcliffe -- willowr@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP.


CREDIT CONTROL: Radicchi Suit in NY Asserts FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control, LLC.
The case is styled as Rosemary Radicchi, on behalf of herself
individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit
Control, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00494 (E.D. N.Y., January
25, 2019).

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

Credit Control, LLC provides financial services. The Company
provides early out solutions, collections, and debt settlement
services. Credit Control serves customers in the State of
Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq.
   Fagenson & Puglisi
   450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 704
   New York, NY 10123
   Tel: (212) 268-2128
   Fax: (212) 268-2127
   Email: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com


DAE & ASSOCIATES: Denied Engineers Overtime Premiums, Says Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rashad Mohammed, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Dae & Associates, Ltd., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-00103 (S.D. Tex., January 10, 2019), seeks to recover
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.

DAE & Associates, Ltd. is a geotechnical engineering firm based in
Houston that employed Rashad Mohammed as an hourly-paid "Project
Engineer." Mohammed regularly worked in excess of 50 hours per week
during his employment with DAE but was never compensated for his
overtime hours, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EMMELLE DESIGN: Suarez Seeks Unpaid Min., Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Meza Suarez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Emmelle Design, Inc., Mi Jong Lee, Gloria
Doe and Rosie Doe, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00327 (S.D. N.Y.,
January 11, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime
wages and redress for failure to provide itemized wage statements
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor
Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a clothing company, located at
265 West 37th Street, New York, New York 10018 under the name
"Emmelle Design" where Suarez worked as an ironer and a fabric
worker. She worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage, spread-of-hours and overtime compensation
for the hours that they worked. Defendants also failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Olson Sues Over Vague Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------
Marissa Olson, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers, Plaintiff, v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC
and John Does l-25, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00198 (E.D. N.Y.,
January 10, 2019), seeks redress for violations of the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act.

Enhanced Recovery Company -- www.ercbpo.com -- operates a debt
collection agency. It attempted to collect a credit card debt to
Capital One via a collection letter. Olson disputes the named
creditor/s in the said letter claiming it created confusion as to
the "original" creditor as it stated "Kohl's" and "Capital One"
interchangeably as original creditors. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented pro se.

      Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
      775 Park Avenue, Suite 255
      Huntington, NY 11743
      Tel: (631) 335-1107


FIESTA FLOORING: Hawthorne Hits Misclassification, Seeks OT Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Hawthorn and Charles Bush, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fiesta Flooring, LLC and
Thomas M. Thompson, individually, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00019,
(D. N.M., January 9, 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 forty hours per week
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage
Act.

Defendants are flooring contractors, specializing in installing
tile for businesses across the United States. Hawthorn has been an
installer from September 1, 2017 through the present while Bush has
been a helper from July 1, 2017 through July 1, 2018. They claim to
misclassified as "exempt" from the overtime privileges and have
regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week without overtime
pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
      Douglas Welmaker, Esq.
      MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      The Commissioners House at Heritage Square
      2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L
      Austin, TX 78746
      Tel: (512) 782-0567
      Fax: (512) 782-0605
      Email: daniel@morelandlaw.com
             doug@morelandlaw.com

             - and -

      Edmond S. Moreland, Jr.
      MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      700 West Summit Drive
      Wimberley, TX 78676
      Tel: (512) 782-0567
      Fax: (512) 782-0605
      Email: edmond@morelandlaw.com


FINISAR CORP: Klein Files Suit Over Mutation Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
Melvyn Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Finisar Corporation, Robert N. Stephens,
Michael Hurlston, Michael C. Child, Roger C. Ferguson, Thomas E.
Pardun, Jerry S. Rawls, Michael L. Dreyer, Helene Simonet, II-VI
Incorporated and Mutation Merger Sub Inc., Defendants., Case No.
19-cv-00223 (D. N.J., January 8, 2019), seeks to enjoin defendants
and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the proposed merger of Finisar, II-VI
Incorporated and Mutation Merger Sub Inc., or rescinding it in the
event defendants consummate the merger.  The lawsuit further seeks
rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Under the terms of the merger agreement, Finisar's stockholders
will receive, on a pro-rated basis, $15.60 per share in cash and
0.2218 times the shares of II-VI common stock, valued at $10.40 per
share based on the closing price of II-VI's common stock of $46.88
on November 8, 2018. The transaction values Finisar at $26.00 per
share, or approximately $3.2 billion in equity value and represents
a premium of 37.7% to Finisar's closing price on November 8, 2018.
Finisar shareholders would own approximately 31% of the combined
company. Upon completion of the Merger, Finisar common stock will
no longer will be publicly traded.

The complaint says the merger's proxy statement failed to provide
any of the company's valuation analyses prepared by its financial
advisor, Barclays Capital Inc., in support of their fairness
opinion and the potential conflicts of interest faced by the Board
during the sales process.

Finisar provides components and subsystems to networking equipment
manufacturers, data center operators, telecom service providers,
consumer electronics and automotive companies.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
      TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
      1925 Century Park East, Ste. 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 278-2600
      Facsimile: (310) 278-2640
      Email: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com

             - and -

      Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
      GAINEY, McKENNA, & EGLESTON
      440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 983-1300
      Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
      Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Massari Sues Board Over Sale to Risley Affiliates
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Massari, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Daniel Meyers, Seth Gelber, Nancy Bekavac,
Peter Drotch, Thomas Eddy, William D. Hansen, John Carter Risley,
FP Resources USA INC., and FP Resources Acquisition Corp.,
Defendants, Case No. 2019-0017 (Del. Ch., January 9, 2019), seeks
to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them
from proceeding with, consummating or closing the proposed sale of
First Marblehead to affiliates of John Carter Risley, or rescinding
it in the event defendants consummate the merger.  The Plaintiff
further seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees
and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

The merger between First Marblehead and Risley affiliates, FP
Resources USA Inc. and FP Resources Acquisition Corp. was executed
on June 2, 2016 through an all-cash merger worth $5.05 per share,
or a total of approximately $65.5 million.

However, said buyout was plagued by numerous conflicts of interest,
including First Marblehead management's interest in post-close
arrangements, the directors' and officers' interests in lump sum
buyout-related payments and lucrative arrangements for the
company's financial advisor, Sandler O'Neill, notes the complaint.
Plaintiff alleges that the buyout price was inadequate and did not
represent the company's actual intrinsic value including its
positive future outlook.

First Marblehead was a specialty finance company that provided loan
programs for undergraduate and graduate students and various other
services for its lender clients. Meyers, Gelber, Bekavac, Drotch,
Eddy, Bekavac, Drotch, Eddy and Hansen sit in its Board.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
      Garam Choe, Esq.
      JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
      99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 292-5690
      Fax: (212) 602-1592
      scotth@johnsonfistel.com


GLV INC: Court Certifies Class in Mullen ICFA/IPFSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAURA MULLEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GLV, INC., RICKY BUTLER, and
CHERYLBUTLER, Defendants, Case No. 18 C 1465 (N.D. Ill.), Judge
Matthew F. Kennelly of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification but modified the proposed class
definition.

Mullen sued GLV, also known as the Sports Performance Volleyball
Club and Great Lakes Center, and its two co-owners, Rick and Cheryl
Butler.  Mullen alleges that the Defendants committed fraud by
failing to disclose and affirmatively concealing that Rick Butler
raped and sexually abused at least six underage women in the 1980s.
She has asserted claims for common-law fraud, fraudulent
concealment, and unjust enrichment, as well as violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act ("ICFA") and the Illinois Physical
Fitness Services Act ("IPFSA"). Mullen has moved to certify a class
of similarly situated Plaintiffs.

Rick Butler is a volleyball coach in the Chicago suburbs. He and
his wife Cheryl co-own GLV.  GLV offers a wide variety of camps and
clinics in Illinois and nationwide, and it is known for outstanding
athletic achievement and its record of placing participants into
top-tier college volleyball programs.

Several women have accused Rick Butler of sexual abuse and rape
when he coached them in the 1980s.  They also allege that Rick and
Cheryl Butler used threats and intimidation to prevent them from
speaking out about their experiences.  In January 2018, after
investigating the allegations, USA Volleyball (the national
governing body of volleyball) banned Rick Butler from participating
in the sport for life.  For his part, Rick Butler has admitted that
he had sexual relationships with some of his accusers, but he
denies that the women were underage and denies the allegations of
rape and abuse.

Mullen brought the case against the Defendants, alleging that their
attempts to conceal and failure to disclose Rick Butler's alleged
misconduct constitute fraud.  Mullen's two daughters participated
in volleyball programs at GLV.  She brought claims for common-law
fraud, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment, as well as
unlawful deception under the ICFA and the IPFSA.  In addition to
her fraud claims, Mullen also alleges that GLV's physical fitness
contracts fail to comply with certain requirements of the IPFSA,
which renders the contracts void and entitles her to statutory
damages.

Mullens proposes to represent a class consisting of all individuals
who, between Feb. 27, 2013, and Jan. 20, 2018, paid money to the
Defendants for youth volleyball instruction provided by or through
GLV in the State of Illinois.

Judge Kennelly granted the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification but modified the proposed class definition.  He
certified the class under Rule 23(b)(3) defined as all individuals
who paid money to the Defendants for youth volleyball instruction
through the Sports Performance program provided by or through GLV
Inc. in the State of Illinois between Feb. 27, 2013 and Jan. 10,
2018.

He finds that the amendment would resolve problems related to the
predominance element because the class would be limited to
individuals who paid for programs in which Butler was directly
involved.  The questions of materiality and reliance could
therefore be answered on a class-wide basis.  For this reason, the
Judge concludes that only the narrower proposed class satisfies the
predominance requirement in light of the differences among GLV
programs.

The Judge also appointed the following attorneys as the class
counsel: Jay Edelson, Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, Christopher L. Dore, Alfred
K. Murray II, and Sydney M. Janzen.

The status hearing set for Feb. 12, 2019 is advanced to Jan. 31,
2019 at 9:30 a.m.  The class counsel is directed to provide a draft
class notice to the Defendants' counsel by no later than Jan. 23,
2019, and the Defendants' counsel are directed to provide comments
and objections to the class counsel by Jan. 28, 2019.  The counsel
is likewise directed to confer regarding the information needed to
send notice.  A joint status report regarding these matters is to
be filed by Jan. 30, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 18, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/t3ck6H from Leagle.com.

Laura Mullen, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alfred Kirkland Murray, II --
erapp@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C., Jay Edelson --
jedelson@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Sydney M. Janzen --
sjanzen@edelson.com -- Edelson Pc & Christopher Lillard Dore --
cdore@edelson.com -- Edelson PC.

GLV, Inc, an Illinois corporation, Ricky Butler, an Individual &
Cheryl Butler, an Individual, Defendants, represented by Danielle
D'Ambrose, D'Ambrose P.C..


HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: Kinlock Suit Moved to District of New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, DAVID KINLOCK, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HEALTHPLUS SURGERY CENTER,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. ESX-L-000074-19, was removed from the
Superior Court of New Jersey Essex County, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark) on Jan. 23, 2019. The
District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-00962-WJM-MF to the proceeding. The suit alleges medical
malpractice related violation. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge William J. Martini.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Stephen Patrick Denittis, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC
          5 GREENTREE CENTRE
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797-9951
          Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
          E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Richard J. Williams, Jr., Esq.
          MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP
          1300 Mt. Kemble Avenue
          P.O. Box 2075
          Morristown, NJ 07962-2075
          Telephone: (973) 993-8100
          E-mail: rwilliams@mdmc-law.com

HELP AT HOME: Bid to Dismiss 1st Amended Phillips FLSA Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNIFER PHILLIPS, TONYA BUSH, SABRINA OWENS, KATRINA
COLLINGE, KIMBERLY NILES, AMANDA FELGAR, DEBORAH HAVERKAMP, KIM
WARD, TAMATHA CHEATHAM, and HELIMA WOODLAND, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HELP AT
HOME, LLC, f/k/a HELP AT HOME, INC., JOEL DAVIS, RICHARD CANTRELL,
and MARY ANN NEWBERN, Defendants, Case No. 15 C 8954 (N.D. Ill.),
Magistrate Judge Sheila Finnegan of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint ("FAC").

Phillips and Bush filed suit against Help At Home on Oct. 8, 2015,
seeking to represent a class of Supervisors who allegedly were not
paid the proper minimum wages and overtime compensation for hours
they worked, mainly while on-call, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").

On Sept. 19, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the FAC that: (a) added
eight new Plaintiffs (Sabrina Owens, Katrina Collinge, Kimberly
Niles, Amanda Felgar, Deborah Haverkamp, Kim Ward, Tamatha
Cheatham, and Helima Woodland); (b) added three new Defendants
(Joel Davis who is President and former COO of Help At Home,
Richard Cantrell who is CEO and former Regional VP, and Mary Ann
Newbern who is a Regional VP); and (c) modified the allegations to
state that Help At Home had a de facto as opposed to a written
Policy to not pay overtime wages.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss the FAC for failure to state a
viable claim for relief.  They also seek to dismiss Plaintiff
Woodland and Defendants Davis, Cantrell, and Newbern, arguing that
any claims relating to these individuals are barred by the
applicable statute of limitations and cannot relate back to the
original Complaint.  The Defendants object that the Plaintiffs
cannot state an FLSA claim based on a de facto, unwritten policy.

Magistrate Judge Finnegan finds that the Plaintiffs have
sufficiently alleged that there is a de facto Policy, and that as a
result of the Policy, they and other individuals employed by the
Defendants were not properly paid overtime wages within the
limitations period.  The Defendants argue that the Policy-related
allegations are speculative, conclusory, and implausible, but the
FAC contains sufficient detail regarding the implementation,
enforcement, and perpetuation of the Policy to withstand scrutiny
under Iqbal and Twombly.  The Defendants' real objection is that a
de facto, unwritten Policy is by definition speculative and so
cannot form the basis of an FLSA collective action.  The Court
already rejected this argument, and the mere possibility that the
de facto Policy may ultimately fail to pass muster at the class or
collective certification stage in no way demonstrates that the FAC
must be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
This portion of the Defendants' motion to dismiss is therefore
denied.

