CAR_Public/190206.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, February 6, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 27

                            Headlines

AC TRANSIT: Pregnant, Breastfeeding Employees File Class Action
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Women Inmates Sue Over Sleep Deprivation
ALIBABA: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $75 Million
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Grabham Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of Texas
AMERICAN HEALTH: Ashley Telling Sues over Biometric Info

APEX ASSET: Fay Rubin Sues over Debt Collection Practices
APPLE INC: Faces Possible Class Action Suit for Securities Fraud
AVALON HEALTH: Williamson Files Suit Over Wrongful Termination
BALDWIN PARK, CA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Adams Alleges
BANK OF AMERICA: Sotomayor Sues over Debt Collection Practices

BARCLAYS PLC: May 17 Euribor Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
BARLEAN'S ORGANIC: Sued over Misleading Coconut Oil Products
BERKS COUNTY, PA: Victory's Renewed Bid to Certify Class Denied
BROUSSEAU MANAGEMENT: Dunn Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CELESTIAL CARE: Talos Seeks Overtime Pay for Caregivers

CHAMPION PETFOODS: Toxic Dog Food Case Faces Jurisdiction Hurdles
CHECKMATE REALTY: Bufford Suit Asserts RLTO Violation
CORIN USA: Tristan Tanner Seeks Overtime Wages
CORRECTIONS CORP: Bid to Certify Class in Grae Suit Denied
DELUXE CORP: James Mansapit Sues over Credit Background Check

DENKA: Laplace Plant Chloroprene Class Actions Ongoing
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Feb. 25 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
EQUIFAX, INC: Red Cliff Band's Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
EQUITY EXPERTS: Eric Sommerness Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
FINANCE OF AMERICA: Faces Erica Priest's Suit in Sacramento

FIRST CHINESE: Mercedes Pena Seeks Unpaid Wages for Health Aide
FITNESS 19: Hill Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over F-150 Transmission Defects
GOOGLE INC: Judge Tosses Suit Over Face-Scanning Feature
GOOGLE LLC: Photo Service Violates Privacy Laws, Suit Claims

HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: Faces New Suit Over HIV, Hepatitis C Exposure
HUSKY ENERGY: Faces Suit Over April 26 Blast Amid Class Action
ICON: Opal Tower Residents Mull Class Action
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Feb. 25 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
INDIO: Settles Class Action Over Municipal Code Prosecution Fees

JACKSON HEWITT: Jessica Robinson Sues over No-Poach Agreement
LINDUS CONSTRUCTION: Shortchanges Workers Overtime Pay, Morgan Says
LOUISIANA: Catahoula Lake is Private Land, 3d Cir. Rules
M & L CLEANING: Underpays Cleaners, Jimenez Suit Alleges
MAIN STREET AMERICA: MSP Recovery Sues Over Unpaid Reimbursements

MANHATTAN AND BRONX: Romero et al. Seek Overtime Pay
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Dittemore Data Breach Suit in D. Md.
MDL 2741: Richardson Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Moved
MDL 2741: Samaniego Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Sawyer Suit v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2741: Shobe Suit v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Weatherspoon v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Weaver v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Whitmire Suit v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MINDBODY INC: Sabatini Balks at Merger Deal with Vista Equity

MITCHELL D BLUHM: Saks Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
MONSANTO COMPANY: Cloutier Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Raygozas Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Barna Files PI Class Action in Ind.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Chambliss Files PI Class Action

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Conn Files PI Class Suit in Ind.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Drake Wants Jury Trial in Personal Injury Case
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Nowell PI Suit in Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Ritenour Personal Injury Class Action
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Rycroft Class Action for Personal Injury

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Wertz PI Class Suit in Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Harris Brings Class Action for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hayes Files Class Action Over Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Horton Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Jackson Class Suit Alleges Personal Injury

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Keo Files Personal Injury Class Action in Ind.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Kimbrough Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Oliver Files Personal Injury Class Action
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Samuel Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Schroeder Class Action Asserts Personal Injury

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Shamsid-deen Files PI Class Suit in Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Walls Alleges Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Warner Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Whalen Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NEW YORK, NY: Court Certifies Diabetic Students Class