The Magistrate also finds that all of the relevant 15(c) factors
weigh in favor of applying the relation back doctrine to Woodland's
pre-Sept. 19, 2015 FLSA claims.  The motion to dismiss these claims
is therefore denied.  Woodland's claims are clearly based on the
same legal theories and facts set forth in the original Complaint.

Finally, the record before the Court does not support dismissing
Davis, Cantrell, or Newbern from the lawsuit.  Some claims against
them are timely without application of the relation-back rule.  As
to the others, the Magistrate finds that the Court lacks the
necessary factual record to conclude that the amendments in the FAC
cannot under any circumstances relate back to the original
Complaint.  The Defendants' motion to dismiss the individual
defendants is denied.

For the reasons she set forth, Magistrate Judge Finnegan denied the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 18, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/LwOZ2U from Leagle.com.

Jennifer Phillips & Tonya Bush, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Thomas A.
Zimmerman, Jr., Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C., Matthew C. De Re,
Zimmerman Law Offices, P.c. & Nickolas J. Hagman, Zimmerman Law
Offices, P.C.

Amanda Felgar, Deborah Haverkamp, Kimberly Niles, Kim Ward, Sabrina
Owens, Helima Woodland, Katrina Collinge & Tamatha Cheatham,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Zimmerman Law
Offices, P.C.

Helima Woodland, Plaintiff, pro se.

Help at Home, LLC, formerly known as, Defendant, represented by
Siobhan M. Murphy -- siobhan.Murphy@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Daniel Kenneth Cetina --
Cetina@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith Llp,
Dawn Leontine Johnson -- Dawn.Johnson@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, John J. Michels, Jr. --
‎John.Michels@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois, Bisgaard &
Smith & Johner Taylor Wilson, III --
Johner.Wilson@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
LLP.

Joel Davis, Richard Cantrell & Mary Ann Newbern, Defendants,
represented by Daniel Kenneth Cetina, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith Llp.


JACK PHELAN CHEVROLET: Salespersons Seek Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Carlos Moreno, Joseph Scialabba, Rui Cardoso, Carlos Tirado and
Robert Randazzo on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Jack Phelan Chevrolet, Inc. and John C.
Phelan, Jr., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00221 (N.D. Ill., January
11, 2019), seeks redress for being paid wages less than the minimum
wage required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law and the Cook County Minimum Wage Ordinance, and to recover
commissions under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Jack Phelan Chevrolet, Inc. operates a car dealership in Lyons,
Illinois where Plaintiffs worked as salespersons. They allege that
Jack Phelan Chevrolet manipulated the gross profits of cars sold
thereby reducing its sales representatives' commissions,
specifically adding fictitious or inflated amounts into its
"vehicle cost" as paid commissions are based on a computed gross
profit. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
     Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
     Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
     Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
     WERMAN SALAS P.C.
     77 West Washington, Suite 1402
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312) 419-1008
     Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
            zflowerree@flsalaw.com
            msalas@flsalaw.com
            sarendt@flsalaw.com


JEUNESSE LLC: Xiong Appeals Ruling in Aboltin Suit to 11th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Interested Party Helen Xiong filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled James J. Aboltin, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Jeunesse, LLC aka Jeunesse Global,
Inc., a Florida limited liability company, Wendy R. Lewis, an
individual, Ogale "Randy" Ray, an individual, Scott A. Lewis, an
individual, Kim Hui, an individual, Jason Caramanis, an individual,
Alex Morton, an individual, John and Jane Does 1-100, individual
natural persons, and ABC Corporations, Companies, and/or
Partnerships 1-20, Case No. 6:17-cv-01624-PGB-TBS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
(assigned Case No. CV-16-02574-PHX-SPL) was transferred on
September 13, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida (Orlando).

The Defendants are accused of operating an inherently fraudulent,
illegal pyramid scheme.  The Plaintiff seeks claims under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The appellate case is captioned as James Aboltin, et al. v. Helen
Xiong, Case No. 19-10125, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before
February 7, 2019, as to Appellee James J. Aboltin.[BN]

Interested Party-Appellant HELEN XIONG is represented by:

          Lawrence J. Gibney, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF L. JACK GIBNEY
          8777 San Jose Blvd., Suite 502
          Jacksonville, FL 32217
          Telephone: (904) 443-7770
          E-mail: jack@gibneylaw.com

               - and -

          Blake J. Lindemann, Esq.
          LINDEMANN LAW FIRM, APC
          433 N Camden Dr., Floor 4
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 279-5269
          E-mail: Blake@lawbl.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees JAMES J. ABOLTIN and PAMELA J. KNIGHT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Jonathan Scott Batchelor, Esq.
          JONATHAN BATCHELOR, PLC
          200 W Portland St., Suite 524
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 285-5000
          Facsimile: (602) 285-5100
          E-mail: jbatchelor@dickinsonwright.com

               - and -

          David Geoffrey Bray, Esq.
          David Nunzio Ferrucci, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          1850 N Central Ave., Suite 1400
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 285-5000
          Facsimile: (602) 285-5100
          E-mail: dbray@dickinsonwright.com
                  dferrucci@dickinsonwright.com

               - and -

          John P. Desmond, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT, PLLC
          100 W Liberty St., Suite 940
          Reno, NV 89501
          Telephone: (775) 343-7505
          E-mail: JDesmond@dickinson-wright.com

               - and -

          Alan J. Perlman, Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT, PLLC
          350 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1750
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 991-5427
          E-mail: aperlman@dickinson-wright.com

               - and -

          Vijay G. Brijbasi, Esq.
          ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA
          350 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1420
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Telephone: (954) 414-6200
          E-mail: vbrijbasi@ralaw.com

Defendants Jason Caramanis, an individual, Jason Caramanis and MLM
Mafia, Inc., are represented by:

          Chris Wellman, Esq.
          Scott W. Wellman, Esq.
          WELLMAN & WARREN LLP
          24411 Ridge Rte., Suite 200
          Laguna Hills, CA 92653
          Telephone: (949) 580-3737
          Facsimile: (949) 580-3737
          E-mail: cwellman@w-wlaw.com
                  swellman@w-wlaw.com

Defendant Alex Morton is represented by:

          Charles J. Bartlett, Esq.
          ICARD MERRILL CULLIS TIMM FUREN & GINSBURG, PA
          8470 Enterprise Cir., Suite 201
          Bradenton, FL 34202
          Telephone: (941) 366-8100
          E-mail: cbartlett@icardmerrill.com

Defendants Jason Caramanis and MLM Mafia, Inc.,

          Amanda Rose Dunn, Esq.
          RYWANT ALVAREZ JONES RUSSO & GUYTON, PA
          109 N Brush St., Suite 500
          Tampa, FL 32602
          Telephone: (813) 229-7007
          E-mail: adunn@rywantalvarez.com

Defendant Jeunesse LLC is represented by:

          Glenn T. Graham, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN, LLP
          1 Jefferson Rd., 2nd Floor
          Parsippany, NJ 07054
          Telephone: (973) 503-5900
          E-mail: ggraham@kelleydrye.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq.
          Alina Cristina Mejer, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN, LLP
          101 Park Ave.
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 808-7729
          E-mail: jjacobson@kelleydrye.com
                  amejer@kelleydrye.com

               - and -

          Karl Egnar Pearson, Esq.
          PEARSON DOYLE MOHRE & PASTIS, LLP
          485 N Keller Rd., Suite 401
          Maitland, FL 32751
          Telephone: (407) 647-0090
          E-mail: kpearson@pdmplaw.com

Defendant Jason Caramanis, an individual, is represented by:

          Daniel D. Maynard, Esq.
          MAYNARD CRONIN ERICKSON CURRAN & REITER PLC
          3200 N Central Ave., Suite 1800
          Phoenix, AZ 85012-2443
          Telephone: (602) 279-8500
          Facsimile: (602) 263-8185
          E-mail: dmaynard@mmcec.com


JO-ANN STORES: Ledo Sues Over Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
---------------------------------------------------
Teresita Ledo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Jo-Ann Stores, LLC, an Ohio Limited
Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-20103 (S.D. Fla.,
January 9, 2019), seeks statutory damages and any other available
legal or equitable remedies for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant operates as a fabric and craft specialty retailer in the
United States. To promote its services, it allegedly sent
unsolicited text messages en masse. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
      EDELSBERG LAW, PA
      19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 975-3320
      Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

             - and -

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: 305-479-2299
      Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


KENNETH LASSITER: Dean-Bey et al. Seek to Certify Prisoners Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Willie James Dean-Bey, et
al., the Affiants, vs. Kenneth Lassiter, et al., the Respondents,
Case No. 5:19-ct-03028-D (E.D.N.C.), the Affiants move the Court
for an order to certify Class of:

   "up to 84 Prisoners housed on the High Security Maximum Control
   Unit (H-Con) at Polk Correctional Institution where these
   deprivations that violates their constitutional rights
   occurs."[CC]

The Affiants appear pro se.[CC]


LOGITECH INC: Reconsideration of June/Aug. Orders in Porath Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES PORATH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LOGITECH, INC., Defendant, Case
No. C 18-03091 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California denied
Logitech's motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of
the orders issued last June 2018 (prohibiting the parties from
discussing any class-wide settlement until after the Court
determines which claims deserve class treatment or until an
appointment of interim counsel under Rule 23) and last August 2018
(denying the motion for appointment of interim class counsel) and
to stay the action.

To protect the absent class members and to assist the counsel in
understanding the factors the Court considers in evaluating
proposed class settlements, Judge Alsup has long provided guidance
to both sides at the outset of any proposed class action.  The
guidance has been in the form of an order entitled "Notice and
Order Re Putative Class Actions and Factors To Be Evaluated For Any
Proposed Class Settlement."  No one has ever complained about it --
until now.

The Defendant objects to a requirement regulating the timing of
settlement discussions of class-wide claims, contending it violates
its First Amendment rights.

Porath filed the putative class action in May 2018, alleging that
Logitech falsely and deceptively advertised its Z200 speakers as
containing four drivers when in fact two of those drivers did not
independently produce sound and were parasitic speakers.  In June
2018, the usual order issued describing the factors for evaluating
any class action settlement and prohibiting the parties from
discussing any settlement of class claims prior to class
certification.  That prohibition was qualified by the further
statement that if the counsel believes the settlement discussions
should precede a class certification, a motion for appointment of
interim class counsel must first be made.

In August 2018, the counsel moved to appoint the Interim Lead
Plaintiff and the Interim Lead Counsel.  The parties stipulated to
four reasons why they believed pre-class certification settlement
discussions might have been appropriate at that moment: (1)
Logitech agreed not to seek a "discount" based on the potential
risk that the putative class would not be certified; (2) Logitech
had already began revising the advertising at issue; (3) Logitech
was prepared "with respect to purchases of the Z200 speakers to
make all such consumers whole" (separately, in a case management
statement, defendant further specified: whole with respect to any
damages that may have been caused by the challenged advertising);
and (4) the parties were prepared to engage in reasonable and
appropriate discovery to develop the factual record necessary to
resolve the case.  After considering the arguments from the
parties' motion and at the initial case management conference, the
motion to appoint the Interim Counsel was denied.

Logitech then petitioned the Court of Appeals in October 2018 for a
writ of mandamus.  A motion to stay the action pending resolution
by the Court of Appeals followed much later.  Before the Court,
however, could rule on the stay request, the Court of Appeals
denied the petition without prejudice to re-raising the
constitutional questions presented in the petition in the Court
after presentation to the district court in the first instance.

Logitech now moves for leave to file a motion for reconsideration
of the orders issued last June 2018 and last August 2018 and to
stay the action .  The Plaintiff's counsel take no position.

Judge Alsup finds that no one has a First Amendment right to
petition the government (including the courts) on behalf of a class
and to impose a release onto a class until a proper representative
has been appointed to look out for the class.  It is true that some
judges don't insist on such an appointment beforehand, but that is
a matter of discretion, not a matter of right by the litigants.
Logitech cites no case-law to the contrary.

No new facts have been shown to warrant reconsideration of either
prior order.  Hence, the Judge denied the motion for leave to file
a motion for reconsideration of both the orders issued last June
and August.  As provided in the original case management order, the
motion for class certification remains due on Feb. 7, 2019 to be
heard on a 49-day track.  All other deadlines remain in effect.

The class certification motion will be decided one way or the other
long before any extraordinary writ petition could be determined by
the Court of Appeals, so the motion to stay is denied on that
ground (as well as on the merits).

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 18, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/8CqsVk from Leagle.com.

James Porath, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Todd M. Logan --
tlogan@edelson.com -- Edelson PC & Rafey Sarkis Balabanian --
rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Edelson PC.

Logitech Inc., a California corporation, Defendant, represented by
Dale Joseph Giali -- dgiali@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Keri
Elizabeth Borders -- kborders@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP &
Rebecca Bari Johns -- rjohns@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Feb. 18 Identification of Experts Due in Kempf
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAREN KEMPF, Plaintiff, v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-00492-DJH (W.D. Ky.),
Magistrate Judge Regina S. Edwards of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division, granted in
part and denied in part Kempf's Motion to Amend the Case Management
Plan.

On Aug. 1, 2016, Kempf filed her Complaint, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, against Lumber
Liquidators.  In her Complaint, Kempf alleged that wood flooring
sold by Lumber Liquidators, specifically Morning Star Bamboo
Flooring, was defective.  Lumber Liquidators filed a Motion to
Dismiss, Stay, or in the Alterative to Transfer the Action.  The
District Court denied Lumber Liquidator's Motion.

On Oct. 26, 2017, the parties jointly filed their Rule 26(f)
Planning Meeting Report and proposed case scheduling deadlines.
Following a telephonic conference with the parties during which
they discussed the schedule, the Court entered the Scheduling Order
using the expert disclosure and class certification deadlines as
proposed.  Pursuant to the Order, Kempf's identification of expert
witnesses was due by Sept. 14, 2018.  The deadline for Lumber
Liquidators to identify its expert witnesses was Oct. 15, 2018.

On Sept. 13, 2018, the day before the deadline for the Plaintiff's
identification of expert witnesses, Kempf filed the subject Motion
to Amend the Case Management Plan ("Scheduling Order") seeking a
significant additional period of time in which to disclose expert
witnesses.  Her Motion asks the Court to amend the existing
Scheduling Order and vacate the deadlines for expert disclosures
pending resolution of the Motion for Class Certification.

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order entered on Nov. 20, 2017, the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification will be filed no later
than Jan. 15, 2019, with the Defendant's response due no later than
Feb. 15, 2019, and the Plaintiff's reply brief due no later than
March 12, 2019.  Any surreply will be filed no later than March 21,
2019.  Thus, Kempf now moves the Court to amend the Case Management
Plan such that the identification of expert witnesses will not be
due until all motion practice for class certification is complete,
and the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is resolved.  As
of the date of the filing of the Order, Kempf has not filed her
Motion for Class Certification.

As the basis for her Motion to Amend, Kempf provides that her
request to modify the Scheduling Order will promote judicial
efficiency.  Her Motion also appears to fault the Scheduling Order
for setting the deadline for her identification of experts before
the resolution of her Motion for Class Certification.  Thus, Kempf
asks the Court to grant her Motion to Amend the Case Management
Plan and vacate the expert discovery deadlines such that the
deadlines for expert disclosures will be set after the resolution
of Plaintiff Motion for Class Certification.

Lumber Liquidators raises two arguments in its Memorandum in
Opposition.  First, it argues that Kempf has not shown good cause
to amend the Case Management Plan as required by Rule 16(b)(4).
Second, it claims that it will suffer undue prejudice if Kempf's
proposed amendment is granted.

Magistrate Judge Edwards finds that, albeit with some reservations,
Kempf has established good cause to amend the Scheduling Order.
Thus, despite Kempf's failure to articulate her explanations as
good cause, such cause is apparent from the reasoning provided by
the Plaintiff's counsel in Kempf's Motion to Amend, her Reply in
Support of the Motion, and the counsels' representations made
during the October 10, 2018 telephonic status conference.
Accordingly, sufficient good cause has been shown with regard to
Kempf's Motion to Amend the Case Management Plan.

The Magistrate also finds that good cause exists to support a brief
extension of the deadlines for the identification of expert
witnesses for both the Plaintiff and the Defendant.  Kempf requests
that the expert discovery deadline be vacated and reset post-class
certification.  The Magistrate finds that this is excessive given
the amount of time that has passed since the instant Motion was
filed.  Accordingly, she will grant an extension pursuant to the
timeline set forth in the Order.

For the reasons explained, Magistrate Judge Edwards concludes that
good cause to grant, in part, Kempf's Motion to Amend the Case
Management Plan.  Accordingly, she granted in part and denied in
part Kempf's Motion to Amend the Case Management Plan.  

Kempf's request to vacate the deadlines for expert disclosures
pending the resolution of the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification is denied; and Kempf's Motion to Amend the Case
Management Plan is granted pursuant to the timeline set forth: (i)
the Plaintiff's Identification of Experts will be due no later than
Feb. 18, 2019; and (ii) the Defendants' Identification of Experts
will be due no later than March 18, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 18, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/33HuJu from Leagle.com.

Karen Kempf, Plaintiff, represented by David N. War, Adams
Landenwich Walton PLLC & Laura E. Landenwich, Adams Landenwich
Walton PLLC.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Defendant, represented by Demetrius O.
Holloway -- dholloway@stites.com -- Stites & Harbison, PLLC, Diane
P. Flannery -- dflannery@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP,
Margaret A. Bowman -- mbowman@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP
& Robert F. Redmond, Jr. -- rredmond@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire
Woods LLP.


MDL 2323: Attys' Fees/Costs Bid in NFL's Concussion Injury Suit OKd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS' CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. Kevin Turner and Shawn Wooden, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National
Football League and NFL Properties, LLC, successor-in-interest to
NFL Properties, Inc., Defendants. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO Locks
Law Firm v. Owens Attorney's Lien Dispute (Doc. No. 8399), Case No.
2:12-md-02323-AB, MDL No. 2323 (E.D. Pa.), Magistrate Judge David
R. Strawbridge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania granted Locks Law Firm's motion for attorneys' fees
and costs from the award granted to Burtaniel Owens as a
Representative Claimant authorized to pursue the claim of her
deceased husband, Joseph Owens.

The District Court referred to the Court all "all petitions for
individual attorneys' liens."  On Jan. 7, 2019, the Court issued a
Report and Recommendation pertaining to three separate cases.
These were the first where it set out the legal principles that
would guide its analysis in these cases. The Court does the same in
the case.

Locks seeks payment of attorneys' fees of 22% of the award issued
to Owens, their former client.  Owens, now acting pro se,
challenges the Lien.  Initially she contended that the fee for
Locks' short services should be limited to $20,000, given that the
firm did not take her full interest to the table.  Subsequently,
she has asserted that Locks misrepresented facts pertinent to
obtaining the best possible award for her and that the firm
concealed and misrepresented facts relating to their services for
Owens during this Lien Litigation and therefore should not be
entitled to any fee.

As the Court set out in its Jan. 7, 2019 Report and Recommendation,
its evaluation of these positions involves a consideration of the
contingency fee agreement ("CFA") between the Parties and an
assessment of the reasonableness of the requested fee in light of
the five factors enumerated by the Third Circuit in McKenzie.  This
will require the Court to scrutinize the reasonableness of the CFA
at the time of the contact's signing and then determine if the
circumstances compel a different evaluation of the CFA at the time
of its enforcement.  The Court will then examine the results
obtained, the quality of the representation provided by Locks, and
whether the efforts of Locks substantially contributed to the
result.

Locks entered into a CFA with Owens and her husband on March 7,
2012.  Under the terms of the agreement, Mr. and Mrs. Owens agreed
to pay 33.33% of any monetary recovery.  The payment was contingent
upon the success of the litigation.  On March 9, 2012, the firm
filed a complaint against the NFL that included Joseph Owens as a
named Plaintiff.  Joseph Owens died on June 13, 2013.  After his
death, Locks continued to represent his interests, pursuing the
litigation on behalf of Mrs. Owens.

Sometime in 2016, after the approval of the Settlement Agreement,
Locks advised all of its clients, including Owens, that they were
revising their fee agreements by lowering the fee sought to 20% of
the total Award.  Registration in the class opened on Feb. 6, 2017,
and on May 16, 2017, Locks submitted the claim for a monetary award
for Owens.  By July 14, 2017, Owens had received conditional
approval of the Award.  On Aug. 18, 2017, the Claims Administrator
issued a Notice of Monetary Award.

Before the Award was issued, however, Owens decided that she no
longer wanted the services of Locks.  On Sept. 19, 2017, the Claims
Administrator received from Owens written notification that Locks
had been "terminated."  The Claims Administrator promptly advised
Locks that it had received notice of this development.

On Sept. 22, 2017, Locks filed a Notice of Lien in the Court.  The
firm attached the original fee agreement with Owens reflecting a
33.33% fee, not the revised CFA containing the adjustment to a 20%
fee.  On Oct. 2, 2017, the Claims Administrator issued a Notice of
Lien to Owens and Locks, which indicated that the Lien amount was
33.33% of any Monetary Award.  Owens responded and advised the
Claims Administrator that she intended to dispute the Lien.

Before any action was taken on the liens filed in the litigation,
the Court promulgated "Rules Governing Attorney Liens."  The Lien
Rules provide the specific briefing requirements for the
litigation.

Magistrate Judge Strawbridge is satisfied that Locks provided
quality representation and made substantial contributions to the
ultimate Award received in the case.  Considering the
substantiality of Locks' contribution as an IRPA, as reduced to
account for the contributions of the Class Counsel, he concludes
that Locks' IRPA contribution to the Award is sufficient to support
its lien to the extent of 20% of the Monetary Award.  The fee he
authorizes, however, must be reduced by the 5% holdback currently
applicable to all attorney fee Awards.  Therefore, Locks will
receive 15% of the overall Award at this time. Whatever portion of
the 5% holdback is ultimately released by the District Court will
be provided to Locks at that time.  The remaining funds must be
distributed to Owens in accordance with the provisions of the
Settlement Agreement and all Court Orders regarding implementation.
An appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 18, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/OPJYT8 from Leagle.com.

PERRY GOLKIN, Special Master, pro se.

WENDELL E. PRITCHETT, Special Master, pro se.

JO-ANN M. VERRIER, Special Master, pro se.

CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR, Adminstrator, represented by ORRAN L. BROWN
-- OBrown@browngreer.com -- BROWNGREER PLC.

ARIZONA CARDINALS FOOTBALL CLUB LLC, Movant, represented by
ALEXANDRA M. WALSH -- awalsh@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- PAUL WEISS
RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP, BETH A. WILKINSON --
bwilkinson@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP, BRAD S. KARP -- bkarp@paulweiss.com -- PAUL WEISS
RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP, BRUCE BIRENBOIM --
bbirenboim@paulweiss.com -- PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON, LLP & CASEY O. HOUSLEY -- c.housley@swrsllp.com --
SANDERS AND WARREN LLP.

JOHN LORENTZ, Movant, represented by MICHAEL H. MOIRANO --
mmoirano@mgklaw.com -- MOIRANO GORMAN KENNY LLC & RON A. COHEN .

THE LOCKS LAW FIRM, Movant, represented by DAVID D. LANGFITT --
dlangfitt@lockslaw.com -- LOCKS LAW FIRM, GENE LOCKS --
glocks@lockslaw.com -- LOCKS LAW FIRM PLLC, MICHAEL B. LEH --
mleh@lockslaw.com -- LOCKS LAW FIRM & TOBIAS BARRINGTON WOLFF,
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW SCHOOL.


MDL 2741: Anglin Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled TERRY ANGLIN and MARY JO ANGLIN,
the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-02060 (Filed Dec. 11, 2018), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on Jan. 23, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00366-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

MDL 2741: Bargy Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled PAUL BARGY and DEBRA BARGY, the
Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02076
(Filed Dec. 13, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Jan. 23,
2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No.: 3:19-cv-00370-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

MDL 2741: Belsome Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled HARRIET BELSOME by her
Attorney-in-Fact KAREN BELSOME, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02077 (Filed Dec. 13, 2018),
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on Jan. 23, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00373-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

MDL 2741: Bernard Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MARY BERNARD, individually and on
behalf of TERRY BERNARD, (deceased), the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02117 (Filed Dec. 20, 2018),
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on Jan. 23, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00385-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

MDL 2741: Hatfield Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ELIZABETH AND ROBERT L. HATFIELD,
the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-02113 (Filed Dec. 20, 2018), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on Jan. 23, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No.  3:19-cv-00379-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

MDL 2741: Hatmaker Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JAMES HATMAKER and LEVENDA
HATMAKER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-02062 (Filed Dec. 11, 2018), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on Jan. 23, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No.  3:19-cv-00368-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

MDL 2741: Larke Suit vs Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CHARLES A. LARKE and MARY JO LARKE,
the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
4:18-cv-02128 (Filed Dec. 21, 2018), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on Jan. 23, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00387-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

MDL 2741: McDaniel Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled PATRICIA MCDANIEL, the Plaintiffs,
v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.: 4:18-cv-02059 (Filed Dec.
11, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco) on Jan. 23, 2019.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.:
3:19-cv-00365-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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

MIMOSA HOUSE: Castillo Files Suit in Ca. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mimosa House LLC. The
case is styled as Litzy Castillo, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mimosa House LLC and
Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00249192-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., January 24, 2019).

The docket of the lawsuit states the case type as Other
employment.

Mimosa House is a Dedier Family Restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MM 879: California Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Cruz Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANGELA CRUZ, MARIA MADRIGAL, LOURDES BAIZ, and
CHRISTIE GOODMAN, individually, residing in California, Plaintiffs,
v. MM 879, INC., a corporation; BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., a
corporation; THE SERVICEMASTER COMPANY, LLC, a limited liability
company; MERRY MAIDS LP, a limited partnership; and MM MAIDS LLC, a
limited liability company. Defendants, Case No.
1:15-cv-01563-TLN-EPG (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California denied
Defendants ServiceMaster, Merry Maids, and MM Maids' Motion for
Summary Judgment.

The Plaintiffs were formerly employed as home cleaners by Defendant
MM 879, a Merry Maids franchisee with locations in Fresno and Lodi,
California.  It employed Plaintiffs Cruz, Madrigal, and Baiz as
home cleaners at its Fresno location at times between July 2006 and
August 2010.  M 879 employed Plaintiff Goodman as a home cleaner at
its Lodi location from April 2011 to March 2013.  Plaintiffs allege
they were jointly employed by the Defendants.  ServiceMaster owns
many franchised brands, including Merry Maids.  Defendant Merry
Maids is the franchisor for the Merry Maids system.  Defendant MM
Maids is the general partner in Merry Maids.  Defendant BBSI is a
professional employment organization that MM 879 hired to provide
payroll management, benefits administration, human resource and
other services during the relevant time period.

The Plaintiffs allege several of the Defendants' wage and hour
policies violated California law.  According to the Plaintiffs, the
Defendants used a "percentage pay" scheme, which compensated
employees based on houses cleaned and failed to provide hourly
compensation for rest periods and nonproductive time.  They allege
they did not receive compliant meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiffs filed a class action suit, claiming failure to pay
minimum wages for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime,
failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to provide
compliant meal periods, failure to issue accurate wage statements,
failure to timely pay wages due at termination, and violations of
the California Private Attorney's General Act.

Defendants ServiceMaster, Merry Maids, and MM Maids filed the
instant motion for summary judgment, arguing that they cannot be
held liable as joint employers as matter of law.  They argue that
the Court, therefore, should grant summary judgment dismissing all
claims against them.  In opposition, the Plaintiffs argue that
there are genuine issues of material fact regarding the Defendants'
status as an employer under both a joint employer theory and
ostensible agency theory.