NEW YORK: Court Tosses Firefighter Applicant's Physical Test Suit
NOOM INC: Kiler Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Violation
NVIDIA CORP: Feb. 19 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
OKLAHOMA: Shows "Marked Improvement" in Child Welfare System
OLD SPICE: Faces Class Action Over Deodorant Products

PNC BANK: Removes Kennedy-Rose Suit to N.D. Illinois
RANDSTAD INHOUSE: Removes Rice et al. Suit to N.D. California
RAVEN PROTECTION: Mundle Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime, Last Pay
SALAS CONCRETE: Underpays Construction Workers, Cavazos Says
SKOTO GALLERY: Dawson Alleges Disabilities Act Violation

SONY INTERACTIVE: Lopez Sues Over Game-relates Charges
SPERONE WESTWATER GALLERY: Violates Disabilities Act, Dawson Says
ST. LOUIS, MO: Dixon Sues Over Equal Protection Rights Violation
TEAM ST. PETE: Failed to Reimburse Delivery Drivers, Clark Claims
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Fox Misreported Data

TORRENT PHARMA: Sanders Sues over Contaminated Generic Losartan
TRANSAMERICA CORP: Faces Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
UNITED STATES: Federal Workers File Class Action Over Shutdown
UNITED STATES: Wash. Attorney Files Class Action Over Shutdown
VALLEY HOME CARE: Morgan Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

VERSATILE ENERGY: Rilea Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
VOLKSWAGEN AG: May 10 Diesel Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
WAHLSTEDT FINE ART: Dawson Files ADA Class Action in New York
WELLS FARGO: Delaware to Get $2MM from Insurance Settlement
WELLS FARGO: Delaware to Get $2MM from Insurance Settlement

WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over Foreclosure Errors
WELLS FARGO: Settles Fake Account Scandal Claims for $575MM
WONDERFUL COMPANY: Roy and Perez Seek Minimum & Overtime Wages
YARES ART PROJECTS: Dawson Suit Alleges ADA Breach
[*] Locke Lord Attorney Discusses IC Misclassification Suits

[*] Ogletree Attorney Expects Positive Developments for Employers
[*] Roy Arnold Joins Blank Rome as Class Action Defense Partner

                            *********

AC TRANSIT: Pregnant, Breastfeeding Employees File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Ruggiero and Marisa Kendall, writing for East Bay Times,
report that a class-action lawsuit accuses AC Transit of
discriminating against pregnant and breastfeeding employees and
says women are "laughed at" when requesting accommodations for
their pregnancies.

The lawsuit, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, alleges that
the public transit agency, which serves Alameda and Contra Costa
counties, fails to meet the needs of pregnant or breastfeeding
employees.

"AC Transit employees who become pregnant or who are lactating face
a workplace culture in which women who want both a career and a
family are laughed at for asking for too much," the lawsuit
states.

AC Transit media affairs manager Robert Lyles told this news
organization that although the statements in the lawsuit are
"provocative," they're not a confirmation of facts.

"In this light, we ask the public to withhold judgment as we work
to uncover the circumstances giving rise to this issue," Lyles
said.

He said that the agency's general counsel will appropriately
respond to the pleadings in the case.

"We want our employees and our riders to know that AC Transit has a
robust policy of addressing complaints – including lawsuits –
thoroughly and expeditiously," he said.

According to the suit, AC Transit refuses to provide breaks for
breastfeeding mothers so they can continue to lactate and feed
their babies up to a year, as required by state law. This has
caused mothers to "drive engorged or dry up."

Nikki McNaulty, a plaintiff in the lawsuit who began as a bus
driver with AC Transit in 2013, had three pregnancies when she
worked there. During her second pregnancy, she asked for lactation
accommodations but was allegedly denied. She also claims she was
forced to leave three months before medically necessary on an
unpaid leave of absence during one of her pregnancies.

Pregnant employees are forced to choose between driving pregnant
without reasonable accommodation or going on disability leave
early, according to the suit.