Judge Nunley finds that the evidence shows that Skadburg alone
controlled the wages, hours, and working conditions of MM 879
employees.  The Plaintiffs' evidence does not show Defendants had a
right of control over MM 879's employees beyond the inherent
control implied from the terms of the Franchise Agreement and
Operation Manual.  Under Patterson, the standards and indirect
pressure plaintiffs identify is not enough to support vicarious
liability in the franchising context.  As such, he says the
Plaintiffs have failed to establish an employment relationship
under the third prong of Martinez.  There is, therefore, no triable
issue under any of the three Martinez prongs.  Accordingly, he will
grant the Defendants motion for summary judgment as to the joint
employer theory of liability.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs,
the Judge finds there is a genuine dispute over the reasonableness
of the Plaintiffs' beliefs MM 879 was acting as an agent for Merry
Maids.  Accordingly, he will deny the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment as to the Plaintiffs' ostensible agency theory.

Finally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs offer multiple,
independent declarations that corroborate one another.  The
Defendants' objections to the Plaintiffs' declarations are
overruled.  All the Plaintiffs' evidentiary objections were to
portions of documents not necessary to the Court's resolution of
the motion and are denied as moot.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Nunley denied the Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of the Defendants'
liability under a theory of ostensible agency.

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

Angela Cruz, Maria Madrigal & Lourdes Baiz, Plaintiffs, represented
by Jared Hague -- jared@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law
Corporation, PC & S. Brett Sutton -- brett@suttonhague.com --
Sutton Hague Law Corporation, PC.

MM 879, Inc., a corporation, Defendant, represented by Anthony
Peter Raimondo -- apr@raimondoassociates.com -- Raimondo &
Associates & Jasmine Shams -- js@raimondoassociates.com -- Raimondo
& Associates.

Barrett Business Services, Inc., a corporation, Defendant,
represented by David Ian Dalby -- ddalby@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw
and Culbertson LLP.

ServiceMaster, Inc., a corporation, Defendant, represented by
Marlene S. Muraco -- mmuraco@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.

Merry Maids Limited Partnership, a limited partnership, MM Maids
LLC & Servicemaster Company, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Marlene S. Muraco, Littler Mendelson, Kimberly L. Gee, Littler
Mendelson & Paul E. Prather, Littler Mendelson, PC, pro hac vice.

MM 879, Inc., a corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Anthony
Peter Raimondo, Raimondo & Associates & Jasmine Shams, Raimondo &
Associates.

Barrett Business Services, Inc., a corporation, Cross Defendant,
represented by David Ian Dalby, Hinshaw and Culbertson LLP.

Barrett Business Services, Inc., a corporation, Cross Claimant,
represented by David Ian Dalby, Hinshaw and Culbertson LLP.

MM 879, Inc., a corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Anthony Peter Raimondo, Raimondo & Associates & Jasmine Shams,
Raimondo & Associates.


MM 879: Court Certifies Classes & Subclasses in Cruz Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANGELA CRUZ, MARIA MADRIGAL, LOURDES BAIZ, and
CHRISTIE GOODMAN, individually, residing in California, Plaintiffs,
v. MM 879, INC., a corporation; BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., a
corporation; THE SERVICEMASTER COMPANY, LLC, a limited liability
company; MERRY MAIDS LP, a limited partnership; and MM MAIDS LLC, a
limited liability company. Defendants, Case No.
1:15-cv-01563-TLN-EPG (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California (i) granted
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; and (ii) denied as
moot the Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order pending
resolution of the class certification issue.

The Plaintiffs contend they were formerly employed as home cleaners
by MM 879, a California Merry Maids franchisee that operates
franchise locations in Lodi and Fresno.  They allege MM 879
employed Plaintiffs Cruz, Madrigal, and Baiz as home cleaners at
its Fresno location at various times between July 2006 and August
2010.  They allege MM 879 employed Plaintiff Goodman as a home
cleaner at its Lodi location from April 2011 to March 2013.  The
Plaintiffs allege they were jointly employed in the same capacity
by the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs allege several of the Defendants' wage and hour
policies violated California law.  They allege the Defendants used
a "percentage pay" scheme which compensated employees on the basis
of houses cleaned and failed to provide separate hourly
compensation for rest periods and nonproductive time.  They also
allege the Defendants used an illegal averaging method to determine
whether employees received minimum wage.

Moreover, the Plaintiffs allege their wage statements did not
properly itemize percentage pay as piece rate compensation.  They
further allege the Defendants' meal period policy incorrectly
instructed employees to take their meal periods in the middle of
the workday, as opposed to no later than after their fifth hour of
work.

The Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against the Defendants,
claiming failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked, failure
to pay overtime, failure to authorize and permit rest periods,
failure to provide compliant meal periods, failure to issue
accurate wage statements, failure to timely pay wages due at
termination, and violations of the California Private Attorney's
General Act.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify two classes and six subclasses
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  Their putative
"Class 1," labeled the "MM 879 Class," includes all current and
former non-exempt employees of MM 879 who: resided within
California at any time while performing duties as Home Cleaners,
Merry Maids Certified Cleaners, or Team Members (or equivalent),
from April 6, 2007, through the date of certification; and, are
members of one or more Subclasses.  The proposed subclasses under
Class 1 are the (1) Minimum Wage Subclass, (2) Overtime Subclass,
(3) Rest Period Subclass, (4) MM 879 Meal Period Subclass, (5) Pay
Stub Subclass, and (6) Waiting Time Penalties Subclass.  The
Plaintiffs' putative "Class 2," labeled the "PAGA Class," includes
all members of any of the Subclasses of the MM 879 Class.  The
Defendants filed three separate oppositions, to which the
Plaintiffs replied.

The Plaintiffs assert that all the requirements of Rule 23 are
satisfied for the putative class.  The Defendants respond that the
Plaintiffs have not met their burden for class certification as to
several Rule 23 requirements.

Defendants Servicemaster, Merry Maids, and MM Maids argue that the
Plaintiffs' class definitions are untenably circular, fail-safe,
and overbroad.  In reply, the Plaintiffs propose amended class
definitions to resolve the Defendants' two concerns, that the
current definitions are circular and impermissibly fail-safe.

The Plaintiffs' revised class definitions are:
      
     Class 1 (MM 879 Class) - All current and former non-exempt
employees of MM 879 who: (a) Resided within California at any time
while performing duties as Home Cleaners, Merry Maids Certified
Cleaners, or Team Members (or equivalent), from April 6, 2007,
through the date of certification; and, (b) Are members of one or
more Subclasses.

     Subclass 1 (Minimum Wage Subclass) - All current and former
non-exempt employees of MM 879 who, from April 6, 2007, through the
date of certification: (a) Received wages based on a piece-rate or
`percentage pay' compensation scheme.

     Subclass 2 (Overtime Subclass) - All current and former
non-exempt employees of MM 879 who, from April 6, 2007, through the
date of certification: (a) Received wages based on a piece-rate or
`percentage pay' compensation scheme; and (b) Worked more than
eight hours in a workday or more than forty hours in a workweek.

     Subclass 3 (Rest Period Subclass) - All current and former
non-exempt employees of MM 879 who, from April 6, 2007, through the
date of certification: (a) Received wages based on a piece-rate or'
percentage pay' compensation scheme; and (b) Worked in excess of
three-and-one-half hours on one or more workdays.

     Subclass 4 (MM 879 Meal Period Subclass) - All current and
former non-exempt employees of MM 879 who, from April 6, 2007,
through the date of certification: (a) was provided an employee
handbook which did not expressly state that the employee's first
uninterrupted, duty-free, thirty-minute meal period which was to
commence before the end of the fifth hour of work in any workday in
which the employee worked more than five hours; or (b) who was
provided an employee handbook which did not expressly state that
the employee was entitled to a second uninterrupted, duty-free,
thirty-minute meal period which was to commence before the end of
the tenth hour of work in any workday in which the employee worked
more than ten hours.

     Subclass 5 (Pay Stub Subclass) - All members of Subclasses 1,
2, 3, and 4 who, from April 6, 2010, through the date of
certification, were provided with one or more wage statements.

     Subclass 6 (Waiting Time Penalties Subclass) - All members of
Subclasses 1, 2, 3, and 4 who, from April 6, 2008, through the date
of certification, were separated from employment at MM 879.

     Class 2 (PAGA Class) - All members of any of the Subclass of
the MM 879 class.

Judge Nunley finds that the Plaintiffs have met the Rule 23(a) and
Rule 23(b) requirements.  He also finds that the Plaintiffs'
amendments resolve the Defendants' concerns about circular and
fail-safe definitions.  As for the Defendants' remaining argument
that the proposed time periods are overbroad, the Judge agrees with
the Plaintiffs that such a determination would dispose of
substantive questions prematurely.  In an effort to make the class
and subclass definitions more precise, objective, and
ascertainable, the Judge exercises the Court's discretion to adopt
the Plaintiff's proposed amendments.

The Defendants Servicemaster, Merry Maids, and MM Maids argue that
the Court must dismiss the Plaintiffs' seventh cause of action for
failure to provide expense reimbursements because the Plaintiffs
failed to request certification on that ground.  In reply, the
Plaintiffs agree that their cause of action for failure to
reimburse is not amenable to class treatment and should be
dismissed.  Based on this agreement by the parties, the Judge finds
that the Plaintiff's seventh cause of action should be dismissed
with prejudice.

Finally, as to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify the Scheduling
Order, the Judge holds that the instant order resolves the motion
for class certification.  Accordingly, he will deny the Plaintiffs'
motion to modify the scheduling order as moot.

Therefore, Judge Nunley granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification, subject to the amended definitions.  He appointed
the named Plaintiffs as the class representatives; and Sutton Hague
Law Corporation as the class counsel.

The Judge dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' seventh cause of
action for Failure to Reimburse Business-Related Expenses in
Violation of Labor Code Section.  He denied as moot the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order.

The Parties are Ordered to file a Joint Status Report within 30
days of the date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 18, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/PjEj6n from Leagle.com.

Angela Cruz, Maria Madrigal & Lourdes Baiz, Plaintiffs, represented
by Jared Hague -- jared@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law
Corporation, PC & S. Brett Sutton -- brett@suttonhague.com --
Sutton Hague Law Corporation, PC.

MM 879, Inc., a corporation, Defendant, represented by Anthony
Peter Raimondo -- apr@raimondoassociates.com -- Raimondo &
Associates & Jasmine Shams -- js@raimondoassociates.com -- Raimondo
& Associates.

Barrett Business Services, Inc., a corporation, Defendant,
represented by David Ian Dalby -- ddalby@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw
and Culbertson LLP.

ServiceMaster, Inc., a corporation, Defendant, represented by
Marlene S. Muraco -- mmuraco@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.

Merry Maids Limited Partnership, a limited partnership, MM Maids
LLC & Servicemaster Company, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Marlene S. Muraco, Littler Mendelson, Kimberly L. Gee, Littler
Mendelson & Paul E. Prather, Littler Mendelson, PC, pro hac vice.

MM 879, Inc., a corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Anthony
Peter Raimondo, Raimondo & Associates & Jasmine Shams, Raimondo &
Associates.

Barrett Business Services, Inc., a corporation, Cross Defendant,
represented by David Ian Dalby, Hinshaw and Culbertson LLP.

Barrett Business Services, Inc., a corporation, Cross Claimant,
represented by David Ian Dalby, Hinshaw and Culbertson LLP.

MM 879, Inc., a corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Anthony Peter Raimondo, Raimondo & Associates & Jasmine Shams,
Raimondo & Associates.


MPKS INC: Green Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Cyntia Green on behalf of herself and all others similarly-situated
Plaintiff, v. MPKS, Inc. and Val Alibi, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00078 (N.D. Ohio, January 11, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime
and minimum wages, liquidated damages, injunctive relief and other
equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act.

Defendants operate an adult entertainment club in Cleveland, Ohio
called Alibi Inn where Green worked as an exotic dancer. She claims
to be misclassified as an independent contractor receiving only
tips as her only compensation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris P. Wido, Esq.
      THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
      25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200
      Beachwood, OH 44122
      Phone: (216) 291-4744
      Fax: (216) 291-5744
      Email: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com


MYCLEAN INC: Shortchanges Cleaner's Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------
Jamel Johnson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Myclean Inc., Defendant, Case No.
150214/2019 (N.Y. Sup, January 9, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, unpaid overtime, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
redress for failure to provide accurate wage statements, injunctive
relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York
Labor Law.