When they return as breastfeeding mothers, some are forced to drive
while painfully engorged and risk losing potential milk for their
newborns, the lawsuit alleges. Ms. McNaulty also alleges she was
retaliated against when she complained about the discriminatory
treatment.

In addition, the lawsuit alleges that pregnant or breastfeeding bus
operators also are exposed to carbon monoxide poisoning because of
the old equipment on the field.

Ms. McNaulty contends she was five months pregnant when she began
experiencing symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning such as
vomiting, headaches and burning sensations from soot residue in her
nose.

She said the agency's human resources department denied her a
modified work transfer until she was 36 weeks pregnant and instead
told her to take disability leave. The agency blamed those symptoms
on her pregnancy and not carbon monoxide poisoning, the lawsuit
states.

The lawsuit claims these allegations violate the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Leave
Law. It asks for new policies, but does not list a monetary amount
for damages. [GN]


ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Women Inmates Sue Over Sleep Deprivation
------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Alameda County jail officials are exposing women inmates to
mental and physical illness and potentially harming their
pregnancies by depriving them of sleep, three female inmates claim
in a federal class action filed in San Francisco on
Dec. 31.

Suing on behalf of women incarcerated at Santa Rita Jail in Dublin,
California, lead plaintiffs Tikisha Upshaw, Tyreka Stewart and
Andrea Hernandez claim inmates there are forced to awaken almost
hourly for safety checks, pill calls and employee training, in
violation of constitutional guarantees against the use of cruel and
unusual punishment.

All pre-trial detainees, the three women claim the jail's sleep
practices have impaired their memory and speech, contributed to the
development of depression and anxiety and compromised their immune
systems.

Ms. Upshaw, who has been at Santa Rita for over two years, says she
gets sick more often, and she is having trouble helping her
attorneys prepare her legal defense because she has difficulty
thinking and concentrating.

Ms. Hernandez, meanwhile, spends 23 hours per day in solitary
confinement -- where sleep deprivation is worse -- even though she
might be pregnant. According to Hernandez, sleep deprivation causes
systemic inflammation that has been associated with pregnancy and
postpartum depression and with negative birth outcomes, including
pre-term delivery.

"Severe sleep deprivation has been labeled torture," class attorney
Yolanda Huang said in an email on Dec. 31. "If the sheriff of
Alameda is genuinely concerned about the safety issues and the
smooth operation of Santa Rita Jail, he will insure that all
prisoners can get much needed and vital rest."

The Alameda County Sheriff's Office had no immediate comment on
Dec. 31.

According to the 25-page complaint, the sheriff's office often
trains new hires during nighttime hours, during which heavily armed
trainees dressed in SWAT uniforms enter inmates' cells.

During these exercises, inmates are required to wake up and lie
face forward on the floor of their cells, and some are handcuffed,
evacuated and sequestered one at a time to other areas of the jail,
including the yard, the multi-purpose room and isolation cells, the
suit claims.

Inmates are also awoken for state-mandated hourly safety checks.
But instead of limiting the checks to visual observation, sheriffs'
deputies shine bright, white-light flashlights into sleeping
inmates' faces, and bang on metal cell-doors and yell inmates'
names if the light fails to wake them.

Moreover, lights in cells are never turned off; even during
nighttime hours, when lights are dimmed, the lighting is still
bright enough to read, the plaintiffs say. Inmates who try to block
out the glare by pulling blankets over their heads are punished.

The practices can land inmates in solitary confinement, where
uninterrupted sleep is even more limited, they say. While Santa
Rita's regular jail schedule theoretically allows for up to 5.5
hours of uninterrupted sleep, the schedule in solitary confinement
allows just three.

"As a result of this significant sleep deprivation and sleep
disruption, and the resulting emotional and cognitive impairment,
prisoners find themselves short tempered and irritable, experience
difficulty exercising emotional control, unable to handle
frustration and often lack the necessary behavior controls demanded
by the jail system," Ms. Huang wrote in the complaint.
Consequently, "prisoners suffer disciplinary and punitive
consequences with ensuing additional deprivations."

Ms. Huang's is the second class action filed alleging mistreatment
of inmates in Alameda County jails.

On Dec. 21, inmates at both Santa Rita and Alameda County's Glen
Dyer Detention Facility in Oakland accused jail officials of
holding inmates with psychiatric conditions in isolation in small,
filthy cells for 23 or 24 hours per day with little or no mental
health treatment.

The practice has resulted in 33 inmate deaths over the last five
years, including 13 inmates who died by suicide, according to lead
plaintiff Ashok Babu.

Inmates who are suicidal, Mr. Babu claims, are placed in "safety
cells," where they are stripped naked and given only a smock to
wear. The cells contain no furniture and only a hole in the ground
for use as a toilet, forcing inmates to sleep and eat where they
urinate and defecate.

Though confining inmates in safety cells for longer than 72 hours
is prohibited, Mr. Babu claims they have been locked in the cells
for a week or more at a time. Conditions in the cells are so bad
that inmates have stopped reporting suicidal feelings to staff to
avoid being confined to them, he says.

Ernie Galvan, Mr. Babu's attorney with Rosen Bien Galvan &
Grunfeld, blamed the safety cells for the worsening mental health
of inmates in a phone interview on Dec. 31.

"[W]e have people who start out with symptoms of anxiety and
depression, and when you lock them down, those symptoms are
exacerbated, and people who are anxious and depressed become more
anxious and depressed and often become suicidal and attempt
self-harm," Mr. Galvan said. "Certainly we've seen examples of
people attempt suicide after being locked down a long time."

Both lawsuits seek court orders banning the challenged practices as
unconstitutional.  

"There is plenty of evidence around the country . . . that moving
away from segregation improves conditions in jails," Mr. Galvan
said. "[C]ounty policymakers have plenty of [other] models to
follow." [GN]


ALIBABA: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $75 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
CNBC reports that Alibaba, the China-based e-commerce giant, will
pay $75 million to settle a California class action lawsuit,
according to an SEC filing. The suit had been brought in October
2015 on behalf of shareholders who had purchased Alibaba's American
Depositary shares. [GN]





AMERICAN AIRLINES: Grabham Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, LORIE GRABHAM, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03741 (Filed
Oct. 12, 2017), was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona, to U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas (Fort Worth) on Jan, 24, 2019. The Northern
District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-00075-A to
the proceeding. The suit alleges Fair Labor Standards Act
violation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Senior Judge John
McBryde.

The Plaintiff seeks permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its
officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or
participation with it, from engaging in gender-based disparate
compensation and in any other employment practice which
discriminates on the basis of sex.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Eric David Zard, Esq.
          Todd David Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KIPELA & CARPENTER
          402 W Broadway, 29th Fl.
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6994
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: ezard@carlsonlynch.com
                  tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Michael A Cordier, Esq.
          MURPHY KARBER CORDIER PLC
          2025 N 3rd St., Ste. 200
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 274-9000
          Facsimile: (602) 795-5896
          E-mail: Michael@mkcfirm.com

               - and -

          Daniel E Farrington, Esq.
          FARRINGTON LAW FIRM LLC
          7501 Wisconsin Ave., Ste. 1220
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (301) 951-1538
          Facsimile: (301) 880-5031
          E-mail: dfarrington@fisherphillips.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey I. Kohn, Esq.
          Sloane Ackerman, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Times Square Tower, 7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 326-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 326-2061
          E-mail: jkohn@omm.com
                  sackerman@omm.com

               - and -

          Lauren G Goetzl, Esq.
          FARRINGTON LAW FIRM LLC
          7501 Wisconsin Ave., Ste. 1220W
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (301) 951-1536
          Facsimile: (301) 880-5031
          E-mail: lgoetzl@farringtonlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard B Murphy, Esq.
          MURPHY KARBER CORDIER PLC
          2025 N 3rd St., Ste. 200
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 274-9000
          Facsimile: (602) 795-5896
          E-mail: rich@mkcfirm.com