Defendant employed Johnson as a cleaner in its facility located at
247 West 35th Street, New York, New York 10001. He claims to have
worked an average of 2.5 hours in overtime per day and incurred
uncompensated travel time in between work location. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
      THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
      1613 Northern Boulevard
      Roslyn, NY 11576
      Tel. (516) 625-0105 Ext. 18


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Alvarez Files Personal Injury Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Michael Alvarez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00354-JMS-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 26, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
   RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
   2402 Dunlavy Street
   Houston, TX 77006
   Tel: (713) 554-9099
   Fax: (713) 554-9098
   Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Blunt Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Byron Blunt,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00403-JPH-DLP (S.D. Ind., January 27, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
   RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
   2402 Dunlavy Street
   Houston, TX 77006
   Tel: (713) 554-9099
   Fax: (713) 554-9098
   Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Caldwell Files PI Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Jeremy Caldwell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00406-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 27, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
   RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
   2402 Dunlavy Street
   Houston, TX 77006
   Tel: (713) 554-9099
   Fax: (713) 554-9098
   Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Charles Files PI Class Action in Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as William Charles,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Carthage
College, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00348-JPH-MPB (S.D. Ind.,
January 26, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
   RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
   2402 Dunlavy Street
   Houston, TX 77006
   Tel: (713) 554-9099
   Fax: (713) 554-9098
   Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Keith Suit for Personal Injury
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as William Keith,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00351-JRS-DML (S.D. Ind., January 26, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
   RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
   2402 Dunlavy Street
   Houston, TX 77006
   Tel: (713) 554-9099
   Fax: (713) 554-9098
   Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com



NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Flamish Files Personal Injury Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as John Flamish, IV,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00407-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 27, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
   RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
   2402 Dunlavy Street
   Houston, TX 77006
   Tel: (713) 554-9099
   Fax: (713) 554-9098
   Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Fletcher Suit Asserts Personal Injury
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as William Fletcher, Jr,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00349-JMS-DML (S.D. Ind., January 26, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
   RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
   2402 Dunlavy Street
   Houston, TX 77006
   Tel: (713) 554-9099
   Fax: (713) 554-9098
   Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Gholson Sues for Personal Injury
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Javar Gholson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00405-JPH-DLP (S.D. Ind., January 27, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
   RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
   2402 Dunlavy Street
   Houston, TX 77006
   Tel: (713) 554-9099
   Fax: (713) 554-9098
   Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hanson Files Personal Injury Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Timothy Hanson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and
California Lutheran University, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00344-SEB-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 26, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
   RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
   2402 Dunlavy Street
   Houston, TX 77006
   Tel: (713) 554-9099
   Fax: (713) 554-9098
   Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Jensen Brings Class Action for Personal Injury
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as William Jensen,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00350-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 26, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
   RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
   2402 Dunlavy Street
   Houston, TX 77006
   Tel: (713) 554-9099
   Fax: (713) 554-9098
   Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Mackey Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Damian Mackey,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00404-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 27, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
   RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
   2402 Dunlavy Street
   Houston, TX 77006
   Tel: (713) 554-9099
   Fax: (713) 554-9098
   Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: McGrier Files PI Class Action in Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Warren McGrier,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00347-JRS-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 26, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
   RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
   2402 Dunlavy Street
   Houston, TX 77006
   Tel: (713) 554-9099
   Fax: (713) 554-9098
   Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Ruo Files Personal Injury Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Thomas Ruo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Bryant
University, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00342-JRS-MJD (S.D. Ind.,
January 26, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
   RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
   2402 Dunlavy Street
   Houston, TX 77006
   Tel: (713) 554-9099
   Fax: (713) 554-9098
   Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Simmons Suit Asserts Personal Injury
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Thomas Simmons,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Clark
Atlanta University, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00401-JMS-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 27, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
   RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
   2402 Dunlavy Street
   Houston, TX 77006
   Tel: (713) 554-9099
   Fax: (713) 554-9098
   Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Wasil Files Class Action for Personal Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as William Wasil,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Ohio
Wesleyan University, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00352-RLY-MJD
(S.D. Ind., January 26, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as personal
injury.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a non-profit
organization which regulates athletes of 1,268 North American
institutions and conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
   RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
   2402 Dunlavy Street
   Houston, TX 77006
   Tel: (713) 554-9099
   Fax: (713) 554-9098
   Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


NAVIENT CORP: Bid to Certify Class Withdrawn without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Bria Adkins, the Plaintiff,
vs. Navient Corporation, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01680 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert W. Gettleman
entered an order on withdrawing Plaintiff's motion to certify class
without prejudice to re-filing after the close of expert
discovery.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on January 23,
2019, the Defendant stipulates that it will not make an offer of
judgment. Plaintiff's motion to certify class is withdrawn without
prejudice to re-filing after the close of expert discovery. Status
hearing is set for May 22, 2019 at 9:10 a.m.[CC]

NEW YORK PIZZERIA: Ettorre Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chiara Ettorre, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) v. New York Pizzeria, Inc.,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00245 (S.D. Tex., January 23, 2019), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

New York Pizzeria, Inc., is a Texas corporation.  The Company
operates a chain of restaurants known as Russo's, which, according
to its Web site, has locations "from Hawaii to Dubai, with over 30
outposts in between."  The Defendant owns at least six locations
within the greater Houston, Texas area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 479-9229
          Facsimile: (817) 260-0801
          E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com


NEW YORK: MG Suit Challenges Institutionalization in State Prison
-----------------------------------------------------------------
M.G., P.C., C.J., M.J., J.R., and D.R., individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated v. ANDREW CUOMO, in his official capacity
as the Governor of the State of New York, the NEW YORK STATE OFFICE
OF MENTAL HEALTH, ANN MARIE T. SULLIVAN, in her official capacity
as the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health,
the NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY
SUPERVISION, ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, in his official capacity as the
Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections
and Community Supervision, ANNE MARIE MCGRATH, in her official
capacity as Associate Commissioner of the New York State Department
of Corrections and Community Supervision, Case No. 1:19-cv-00639
(S.D.N.Y., January 23, 2019), is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiffs, who are individuals with serious mental illness and who
are indigent, to challenge their institutionalization in state
prison.

Because the Defendants have failed to make available
community-based housing and supportive services that the Plaintiffs
require upon release, the Defendants hold the Plaintiffs in state
prison past their lawful release dates, the Plaintiffs allege.

Andrew Cuomo is the Governor of the state of New York.  The New
York State Office of Mental Health is charged by statute with the
"responsibility for seeing that mentally ill persons are provided
with care and treatment, that such care, treatment and
rehabilitation is of high quality and effectiveness, and that the
personal and civil rights of persons receiving care, treatment and
rehabilitation are adequately protected."

The Defendants are responsible for planning for the release from
New York State prisons of people with serious mental illness, who
are homeless or at risk of homelessness.  The Defendants are
responsible for making available adequate community-based mental
health housing programs for this population.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elena Landriscina, Esq.
          Joshua Rosenthal, Esq.
          Betsy Sterling, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS NEW YORK
          25 Chapel Street, Suite 1005
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (518) 432-7861
          E-mail: elena.landriscina@drny.org
                  joshua.rosenthal@drny.org
                  betsy.sterling@drny.org)

               - and -

          Janet E. Sabel, Esq.
          Stefen R. Short, Esq.
          Robert Quackenbush, Esq.
          Veronica Vela, Esq.
          Mary Lynne Werlwas, Esq.
          The LEGAL AID SOCIETY
          PRISONERS' RIGHTS PROJECT
          199 Water Street, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 577-3530
          E-mail: sshort@legal-aid.org
                  rquackenbush@legal-aid.org
                  vvela@legal-aid.org
                  mlwerlwas@legal-aid.org


NISSAN NORTH: Mass. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Costa Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts denied Nissan's motion to dismiss the case, KRISTA
COSTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Civil No.
18-11523-LTS (D. Mass.).

Costa has sued Nissan for violating chapter 93A of the
Massachusetts General Laws, as well as state and federal implied
warranty laws, by selling her a Nissan Altima with what she alleges
is a defective transmission.  

Costa purchased a new 2014 Nissan Altima in October 2014. The car
features a continuously variable automatic transmission ("CVT"),
which Nissan promoted as a major selling point that would enhance
the vehicle's "smoothness," "fluid-feeling performance,"
drivability and responsiveness."  Notwithstanding these promised
benefits, Costa alleges that she, like other drivers of 2013 and
2014 Altimas, "frequently experienced shaking of the vehicle at
seemingly random moments during operation.  Finally, while Costa
was operating her vehicle in June 2018, the transmission failed.
Although she was able to idle into a parking spot without serious
incident, she had to pay to have her vehicle towed to the dealer,
where she was informed she needed to have her CVT replaced" at a
cost of more than $3,500.

According to Costa, her experience is not unique.  She alleges that
defective CVTs have caused shuddering, hesitation, stalling,
unusual noises, and ultimately, premature transmission failure for
many owners and operators of 2013 and 2014 Altimas, posing a
significant safety risk and requiring costly repairs.  She further
alleges that Nissan knew of the problem, failed to disclose or
remedy it, and instead engaged in misleading promotion of the
subject vehicles.  This conduct, Costa claims, violated the
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act ("Chapter 93A"), the implied
warranty of merchantability under Massachusetts law, and the
federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Nissan has moved to dismiss Costa's complaint in its entirety,
contending she has not stated a plausible legal claim.

Judge Sorokin concludes that the complaint provides fair notice to
Nissan and contains ample facts that, if true, would entitle Costa
to relief.  He finds that Costa has described how the alleged CVT
defect manifested itself in reality both generally, and in her own
car while she operated it between October 2014 and June 2018.
Costa has identified particular promotional statements made by
Nissan which, she claims, were deceptive in light of the problems
she says resulted from the allegedly defective CVTs—problems she
states were known to Nissan before Costa purchased her car.

As to Costa's state and federal warranty claims, the Judge finds
that Costa describes a CVT defect which interfered with the
performance of the subject vehicles while they were operating.  She
describes safety-related consequences, such as sudden loss of
momentum, unexpected surges of power, and inoperable brake lights.
Costa's allegations are plainly sufficient to survive a Rule
12(b)(6) challenge to her warranty claims.

For these reasons, Judge Sorokin denied Nissan's motion to
dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 18, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/lWZ0Kq from Leagle.com.

Krista Costa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow --
b.barnow@barnowlaw.com -- Barnow & Associates, P.C., pro hac vice,
Erich Paul Schork -- e.schork@barnowlaw.com -- Barnow and
Associates, P.C., pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. Blake --
j.blake@barnowlaw.com -- Barnow and Associates, P.C., pro hac vice,
Thomas J. O'Reardon, II -- toreardon@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon LLP, pro hac vice, Timothy G. Blood , Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon, LLP, pro hac vice & David Pastor --
dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com -- Pastor Law Office, LLP.

Nissan North America, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant,
represented by E. Paul Cauley -- paul.cauley@dbr.com -- Drinker
Biddle & Reath LLP, pro hac vice, Eric M. Apjohn --
eapjohn@campbell-trial-lawyers.com -- Campbell, Campbell, Edwards &
Conroy, PC, James M. Campbell --
jmcampbell@campbell-trial-lawyers.com -- Campbell, Campbell,
Edwards & Conroy, PC & S. Vance Wittie -- vance.wittie@dbr.com --
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, pro hac vice.


NUTRISYSTEM INC: Klein Challenges Sale to Tivity Health
-------------------------------------------------------
Melvyn Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nutrisystem, Inc., Michael J. Hagan, Robert
F. Bernstock, Jay Herratti, Brian P. Tierney, Patricia Han, Dawn M.
Zier, Paul Guyardo, Michael D. Mangan, Andrea Weiss, Benjamin A.
Kirshner, Tivity Health, Inc. and Sweet Acquisition, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00056, (D. Del., January 9, 2019), seeks
to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them
from proceeding with, consummating or closing the proposed
acquisition of Nutrisystem by Tivity Health, Inc., or rescinding it
in the event defendants consummate the merger.  The lawsuit further
seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees
and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

Each share of Nutrisystem common stock will be converted into the
right to receive $38.75 in cash, without interest, and 0.2141 of a
share of Tivity Health common stock.

The complaint asserts that the Merger Agreement includes a "no
solicitation" provision barring Nutrisystem from soliciting or
encouraging the submission of an acquisition proposal. In addition,
the proxy statement fails to provide the company's EBITDA that were
needed in the valuation analyses in connection with the proposed
buyout and the fairness opinion of the company's financial advisor,
Evercore.

Nutrisystem is a provider of weight management products and
services sold primarily online and over the telephone and multi-day
kits and single items available at select retail locations.
Nutrisystem common stock is traded under the ticker symbol
"NTRI."[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
      O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
      901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 778-4000
      Email: rernst@oelegal.com

             - and -

      Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
      Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
      GAINEY, McKENNA, & EGLESTON
      440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 983-1300
      Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
      Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
             gegleston@gme-law.com


NUTRISYSTEM INC: Shaev Sues Over Trivity Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------
Victoria Shaev, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nutrisystem, Inc., Robert F. Bernstock,
Paul Guyardo, Michael J. Hagan, Tricia Han, Jay Herratti, Ben
Kirshner, Michael D. Mangan, Brian P. Tierney, Andrea M. Weiss and
Dawn M. Zier, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00063, (D. Del., January
10, 2019), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in
concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the
proposed acquisition of Nutrisystem by Tivity Health, Inc., or
rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger.  The
Plaintiff also seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action,
including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Under the transaction, each share of Nutrisystem common stock will
be converted into the right to receive $38.75 in cash, without
interest, and 0.2141 of a share of Tivity Health common stock.

According to the complaint, the Merger Agreement includes a "no
solicitation" provision barring the Nutrisystem from soliciting or
encouraging the submission of an acquisition proposal. In addition,
the proxy statement fails to provide the company's EBITDA that were
needed in the valuation analyses in connection with the proposed
buyout and the fairness opinion of the company's financial advisor,
Evercore.

Nutrisystem is a provider of weight management products and
services sold primarily online and over the telephone and multi-day
kits and single items available at select retail locations.
Nutrisystem common stock is traded under the ticker symbol
"NTRI."[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Gloria Kui Melwani, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
      Email: melwani@whafh.com


OGLETREE & DEAKINS: Knepper Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A case, Dawn Knepper, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Petitioner, vs. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C., the Respondent, Case No. 3:18-cv-00304, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
for California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on Jan. 23, 2019.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.:
2:19-cv-00527-CBM-PJW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Consuelo B. Marshall.

Ogletree Deakins is a labor and employment law firm.[BN]

Attorneys for Petitioner:

          Jill Sullivan Sanford, Esq.
          Danielle Anne Fuschetti, Esq.
          David W. Sanford, Esq.
          Edward D. Chapin, Esq.
          Leigh Anne St Charles, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP LLP
          5663 Meadows Del Mar
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (619) 577-4253
          Facsimile: (619) 677-4250
          E-mail: jsanford@sanfordheisler.com
                  dfuschetti@sanfordheisler.com
                  dsanford@sanfordheisler.com
                  echapin2@sanfordheisler.com
                  lstcharles@sanfordheisler.com

Attorneys for Respondent:

          Nancy L. Abell, Esq.
          Deborah Susan Weiser, Esq.
          Paul William Cane, Jr., Esq.
          Valerie Margaret Marek, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228
          Telephone: (213) 683-6162
          Facsimile: (213) 627-0705
          E-mail: nancyabell@paulhastings.com
                  deborahweiser@paulhastings.com
                  paulcane@paulhastings.com
                  valeriemarek@paulhastings.com

PAPA JOHN'S: Burnham FLSA Suit Has Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned AUSTIN BURNHAM, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs.
PAPA JOHN'S PADUCAH, LLC and ROBERT WORKMAN, individually, the
Defendants, Case No.: 5:18-cv-00112-TBR (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge
Thomas B. Rusell entered an order on Jan. 22, 2019:

   1. conditionally certifying case as a collective action under
      the Fair Labor Standards Act and approving Notice of
      Collective Action Lawsuit and Consent to Join forms;

   2. authorizing that the Notice be sent to:

      "current and former delivery drivers employed by Defendants,

      Papa John's Paducah, LLC and Robert Workman, Individually,
      d/b/a "Papa John's" (together "Defendants") within three
      years preceding the date of this Order."