AMERICAN HEALTH: Ashley Telling Sues over Biometric Info
--------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY TELLING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN HEALTH SERVICE SALES CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 19CH00000056 (Ill Cir., Lake Cty., Jan. 14,
2019) is an action against the Defendant in collecting, storing,
using, or transferring the Plaintiff and the Class's biometric
identifiers and information without adhering to the strict
informed-consent procedures established by the Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

American Health Service Sales Corporation, doing business as
Med-Vet International, distributes and supplies medical
instruments. The Company offers syringes and needles, animal
supplies, vials and containers, cotton products, wound care,
scrubs, gloves, anesthesia products, orthopedic, grooming, dental,
and disinfectant products. Med-Vet International operates in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APEX ASSET: Fay Rubin Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
FAY RUBIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APEX ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00520-FLW-TJB (D.N.J., Jan. 15, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The
case is assigned to Judge Freda L. Wolfson and referred to
Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.

Apex Asset Management, L.L.C. provides custom solution. The Company
offers system integration, health care conversion, front end
training, and collection law. Apex Asset Management serves
customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APPLE INC: Faces Possible Class Action Suit for Securities Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Lilly, writing for Hot Hardware, reports that an investor
rights law firm is investigating potential security fraud claims on
behalf of shareholders of Apple and may end up filing a class
action lawsuit. The investigation comes after Apple lowered its
earnings guidance for its first fiscal quarter of 2019, in which
Apple CEO Tim Cook said he expects the company to end the quarter
with $84 billion in revenue.

That figure is more than 7 percent lower than Apple's previous
forecast of $89 billion to $93 billion, which it issued at the end
of its fiscal 2018.

"When we discussed our Q1 guidance with you about 60 days ago, we
knew the first quarter would be impacted by both macroeconomic and
Apple-specific factors. Based on our best estimates of how these
would play out, we predicted that we would report slight revenue
growth year-over-year for the quarter," Cook wrote in a long-winded
letter to investors.

Cook blamed the lowered forecast on several different factors,
including the timing of its latest generation iPhone launches, a
strong US dollar creating foreign exchange headwinds, supply
constraints, and economic weakness in some emerging markets.
According to Cook, all of those factors (plus some others) resulted
in fewer iPhone upgrades than expected.

"On this news, Apple's stock fell $11.97 per share, or over 7.5
percent, during aftermarket trading hours on January 2, 2019,
damaging investors," said Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a law firm
headquartered in New York.

The law firm says it is looking into whether Apple and/or its
executives may have issued materially misleading business
information to the investing public. No lawsuit has been filed yet,
though the law firm is inviting Apple shareholders to leave their
contact information in case it moves forward with a class action
lawsuit. [GN]


AVALON HEALTH: Williamson Files Suit Over Wrongful Termination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence J. Williamson, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Avalon Health Care, Inc., a Utah a
corporation; Berryman Health Inc., California corporation; Avalon
Health Care Management of California, LLC., a California limited
liability company; Scott Peterson, an individual; and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG19004674 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Alameda Cty., January 29, 2019) seeks to recover punitive
damages from the Defendants.

Plaintiff was hired on December 5, 2018, and employed by the
Defendants as a Certified Nurse Assistant. Two weeks into the job,
Plaintiff overheard his supervisor tell another doctor, Peterson,
that Plaintiff needed to undergo a physical examination. Peterson
responded that Plaintiff should be "put in stirrups."

Plaintiff approached his supervisor after overhearing this
conversation and stated that he felt that Peterson's remarks and
comments were inappropriate in the workplace. As a result of
complaining about the inappropriate remarks and comments by
Peterson, Plaintiff believes that he was subsequently singled out
and ultimately terminated less than two months after he began
working for Defendants.

Plaintiff is an individual residing in the State of California.

Avalon Health Care, Inc. is a Utah corporation doing business in
the State of California.

Scott Peterson is an individual residing in the State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shaun Setareh, Esq.
     Thomas Segal, Esq.
     Farrah Grant, Esq.
     SETAREH LAW GROUP
     315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Phone: (310) 888-7771
     Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
     Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com
            thomas@setarehlaw.com
            farrah@setarehlaw.com


BALDWIN PARK, CA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Adams Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
JASON ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF BALDWIN PARK; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00297-PA-GJS (C.D. Cal.,
Jan. 15, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Adams was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
sworn and non-sworn employees of the Baldwin Park Police
Department.