   3. staying these proceedings and approving the Parties'
      additional agreements contained in the Joint Motion.[CC]

PARRENT SMITH: Griffin FCRA Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled JOHN GRIFFIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PARRENT SMITH INVESTIGATIONS, NICHOLS
J. SMITH, JOANNE PARRENT, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
3:18-cv-07092, was transferred on January 18, 2019, from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-00428-FMO-AFM to the proceeding.  The lawsuit is assigned
to Judge Fernando M. Olguin and referred to Magistrate Judge
Alexander F. MacKinnon.

Mr. Griffin brings this action pursuant to the Fair Credit
Reporting Act to challenge the actions of the Defendants with
regard to their wrongful use of his and the putative Class members'
credit reports for no permissible purpose that caused damages.  He
contends that the Defendants obtained his consumer credit report as
part of a "private investigation" it was conducting to uncover
adverse information about him to be used by a third party against
him in a probate Court Proceeding.  By doing so, he argues, the
Defendants improperly requested his credit report without any
permissible purpose as defined by the FCRA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Charles Scranton Redfield, Esq.
          LOW BALL & LYNCH
          505 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-6630
          Telephone: (415) 981-6630
          Facsimile: (415) 982-1634
          E-mail: credfield@lowball.com


PELLEGRINI VINEYARDS: Website not Blind-friendly, Claims Traynor
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yaseen Traynor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Pellegrini Vineyards, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-00302 (S.D. N.Y., January 10, 2019), seeks preliminary
and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive
damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs
and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.

Defendant is a vineyard and wine retailer that operates
"Pellegrini" vineyards as well as www.pellegrinivineyards.com,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services which Defendant offers in connection with their
physical locations in 23005 Main Road, Cutchogue, NY 11935. Traynor
browsed and intended to make avail of their services. Plaintiff is
legally blind and claims that Defendant's website cannot be
accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel Kohn, Esq.
     YAAKOV SAKS
     Stein Saks, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Tel: (201) 282-6500
     Fax: (201) 282-6501
     Email: dkohn@steinsakslegal.com


PERSONNEL STAFFING: Final Class Cert. Bid Filed in Haack et al.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned ROMAN HAACK, CODY CLAY and
RYAN BANTA, and all other employees similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. PERSONNEL STAFFING GROUP, LLC, DANIEL S. BARNETT,
individually, DAVID BARNETT, individually, NORTHERN ILLINOIS FENCE
dba COMPLETE NORTHERN ILLINOIS FENCE or CNI, COMPLETE FENCE, INC.,
US INSTALLERS, dba NORTHERN ILLINOIS FENCE, and RAYMOND HOHE,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02854 (N.D. Ill.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court on Jan. 23, 2019, for an order:

   1. granting leave to file instanter motion for final class
      certification until all notices have come back within 90
      days of service;

   2. granting leave to file instanter Plaintiffs' Memorandum in
      Support of Motion to Certify Collective Action and/or Class
      Action;

   3. granting Rule 23 Order of Class Certification of the State
      Wage Claims; and

   4. allowing appropriate Rule 23 class discovery if requested
      by the Defendant.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          L. Steven Plant, Esq.
          ROBBINS, SALOMON & PATT, LTD
          180 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 456 0285
          Facsimile: (312) 782 9000
          E-mail: lsplatt@rsplaw.com

               - and -

          Mr. William Provenzano, Eq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM J. PROVENZANO
          & ASSOCIATES, LTD
          1580 S. Milwaukee Avenue, Suite 530
          Libertyville, IL 60048
          Telephone: (847) 816 6588
          E-mail: wjprovenzano@ameritech.net

PET MEDS: Fischler Files Suit Under ADA in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Pet Meds 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. Pet Meds Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00784 (S.D. N.Y., January 27, 2019).

Pet Meds Inc. is an online pet pharmacy based in the United
States.[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



PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Madinya Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sandra Madinya filed an appeal from a court ruling in her
lawsuit entitled Sandra Madinya v. Portfolio Recovery Associates,
LLC, Case No. 0:18-cv-61138-BB, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 27, 2018, Judge
Beth Bloom granted the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings.

Sandra Madinya filed the putative class action against the
Defendant under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"),
stemming from a letter sent to the Plaintiff on Feb. 21, 2018 to
collect on a time-barred debt.  At the time she received the Letter
in the mail related to debt she incurred on a Capital One credit
card, the debt was time-barred.  The Plaintiff contends that the
letter violates the FDCPA because it fails to disclose to the
Plaintiff that should she make a partial payment on the debt, the
Defendant's right to sue for the debt would be "revived" under
Florida law.

The appellate case is captioned as Sandra Madinya v. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 19-10119, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before February 19,
      2019;

   -- The appendix is due no later than seven days from the
      filing of the appellant's brief; and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before February 7, 2019, as to Appellee Portfolio Recovery
      Associates, LLC.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SANDRA MADINYA, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          J. Dennis Card Jr., Esq.
          Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
          721 US Highway 1, Suite 201
          North Palm Beach, FL 33408
          Telephone: (561) 822-3446
          Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
          E-mail: dennis@cloorg.com
                  darren@cloorg.com

               - and -

          Jordan A. Shaw, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
          110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 989-6333
          E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com

Defendant-Appellee PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, is
represented by:

          Brittney Lauren Difato, Esq.
          Sara F. Holladay-Tobias
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          50 N Laura St., Suite 3300
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 798-3200
          E-mail: bdifato@mcguirewoods.com
                  stobias@mcguirewoods.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Andrews Seeks Damages Over Dental Floss
----------------------------------------------------------
James Andrews, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Procter & Gamble Company and Does 1-10
Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00075 (C.D. Cal., January 11,
2019), seeks actual, punitive and any and all statutory enhanced
damages, reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees and costs,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and all other relief,
general or special, legal and equitable for violation of the False
Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law of the California
Business and Professions Code.

Andrews claims that Proctor and Gamble's Oral-B Glide dental floss
contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl that, through continuous
exposure, may be linked to various medical ailments and adverse
conditions. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented pro se.

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


RADIUS GLOBAL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Henry FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark A. Kearney of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania denied Radius' motion to dismiss the case,
NADIA HENRY, v. RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al, Civil Action
No. 18-4945 (E.D. Pa.).

Ms. Henry challenges the clarity of language in a debt collection
letter Northland Group (now known as Radius Global Solutions, LLC)
sent to her attempting to collect a $160.25 debt allegedly owed to
TD Bank, N.A.  Radius' first sentence describes the necessity of
notifying it of a dispute but does not describe how.  The second
and third sentences describe Radius' obligations if she sends it a
written dispute.

Ms. Henry claims Radius ambiguously described how she could dispute
the debt under Sections 1692g and 1692e of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.   She, individually and on behalf of the alleged
class, now sues Radius under Sections 1692g and 1692e alleging (1)
Radius violates Section 1692g by failing to adequately inform her
she must dispute the debt "in writing" and (2) Radius' initial
notice letter is false, deceptive, or misleading in violation of
Section 1692e.

Ms. Henry argues Radius violates Section 1692g because its initial
communication failed to notify Ms. Henry she must dispute the debt
in writing.  She also argues the word "if' in the Sections
1692g(a)(4) and (a)(5) notices falsely implies she could
effectively dispute the debt orally.

Radius argues (1) the Court of Appeals does not require a debt
collector to notify a debtor she must dispute a debt in writing and
(2) the word "if' in the validation notice would not confuse the
least sophisticated debtor as to whether she could dispute the debt
orally.

Radius moves to dismiss Ms. Henry's complaint arguing Ms. Henry
fails to state a claim.  It alternatively asks the Court to grant
it summary judgment finding Section 1692g void as
unconstitutionally vague.

Judge Kearney holds that Ms. Henry states a claim under Section
1692g of the Act.  He finds that (i) the Court of Appeals held that
to effectively dispute a debt under Section 1692g, the debtor must
do so in writing; and (ii) the district courts in the circuit
differ as to what is required in the validation notice to inform a
debtor it must dispute a debt in writing under Section 1692g; and
(iii) the Court lacks a basis to find Section 1692g
unconstitutionally vague.  Because Ms. Henry states a claim under
Section 1692g, the Judge will deny Radius' motion to dismiss this
claim.  And because Section 1692g(a) is not unconstitutionally
vague, Radius' motion for summary judgment on Ms. Henry's Section
1692g claim will be denied.

The Judge further holds that Ms. Henry states a claim under Section
1692e of the Act.  Ms. Henry states bases her Section 1692e claim
on the same allegations the validation notice is open to more than
one reasonable interpretation, at least one of which is inaccurate.
Thus, healso find Ms. Henry states a claim under Section 1692e.
He will deny Radius' motion to dismiss her Section 1692e claims.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Kearney denied Radius' motion to
dismiss Ms. Henry's class action complaint.  He also denied its
motion for summary judgment challenging the constitutionality of
Section 1692g.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan 18, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/98pLff from Leagle.com.

NADIA HENRY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by ANTRANIG GARIBIAN --
ag@garibianlaw.com -- GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES PC.

RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, formerly known as NORTHLAND GROUP,
Defendant, represented by ANDREW J. BLADY -- ablady@sessions.legal
-- SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL.


ROBY CRESCENT: Court Certifies Quinn's FLSA Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned ANTHONY QUINN, the Plaintiff,
vs. ROBY CRESCENT GUARDIAN, INC. AND MARIAN H. PIERRE, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03576-BWA-KWR (E.D. La.), the Hon.
Judge Barry W. Ashe entered an order on January 22, 2019:

   1. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act
      Collective Action Class consisting of:

      "all hourly employees who worked for Defendants as security
      guards, but who were not paid at the federal minimum wage
      rate for all hours worked as a result of Crescent Guardian,
      Inc.'s policy of deducting costs of uniforms and equipment
      from employee paychecks (Putative Class Members)";

   2. directing Defendants to provide names and last known
      addresses for the Putative Class Members no later than 30
      days following the Court's granting of the Order for
      Conditional Certification. This information will be provided

      in a usable electronic format, such as Excel.;

   3. directing Plaintiff's counsel to distribute the Notice and
      Consent forms to the Putative Class Members, within 30 days
      from receipt of the Putative Class Members' contact
      information;

   4. directing Plaintiff's counsel to send the Putative Class
      Members an initial Notice and Consent form by regular First
      Class Mail. In the event that more than 25% of the Notices
      are returned as Undeliverable via First Class Mail within 30

      days of the beginning of the Notice Period, Defendants agree

      to provide the last known telephone numbers for the Putative

      Class Members whose Notices were returned Undeliverable
      within 10 days of being provided with the names of Putative
      Class Members whose Notices were returned Undeliverable to
      the extent that Defendants are in possession of Putative
      Class Members phone numbers. The telephone numbers shall be
      used only to text a mutually agreeable text message to
      individuals whose Notice was returned containing a picture
      of the Notice and a link to the Opt-In Form.;

   5. directing the Putative Class Members to file the Consent
      form with this Court to opt-in to the above captioned
      lawsuit (the "opt-in period") within 90 days from the
      initial mailing of the Notice and Consent form. The
      Defendants will post a copy of the Notice in a place readily

      visible to all employees at the office location during this
      90-day period.;

   6. directing Plaintiff's Counsel to provide Defendants' Counsel

      with copies of the signed consent forms on a regular,
      rolling basis as they are received and Plaintiff's Counsel
      shall file signed consent forms with the Court within 14
      days of receipt. The Defendants and/or their counsel shall
      not contact or communicate with persons who opt-in to this
      litigation or otherwise retaliate, harass or intimidate them

      due to their decision to opt-in. The Defendants may
      communicate with opt-in plaintiffs who continue to work for
      Defendants regarding issues that fall within their working
      relationship. Except for the notice provided for in this
      motion, Plaintiff and/or his counsel may not contact or
      communicate with Putative Class Members to encourage them to

      opt-in or to discuss the facts of this case prior to the
      return of a class member's opt in form.; and

   7. reserving the Defendants all rights to move for
      decertification at the appropriate time or to advance any
      defenses that it may have to the substantive claims in this
      lawsuit. Nothing contained in this Order and the
      corresponding Notice of Action and Opt-in form is, or should

      be construed as, an admission on behalf Defendants regarding

      the facts or substantive issues of this case.[CC]

SANTA BARBARA HOSPITALITY: Ingraham Appeals Order in Byrne Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Objectors Ashley Ingraham and Adrianna Ortega filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Lauren Byrne, et al. v. Santa
Barbara Hospitality Services, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:17-cv-00527-JGB-KK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Riverside.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the parties
entered into a Settlement Agreement, in which the Defendants
continue to deny liability for the claims alleged in the Complaint.
Nevertheless, the Defendants agree to pay a total settlement
amount of $8.5 million, of which $5.5 million shall constitute the
gross cash settlement amount and $3 million shall constitute the
credit benefit settlement amount.  Under no circumstances will the
Defendants be responsible for making payments in excess of the
gross cash settlement amount.  However, to the extent class members
elect to receive credit benefits in lieu of cash, that election
will not deplete the available credit benefit settlement amount.

The appellate case is captioned as Lauren Byrne, et al. v. Santa
Barbara Hospitality Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-55096, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by February 19, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on March 18, 2019;

   -- Appellants Ashley Ingraham and Adrianna Ortega's opening
      brief is due on April 29, 2019;

   -- Appellees Jenetta L. Bracy, Lauren Byrne, City of Industry
      Hospitality Venture, Inc., City of Industry Hospitality
      Venture, LLC, DG Hospitality Van Nuys, LLC, Jennifer Disla,
      Farmdale Hospitality Services, Inc., Farmdale Hospitality
      Services, LLC, High Expectations Hospitality Dallas, LLC,
      High Expectations Hospitality, LLC, Inland Restaurant
      Venture I, Inc., Inland Restaurant Venture I, LLC, Kentucky
      Hospitality Venture Lexington, LLC, Kentucky Hospitality
      Venture, LLC, L.C.M., LLC, LCM1, LLC, Midnight Sun
      Enterprises, Inc., Midnight Sun Enterprises, LLC, Nitelife
      Minneapolis, LLC, Nitelife, Inc., Olympic Avenue Venture,
      Inc., Olympic Avenue Ventures, LLC, Jennifer Perez, Rialto
      Pockets, Inc., Rialto Pockets, LLC, Rouge Gentlemen's Club,
      Inc., Santa Barbara Hospitality Services, Inc., Santa
      Barbara Hospitality Services, LLC, Santa Maria Restaurant
      Enterprises, Inc., Santa Maria Restaurant Enterprises, LLC,
      Sarie's Lounge, LLC, Spearmint Rhino Consulting Worldwide,
      Inc., The Oxnard Hospitality Services, Inc., The Oxnard
      Hospitality Services, LLC, The Spearmint Rhino Companies
      Worldwide, Inc., WPB Hospitality West Palm Beach, LLC, WPB
      Hospitality, LLC, Washington Management Los Angeles, LLC,
      Washington Management, LLC, Wild Orchid Portland, LLC, Wild
      Orchid, Inc., World Class Venues Iowa, LLC and World Class
      Venues, LLC's answering brief is due on May 29, 2019; and

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

Objectors-Appellants ADRIANNA ORTEGA and ASHLEY INGRAHAM are
represented by:

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees LAUREN BYRNE, JENETTA L. BRACY, JENNIFER
PEREZ, and JENNIFER DISLA, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 521-3605
          Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
          E-mail: marbuckl@baronbudd.com

               - and -

          Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
          360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          E-mail: hunter@napolibern.com

Defendants-Appellees SANTA BARBARA HOSPITALITY SERVICES, INC.; THE
SPEARMINT RHINO COMPANIES WORLDWIDE, INC.; SPEARMINT RHINO
CONSULTING WORLDWIDE, INC.; and SANTA BARBARA HOSPITALITY SERVICES,
LLC, are represented by:

          Peter E. Garrell, Esq.
          John M. Kennedy, Esq.
          GARRELL LAW, P.C.
          1875 Tandem Way
          Norco, CA 92860-3606
          Telephone: (714) 451-4148
          E-mail: pgarrell@garrelllaw.com
                  jkennedy@garrellaw.com


SERVICE OF PROCESS: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Swinter TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SWINTER GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. SERVICE OF PROCESS
AGENTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-CV-2759 RLW (E.D. Mo.),
Judge Ronnie L. White of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss National Class Allegations for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction.

The case is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), where Swinter seeks to certify a
nationwide class of persons who "were sent" certain faxes by or on
behalf of the Defendants.  In the First Amended Complaint, Swinter
alleges that the Defendant Service of Process Agents ("SPA") was
incorporated in Tennessee and maintains its principal place of
business in Virginia.  Swinter further alleges SPA is not
registered to do business with the Missouri Secretary of State.

At issue, SPA asserts that the class allegations should be
dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(2) under the reasoning of the Supreme Court's decision in
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California ("BMS").
SPA argues, applying BMS, that the Court lacks specific
jurisdiction over SPA as to the putative non-Missouri class
members' claims.  It asserts that the putative non-Missouri class
members were not injured in Missouri and the Plaintiff cannot
assert a claim against a non-resident defendant in a state with no
connection to their claims.

Because SPA must already come to the forum to litigate the claims
of the Swinter, Judge White finds there is little hardship, as a
jurisdictional matter, for it to also litigate the nationwide class
claims.  Therefore, it promotes efficiency and expediency to
litigate all claims at once rather than to separate the nationwide
class.   The Judge notes that Congress created class actions to
help overcome the problem that small recoveries do not provide the
incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his
or her rights.  Accordingly, he follows the better reasoned
decisions declining to extend BMS to class actions.  Accordingly,
he denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

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

Swinter Group, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Mary B. Schultz --
mschultz@sl-lawyers.com -- SCHULTZ AND ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. & Ronald
J. Eisenberg -- reisenberg@sl-lawyers.com -- SCHULTZ AND
ASSOCIATES, L.L.P.

Service of Process Agents, Inc., Defendant, represented by Don V.
Kelly-- dkelly@evans-dixon.com -- EVANS AND DIXON & Brian R. Shank
-- bshank@evans-dixon.com -- EVANS AND DIXON.


SIMM ASSOCIATES: Nieto Appeals N.D. Illinois Ruling to 7th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ruel Nieto filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Ruel Nieto v. Simm Associates, Incorporated, Case
No. 1:17-cv-06859, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The appellate case is captioned as Ruel Nieto v. Simm Associates,
Incorporated, Case No. 19-1155, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by February 6, 2019;
      and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before March 4, 2019, for
      Ruel Nieto.[BN]

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

          Celetha Chatman, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          20 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 757-1880
          E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com

Defendant-Appellee SIMM ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED, is represented
by:

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


SOGOU INC: Luo Sues Over Share Price Drop from Mismanagement
------------------------------------------------------------
Jiajia Luo, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Sogou Inc., Sohu, Inc., Tencent Holdings
Limited, Xiaochuan Wang, Charles (Chaoyang) Zhang, Yuxin Ren,
Joanna (Yanfeng) Lu, Bin Gao, Joseph Chen, Janice Lee and James
(Xiufeng) Deng, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00230 (S.D. N.Y.,
January 9, 2019), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

Sogou is an Internet search company which is a subsidiary of Sohu,
a Beijing-based search engine in the People's Republic of China. On
November 9, 2017 Sogou declared its IPO of 45,000,000 American
Depository Shares (ADS) at a price of US$13 per ADS and announced
that its ADSs were approved to be listed on New York Stock
Exchange.

However, it failed to disclose that Sogou merchants where under
investigation for sales of counterfeit goods; that its existing
software, advertising procedures, personnel and audit procedures
were insufficient to safeguard against compliance violations with
governing Chinese regulations; Sogou's cost of revenues were
skyrocketing primarily because of significant increases in Traffic
Acquisition Cost which is its primary driver of cost of revenues as
it was dealing with significant price inflation from increased
competition; that it had decided to phase out non-AI-enabled
hardware products, which it hoped would reduce its hardware
revenues in the second half of 2018. Following this announcement,
the price of Sogou ADSs fell $0.78, or 7.55%, to close at $9.55 on
July 30, 2018. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


SPRING ENERGY: Holland Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A case, Jared Holland, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Spring Energy RRH, LLC doing
business as: Spring Power & Gas, the Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-05566, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Foley Square) on Jan. 23, 2019. The
Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-00647-PKC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge P. Kevin Castel.

The Plaintiff brought this class action complaint for damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendants in
negligently and/or willfully calling the Plaintiff with a
pre-recorded message on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, without
Plaintiff's express consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.[BN]

Attorneys for Jared Holland:

          Ross Howard Schmierer, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE PC
          315 Madison Avenue 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 979-3642
          Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
          E-mail: rschmierer@denittislaw.com

Attorneys for Spring Energy RRH, LLC:

          Elliott A. Hallak, Esq.
          Ross B. Hofherr, Esq.
          HARRIS BEACH, LLC
          677 Broadway, Suite 1101
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 701-2748
          Facsimile: (518) 427-0235
          E-mail: ehallak@harrisbeach.com
                  rhofherr@harrisbeach.com

TEZOS SECURITIES: Pumaro LLC et al. Seek to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action RE: TEZOS SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
3:17-cv-06779-RS (N.D. Cal.), plaintiffs Artiom Frunze and Pumaro
LLC ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the case as a class action, on behalf of:

      "all persons and entities who, directly or indirectly,
      contributed Bitcoin or Ethereum to the Tezos Initial Coin
      Offering conducted in July 2017." Excluded from the Class
      are Defendants, and any person, firm, trust, corporation, or

      other entity related to or affiliated with any Defendant.;

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing LTL Attorneys LLP and Hung G. Ta, Esq. PLLC
      as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

The case is a securities class action brought on behalf of all
investors who invested Bitcoin or Ethereum in the Tezos ICO
conducted in July 2017. The complaint asserts claims against
Defendants for violations of Sections 5, 12(a)(1) and 15 of the
Securities Act. From July 1, 2017 through July 14, 2017, the
Defendants jointly conducted the Tezos ICO for 22 Tezos tokens.
While the Tezos Foundation issued the Tezos tokens to investors,
the marketing and execution of the Tezos ICO was performed almost
entirely by the Breitmans.

To make their investments, investors accessed a portal that was
part of the tezos.com website  --  crowdfund.tezos.com -- and input
the amount of Bitcoin and Ethereum that they sought to invest. That
amount was deducted from investors’ digital wallets and sent to
the digital addresses for the Tezos Foundation's Bitcoin and
Ethereum wallets. In this manner, the investments were effectuated
and recorded on the blockchain networks underlying Bitcoin and
Ethereum, the lawsuit says.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class:

          Enoch H. Liang, Esq.
          James M. Lee, Esq. (SBN 192301)
          Caleb H. Liang, Esq.
          LTL ATTORNEYS LLP
          601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1010
          South San Francisco, CA 94080
          Telephone: 650-422-2130
          Facsimile: 213-612-3773
          E-mail: enoch.liang@ltlattorneys.com
          james.lee@ltlattorneys.com
          caleb.liang@ltlattorneys.com

               - and -

          Hung G. Ta, Esq.
          JooYun Kim, Esq.
          HUNG G. TA, ESQ. PLLC
          250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10177
          Telephone: 646-453-7288
          E-mail: hta@hgtlaw.com
                  jooyun@hgtlaw.com

               - and -

          William R. Restis, Esq.
          THE RESTIS LAW FIRM , P.C.
          402 West Broadway, Suite 1520
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619.270.8383
          E-mail: william@restislaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          Jeremy Nash, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
                  bgreenberg@litedepalma.com
                  jnash@litedepalma.com

THRIVE COLLECTION: Faircloth Sues Over Unfair Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES FAIRCLOTH JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THRIVE COLLECTION SERVICES CORP.; and DOES
1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-00397 (N.D. Cal., January 23,
2019), arises as a result of false, deceptive and unfair
debt-collection practices promulgated nationwide by the Company, in
an effort to deceive consumers and debtors by not providing the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act requisite notices in its
collection letters.

Thrive Collection Services Corp. is a company that uses any
instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in its
business, the principal purpose of which is the collection of any
debts.  The Company also regularly collects or attempts to collect,
directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or
due another.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants
are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


TIGER EYE: Fails to Properly Pay Delivery Drivers, Adkinson Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD ADKINSON and KERRY WIMLEY, Each Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. TIGER EYE PIZZA, LLC, and
KENNETH SCHROEPFER, Case No. 4:19-cv-04007-SOH (W.D. Ark., January
23, 2019), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act arising from the Defendants' alleged
failure to pay the Plaintiffs and other delivery drivers the legal
minimum hourly wage and overtime compensation.

Tiger Eye Pizza, LLC, doing business as Domino's Pizza, is a
foreign limited liability company, which operates various Domino's
franchises in Arkansas and Texas.  Tiger Eye's principal address is
in Shreveport, Louisiana.  Kenneth Schroepfer is the owner of Tiger
Eye.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


TIMEPAYMENT CORP: Denied O'Neill Overtime Premiums, Says Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
James O'Neill, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Timepayment Corp., Lawrence J. Haverty
III, individually, Shane Barlow, individually, Defendants, Case No.
19-0068 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., January 9, 2019), seeks
unpaid premium pay as required by the Massachusetts Wage Act.

Timepayment is an equipment leasing company where O'Neill worked as
an inside sales representative between June 2018 until December
2018. He claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per work week
without being paid the mandatory overtime premium. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brook S. Lane, Esq.
      Brant Casavant, Esq.
      FAIR WORK, P.C.
      192 South Street, Suite 450
      Boston, MA 02111
      Tel. (617) 607-3261
      Fax. (617) 488-2261
      Email: brook@fairworklaw.com
             brant@fairworklaw.com


TOUGH MUDDER: Suit Over Mudderella Boston Removed to Dist. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Lisa C. Pazol, Maria C. Newman, Lisa Russ and
Audrey J. Bennett, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tough Mudder Incorporated, Tough Mudder,
LLC and BK LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2014-01594-C, was removed from
the Superior Court Department of the Trial Court, Worcester County,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, Worcester Division on January
10, 2019, under Case No 19-cv-40010.

On September 2, 2014, a group of runners, Pazol, Newman, Russ and
Bennett sued Tough Mudder over the cancelled "Mudderella Boston"
that was to take place in Haverhill MA. Plaintiffs used the Tough
Mudder website to register and pay online. However, the event was
relocated due to permit issues and Plaintiffs could no longer
attend due to the distance. Despite this, Tough Mudder refused to
refund them.

Tough Mudder is a company that organizes athletic endurance events
consisting of mud-filled obstacle courses.  [BN]

Tough Mudder Incorporated, Tough Mudder LLC, and BK Bridge Events,
LLC are represented by:

      Michael Thompson, Esq.
      Michael J. Tuteur, Esq.
      Olivia B. Luckett, Esq.
      FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
      111 Huntington Avenue
      Boston, MA 02199
      Tel: (617) 342-4000
      Fax: (617) 342-4001
      Email: mtuteur@foley.com
             mxthompson@foley.com
             oluckett@foley.com


TRANSDEV SERVICES: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Berry Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Howard Berry and David Berry filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit styled Howard Berry, et al. v.
Transdev Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01299-RAJ, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Richard
A. Jones granted the Plaintiffs' (i) Motion for Leave to File an
Amended Class Action Complaint and (ii)  Motion to Continue Class
Certification Briefing Deadlines.

The Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint in the Superior Court
of Washington on July 14, 2015.  The Defendants removed the case to
the Court on Aug. 14, 2015.  The Plaintiffs moved for remand on
Sept. 10, 2015.  Their motion for remand was denied.

The appellate case is captioned as Howard Berry, et al. v. Transdev
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-80008, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners HOWARD BERRY and DAVID BERRY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Erika L. Nusser, Esq.
          Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          E-mail: enusser@terrellmarshall.com
                  tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
                  jmurray@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Lowell Needle, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JEFFREY NEEDLE
          705 2nd Avenue, Suite 1050
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 447-1560
          E-mail: jneedlel@wolfenet.com

Defendants-Respondents TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC., FKA Veolia
Transportation Services Inc., and TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA, INC., FKA
Veolia Services Inc., are represented by:

          Stellman Keehnel, Esq.
          Austin Rainwater, Esq.
          Anthony Todaro, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          701 Fifth Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 839-4800
          E-mail: stellman.keehnel@dlapiper.com
                  austin.rainwater@dlapiper.com
                  anthony.todaro@dlapiper.com

Defendant-Respondent FIRST TRANSIT, INC., is represented by:

          Daniel L. Thieme, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          One Union Square
          600 University Street
          Seattle, WA 98101-3122
          Telephone: (206) 623-3300
          E-mail: dthieme@littler.com


UBER TECH: Glasgo Sues Over Unwanted SMS Ad Messages
----------------------------------------------------
Michael Glasgo, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-00097, (M.D. Fla., January 12, 2019) seeks injunctive
relief and an award of statutory damages under the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Uber Technologies, Inc. is a multinational corporation that
provides transportation services that connects passengers to
automobile drivers via Uber's smartphone application. Uber uses SMS
messaging to communicate with consumers' regarding their ride
sharing, as well as to alert them as to any potential problems with
their Uber account. However, Glasgo continued to receive these
automated text messages even when he deleted his Uber account.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
      Sovathary K. Jacobson, Esq.
      DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
      Vero Beach, FL 32963
      Telephone: (772) 231-9600
      Facsimile: (772) 231-0300
      Email: jacobson@desmondlawfirm.com
             lwd@desmondlawfirm.com


UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Hmong People's Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, HMONG 2 et al., fictitious names, on behalf of
themselves and as representatives of members of a class of
similarly situated claimants, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendants, No.
2:17-cv-00927-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend.

On May 2, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
complaint against the Defendants alleging that they aided and
abetted violations of foreign and international law against the
Hmong people in Laos.  Specifically, the Plaintiffs contend that
the Defendants recruited the Hmong people to fight against
communist forces in the Vietnam War, but then failed to protect
them from atrocities carried out by the Laotian communist regime
after the United States exited the Vietnam War.  On behalf of
themselves and similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs now seek
various legal and equitable remedies pursuant to the Federal Tort
Claims Act ("FTCA").

Each Plaintiff alleges that he is a direct victim of the atrocities
committed against the Hmong people by Laos generally, was directly
and physically injured in Laos, and had family members who were
also killed by Laotian officials.  Each Plaintiff uses a fictitious
name to protect his true identity and protect himself from
retaliation by Laotian officials.  Each Plaintiff seeks damages
exceeding $5 million, attorneys' fees, and court costs.  The
Plaintiffs also request declaratory relief finding that the
Defendants are liable under the FTCA, as well as "injunctive relief
in the form of specific performance, whereby the United States
would be compelled to protect and safeguard the Hmong people from
the Laotian government.

The matter is before the Court pursuant to the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss.  The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
complaint on two grounds.  First, the Defendants argue the
Plaintiffs' claims are barred under the political question
doctrine.  Second, the Defendants argue the Plaintiffs' claims are
barred under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Judge Nunley explains that the nonjusticiability of a political
question is primarily a function of the separation of powers.  The
political question doctrine serves to prevent the federal courts
from intruding unduly on certain policy choices and value judgments
that are constitutionally committed to Congress or the executive
branch.  While the political question doctrine raises both
jurisdictional and prudential concerns, it is at bottom a
jurisdictional limitation imposed on the courts by the
Constitution, and not by the judiciary itself.  Therefore, the
courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over cases that present
political questions.

The concludes that the Plaintiffs' claims are barred under the
political question doctrine.  He finds that (i) the Plaintiffs seek
resolution of an issue that is expressly committed to the political
branches; (ii) the case requires the Court to review and pass
judgment on foreign policy and military strategy, which are policy
determinations that lack discoverable and manageable judicial
standards; (iii) the political branches made policy decisions
regarding the presence and extent of the United States' foreign
military involvement in Laos decades ago, and the Judge simply
could not find in favor of the Plaintiffs without implicitly
questioning, and even condemning, United States foreign policy; and
(iv) the Court is not a war crimes tribunal.  The Judge does not
reach the issue of sovereign immunity.

Moreover, the Judge finds amendment would be futile because the
Plaintiffs have not articulated any additional facts or theories
that would avoid the political question doctrine.

For these reasons, Judge Nunley dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint
without leave to amend.

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

Hmong 2, Hmong 3, Hmong 4 & Hmong 5, Plaintiffs, represented by
Herman Franck -- franckhermanlaw88@yahoo.com -- Franck &
Associates.

United States of America & Central Intelligence Agency, Defendants,
represented by Joseph Frueh, United States Attorney's Office.


UNIV OF ARIZONA: Health Plan Excludes Gender Dysphoria, Toomey Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against the State of Arizona and the Arizona
Board of Regents, d/b/a University of Arizona seeks permanent
injunctive relief with respect to all Defendants, requiring
Defendants to (1) remove a Self-funded Health Plan's categorical
exclusion of coverage for "gender reassignment surgery" and (2)
evaluate whether the surgical care of plaintiff, Russell Toomey,
Ph.D., an Associate Professor at the University of Arizona, and a
proposed class for gender dysphoria is "medically necessary" in
accordance with the Plan's generally applicable standards and
procedures.

The State of Arizona provides healthcare coverage to State
employees through a self-funded health plan controlled by the
Arizona Department of Administration. The Plan generally provides
coverage for medically necessary care, but singles out transgender
employees for unequal treatment by categorically denying all
coverage for "gender reassignment surgery" regardless of whether
the surgery qualifies as medically necessary treatment. As a
result, transgender individuals enrolled in the Plan have no
opportunity to demonstrate that their transition-related care is
medically necessary, and they have no opportunity to appeal any
adverse determination to an independent reviewer.

In the past, some public and private insurance companies excluded
coverage for treatment of gender dysphoria (or "transition-related
care"), including surgical treatments, based on the erroneous
assumption that such treatments were cosmetic or experimental.
Today, however, every major medical organization to address the
issue has recognized that such exclusions have no basis in medical
science and that transition-related care is effective, safe and
medically necessary for treatment of gender dysphoria.

Russell Toomey, Ph.D., is a man who is transgender.  As a result of
the Plan's discriminatory exclusion, Dr. Toomey has been blocked
from receiving a medically necessary hysterectomy prescribed by his
physician in accordance with the widely accepted standards of care
for treating gender dysphoria. The Plan provides coverage for the
same hysterectomies when prescribed as medically necessary
treatment for other medical conditions. But, the Plan categorically
excludes coverage for hysterectomies when they are medically
necessary for purposes of "gender reassignment." If the
discriminatory exclusion were removed, Dr. Toomey would have an
opportunity to prove that his surgery is medically necessary under
the Plan's generally applicable standards for establishing medical
necessity. If the discriminatory exclusion were removed, Dr. Toomey
would also have the right to appeal any adverse determination to an
independent reviewer within the third-party claims administrator
and, if necessary, to an independent review organization.

The case is captioned as RUSSELL B. TOOMEY, the Plaintiff, vs.
STATE OF ARIZONA; ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS, D/B/A UNIVERSITY OF
ARIZONA, a governmental body of the State of Arizona; RON SHOOPMAN,
in his official capacity as Chair of the Arizona Board of Regents;
LARRY PENLEY, in his official capacity as Member of the Arizona
Board of Regents; RAM KRISHNA, in his official capacity as
Secretary of the Arizona Board of Regents; BILL RIDENOUR, in his
official capacity as Treasurer of the Arizona Board of Regents;
LYNDEL MANSON, in her official capacity as Member of the Arizona
Board of Regents; KARRIN TAYLOR ROBSON, in her official capacity as
Member of the Arizona Board of Regents; JAY HEILER, in his official
capacity as Member of the Arizona Board of Regents; FRED DUVAL, in
his official capacity as Member of the Arizona Board of Regents;
GILBERT DAVIDSON, in his official capacity as Interim Director of
the Arizona Department of Administration; PAUL SHANNON, in his
official capacity as Acting Assistant Director of the Benefits
Services Division of the Arizona Department of Administration, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00035-LCK (D. Ariz., Jan. 23,
2019).[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Russell B. Toomey

          Kathleen E. Brody, Esq.
          Molly Brizgys, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA
          3707 North 7th Street, Suite 235
          Phoenix, AZ 85014
          Telephone: (602) 650-1854
          Facsimile: (602) 650-1376
          E-mail: kbrody@acluaz.org
                  mbrizgys@acluaz.org

               - and -

          Joshua A. Block, Esq.
          Leslie Cooper, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street, Floor 18
          New York, New York 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2650
          Facsimile: (212) 549-2627
          E-mail: jblock@aclu.org
                  lcooper@aclu.org

               - and -

          James Burr Shields, Esq.
          Heather A. Macre, Esq.
          Natalie B. Virden, Esq.
          AIKEN SCHENK HAWKINS & RICCIARDI P.C.
          2390 East Camelback Road, Suite 400
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 248-8203
          Facsimile: (602) 248-8840
          E-Mail: jbs@aikenschenk.com
                  ham@aikenschenk.com
                  nbv@aikenschenk.com

WAYFAIR INC: Goodstein Sues Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Goodstein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wayfair Inc., Niraj Shah, Steven
K. Conine and Michael D. Fleisher, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-10062, (D. Mass., January 10, 2019) is a securities class
action on behalf of all purchasers of Wayfair Class A common stock
between August 2, 2018 and October 31, 2018.

Wayfair is an online purveyor of household retail goods, offering
approximately 10 million products for the home sector under various
brands. It offers a selection of furniture, décor, decorative
accents, housewares, seasonal décor, and other home goods through
its sites, such as Wayfair, Joss & Main, AllModern, DwellStudio,
Perigold and Birch Lane.

The price of Wayfair common stock declined precipitously, closing
down more than $14 per share, or nearly 13%, to close at $96.16 per
share on November 1, 2018, on unusually high volume of more than
9.9 million shares traded, almost seven times the average daily
trading volume after posting a loss in the fourth quarter of 2018
despite the holiday shopping season.

Goodstein claims to have purchased artificially-inflated Wayfair
common stock and alleges Wayfair executives of cashing in on their
personally held shares' inflated prices. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
      HUTCHINGS BARSMIAN MANDELCORN, LLP
      110 Cedar Street, Suite 250
      Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
      Telephone: (781) 431-2231
      Facsimile: (781) 431-8726
      Email: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com

             - and -

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Tel: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173
      Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
             mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
      JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
      40 Powder Springs Street
      Marietta, GA 30064
      Telephone: (770) 200-3104
      Fax: (770) 200-3101
      Email: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com


WESTERN EXPRESS: Elmy Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned JOHN ELMY, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs,
vs. WESTERN EXPRESS, INC., NEW HORIZONS LEASING, INC., and JOHN
DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01199 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court on Jan. 23, 2019, to enter an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's request to conditionally certify
      collective action and to authorize notice to the putative
      class by first class mail, email and Qualcomm;

   2. directing the Defendants to provide in an electronic
      spreadsheet format such as Excel, the following information,

      each contained in a separate column: names, addresses, email

      addresses, and an employee number or unique identifier of
      the FLSA collective members;

   3. approving the Plaintiff's forms of notice, Qualcomm
      message/reminder and reminder postcard to putative FLSA
      collective members;

   4. directing the Defendants to supply to the Plaintiff the last

      four digits of the social security numbers of those FLSA
      collective members whose notice is returned as
      undeliverable;

   5. permitting Plaintiff's counsel to call any individual whose
      notice is returned as undeliverable for the purpose of
      obtaining a current address for re-mailing of the notice;

   6. authorizing Plaintiff's counsel to re-mail notices that are
      returned as undeliverable for those individuals counsel can
      find better addresses; and

   7. authorizing Plaintiff's counsel to mail and email reminder
      postcards and send via Qualcomm a reminder message 21 days
      before the expiration of the opt-in period to those putative

      FLSA collective members who have not opted in to the
      collective action at that point.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Lesley Tse, Esq.
          Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq.
          GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC
          260 Fair Street
          Kingston, NY 12401
          Telephone: (845) 255-9370
          Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
          E-mail: ltse@getmansweeney.com

               - and -

          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Hwy N., Ste 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com

               - and -

          Mark E. Hunt, Esq.
          R. Eddie Wayland, Esq.
          KING & BALLOW LAW OFFICES
          315 Union Street Ste. 1100
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 259-3456
          Facsimile: (615) 726-5417

WHITE CONTRACTING: Rosas Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Porfirio Rosas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. White Contracting & Renovation Inc. and
David McCarthy, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00191, (E.D. N.Y.,
January 10, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, unpaid
spread-of-hours premium, redress for failure to provide wage
statements, reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York labor laws.

Defendants own and operate a construction business where Plaintiff
worked as a carpenter and general laborer. Throughout his
employment, his job consisted of carpentry work, metal work and
subfloor installation. He claims to have worked in excess of 40
hours per week without overtime pay and did not receive wage
statements and notices. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis M. Leon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
      108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
      New York, NY 10018
      Tel: (212) 583-7400
      Email: LLeon@Cafaroesq.com



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***