Baldwin Park is a city located in the central San Gabriel Valley
region of Los Angeles County, California, United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandi L. Harper, Esq.
          Joseph N. Bolander, Esq.
          CASTILLO HARPER APC
          6848 Magnolia Ave, Ste 100
          Riverside, CA 92560
          Telephone: (909) 466-5600
          Facsimile: (909) 466-5610
          E-mail:Brandi@CastilloHarper.com
                 Joe@CastilloHarper.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Sotomayor Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Sotomayor, on behalf herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Bank of America, N.A., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00541 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 24, 2019), seeks to recover
damages resulting from Defendant's violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant routinely violates the
TCPA by using an automatic telephone dialing system to place
non-emergency calls to numbers assigned to a cellular telephone
service, without prior express consent, in that it continues to
place calls to cellular telephone numbers after being instructed to
stop calling those numbers. The Defendant routinely violates the
Rosenthal Act by placing calls to telephone numbers in connection
with an attempt to collect a debt after being instructed to stop
calling those numbers.

According to the complaint, on or around June 19, 2018, the
Plaintiff placed a call to Defendant. During the ensuing
conversation, the Plaintiff provided Defendant her name, the last
four digits of her social security number, and her cellular
telephone number -- (661) XXX-6387. Th Plaintiff additionally asked
Defendant to stop calling her cellular telephone number. Also
during the conversation, the Defendant informed Plaintiff that
"this is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained
will be used for that purpose," noted that Plaintiff's account was
three payments past due, and asked Plaintiff why she fell behind on
her payments. As well, the Defendant acknowledged Plaintiff's
request that Defendant stop calling her cellular telephone number,
and stated that Defendant would remove Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number from her account, the lawsuit says.

The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina with central hubs in New York City, London, Hong
Kong, Minneapolis, and Toronto. Bank of America was formed through
NationsBank's acquisition of BankAmerica in 1998.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the proposed classes:

          Alyson J. Dykes, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY LOHMAN, P.C.
          4740 Green River Rd., Suite 310
          Corona, CA 92880
          Telephone: (657) 500-4317
          Facsimile: (657) 227-0270
          E-mail: AlysonD@JLohman.com

               - and -

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          401 Congress Ave., Ste. 1540
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 803-1578
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

BARCLAYS PLC: May 17 Euribor Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Sullivan et al. v. Barclays plc et al.
No. 13-cv-2811 (PKC)

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, MAY 17, 2019 FAIRNESS
HEARING THEREON, AND SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS' RIGHTS TO: ALL
PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO TRANSACTED IN EURIBOR PRODUCTS BETWEEN
JUNE 1, 2005 AND MARCH 31, 2011, INCLUSIVE

A federal court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation
from a lawyer. You are not being sued.

PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THE ABOVECAPTIONED CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
THIS NOTICE ADVISES YOU OF YOUR OPTIONS REGARDING THE CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT, INCLUDING WHAT YOU MUST DO IF YOU WISH TO SHARE IN THE
NET SETTLEMENT FUND.

If you are a brokerage firm, swaps dealer, or trustee through which
Euribor Products were traded between June 1, 2005 and March 31,
2011, inclusive, on behalf of customers that are Settlement Class
Members, you must provide the name and last known address of such
customers to the Claims Administrator within two weeks of receiving
this Notice. The Claims Administrator will cause copies of this
Notice to be forwarded to each customer identified at the address
so designated.

This Notice of the pendency of this class action and of the
proposed settlement is being given pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court").
The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of your rights in
connection with the proposed settlement and the pendency of the
abovecaptioned class action (the "Action").

Plaintiffs

The Settling Defendants in the Action are Citigroup Inc. and
Citibank, N.A. (collectively, "Citi") and JPMorgan Chase & Co. and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (collectively, "JPMorgan"). The Settling
Defendants have denied and continue to deny Plaintiffs' claims.

Plaintiffs entered into a settlement with Settling Defendants on
November 21, 2018 (the "Settlement Agreement"). Settling
Defendants, in order to resolve the claims against them, agreed to
pay by wire transfer a total of $182,500,000 as follows: (a)
$36,500,000 into the Escrow Account within ten (10) business days
after entry of the Preliminary Approval Order; and
(b) $146,000,000 into the Escrow Account within ten (10) business
days after entry of the Final Approval Order. The foregoing
payment, plus all interest earned thereon, constitutes the
Settlement Fund.

Right to Submit a Proof of Claim and Release Settlement

Settlement Class Members may be entitled to share in the Net
Settlement Fund if they submit a valid and timely Proof of Claim
and Release postmarked no later than July 31, 2019.

Fairness Hearing and Right to Object
  
However, if you are a Settlement Class Member but do not file a
Proof of Claim and Release, you will still be bound by the releases
set forth in the Settlement Agreement if the Court enters an order
approving the Settlement.

Fairness Hearing and Right to Object

The Court has scheduled a public hearing on final approval for May
17, 2019 ("Settlement Hearing"). The purpose of the Settlement
Hearing is to determine, among other things, whether the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, the application by Class
Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, and
Plaintiffs' application for an Incentive Award are fair,
reasonable, and adequate. If you remain in the Settlement Class,
then you may object to any aspect of the Settlement, the Plan of
Allocation, Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and
expenses, or any other matters.

The Court has appointed A.B. Data, Ltd. as the Claims
Administrator. Among other things, the Claims Administrator is
responsible for providing notice of the Settlement to the
Settlement Class and processing Proof of Claim and Release forms.
You may contact the Claims Administrator through the Settlement
Website, by telephone toll free at 800-492-9154, or by writing to
the Claims Administrator at the below address:

         Euribor Settlement
         c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
         P.O. Box 173038
         Milwaukee, WI 53217

The Settlement Agreement is available for review during normal
business hours at the office of the Clerk of Court, United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl
Street, New York, New York 10007-1312. If you have questions about
this Notice, the procedure for registering, or the Settlement
Agreement, you may contact Class Counsel at the below address:

         Vincent Briganti
         Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.
         44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
         White Plains, NY 10601
         
         Christopher Lovell
         Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP
         61 Broadway – Suite 501
         New York, NY 10006

Counsel for Plaintiffs (Class Counsel)

BY ORDER OF THE COURT.

Clerk of the United States District Court
Southern District of New York


BARLEAN'S ORGANIC: Sued over Misleading Coconut Oil Products
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL TESTONE, COLLIN SHANKS, and LAMARTINE PIERRE, on behalf of
themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public,
the Plaintiffs, vs. BARLEAN'S ORGANIC OILS, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00169-JLS-BGS (S.D. Cal., Jan. 24, 2019), seeks an
order compelling Barlean's to cease marketing its coconut oil
Products using misleading and unlawful tactics, and destroying all
misleading, deceptive, and unlawful materials, and conduct a
corrective advertising campaign. In addition, the Plaintiffs seek
an order compelling Barlean's to restore the amounts by which it
has been unjustly enriched and pay damages, restitution, and
attorneys' fees as allowed by California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, the New
York's Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Law, and False
Advertising Law.

According to the complaint, Barlean's misleadingly markets its
coconut oil Products as inherently healthy, and a healthy
alternative to butter and various cooking oils, despite that
coconut oil is actually inherently unhealthy, and a less healthy
option to these alternatives. Barlean's coconut oil Products'
labeling also violates federal, California, and New York state food
labeling regulations, rendering the Products misbranded. The
Plaintiffs relied upon Barlean's misleading and unlawful claims
when purchasing the Barlean's coconut oil Products, and were
damaged as a result, the lawsuit says.

Cholesterol is a waxy, fat-like substance found in the body's cell
walls. The body uses cholesterol to make hormones, bile acids,
vitamin D, and other substances. The body synthesizes all the
cholesterol it needs, which circulates in the bloodstream in
packages called lipoproteins, of which there are two main kinds –
low density lipoproteins, or LDL cholesterol, and high density
lipoproteins, or HDL cholesterol. Most cholesterol in the blood is
LDL cholesterol. LDL cholesterol is sometimes called "bad"
cholesterol because it carries HDL cholesterol is sometimes called
"good" cholesterol because it takes excess cholesterol away from
tissues to the liver, where it is removed from the body.

For many years, there has been a common misperception that dietary
cholesterol significantly affects blood cholesterol levels.
According to the USDA and Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS), however, "available evidence shows no appreciable
relationship between consumption of dietary cholesterol and [blood]
serum cholesterol." In fact, the USDA and DHHS have concluded that
"Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption." In
contrast, the USDA and DHHS state that "strong and consistent
evidence from randomized control trials shows that replacing
[saturated fats] with unsaturated fats, especially [polyunsaturated
fats], significantly reduces total and LDL cholesterol." Therefore,
the USDA and DHHS specifically recommend replacing "tropical oils
(e.g., palm, palm kernel, and coconut oils)" with "vegetable oils
that are high in unsaturated fats and relatively low in SFA (e.g.,
soybean, corn, olive, and canola oils)."

Barlean's Organic Oils, L.L.C. operates farm, fishery, and organic
seed mills. It offers flax oils, flax oil blends, greens,
forti-flax, fish oils, omega swirl, and specialty oils.

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

          Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC
          4125 W. Pt. Loma Blvd., No. 309
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 767-0356
          Facsimile: (619) 331-2943
          E-mail: paul@pauljosephlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
          Melanie Persinger, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          Hillcrest Professional Building
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

BERKS COUNTY, PA: Victory's Renewed Bid to Certify Class Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Mark A. Kearney denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
renewed motion for class certification in the lawsuit captioned
THERESA VICTORY, SAMANTHA HUNTINGTON, AMARA SANDERS, and all others
similarly situated v. BERKS COUNTY, et al., Case No.
5:18-cv-05170-MAK (E.D. Pa.).

The Renewed Motion is denied without prejudice to be renewed under
a scheduling Order after the issues necessary to be resolved on
either an individual or class basis is defined, but nothing in the
Order affects the Plaintiffs' abilities or standing to seek
injunctive or declaratory relief as to their status, according to
the Order.

The Plaintiffs sought certification of this class:

     All current and future female inmates committed to the Berks
     County Jail System who have the Trusty custody-level
     classification and/or Work Release status but have been
     denied assignment to the Community Reentry Center ("CRC")
     and denied access to the privileges, services, and programs
     available to men assigned to the CRC.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew A. Feldman, Esq.
          Su Ming Yeh, Esq.
          Angus R. Love, Esq.
          Jim Davy, Esq.
          PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT
          718 Arch St., Suite 3048S
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 925-2966
          E-mail: mfeldman@pailp.org
                  smyeh@pailp.org
                  alove@pailp.org
                  jdavy@pailp.org

               - and -

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

          Matthew J. Connell, Esq.
          Samantha Ryan, Esq.
          MACMAIN LAW GROUP
          433 W. Market Street, Suite 200
          West Chester, PA 19382
          Telephone: (484) 318-7106
          E-mail: mconnell@macmainlaw.com
                  SRyan@macmainlaw.com


BROUSSEAU MANAGEMENT: Dunn Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Dunn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Brousseau Management Co., LLC; Brousseau
Properties, LLC; Brousseau – Georgetown, LLC; Brousseau –
Charlestown, LLC; Monet Manor, LLC; 669 Monet Drive, LLC; 4484
Floynell Drive, LLC; 402 and 406 South 21st Street, LLC; 964
Maximillian, LLC; 31903 Pat's Lane, LLC and Brian D. Brousseau,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00051-JWD-EWD (M.D. La., January 28,
2019) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Defendants failed to pay Dunn, and other workers like her,
overtime as required by federal law, says the complaint. Instead,
the Defendants paid Dunn, and other workers like her, the same
hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40
in a workweek.

Plaintiff Dunn was an employee of Brousseau Property Management.

Brousseau Management Co., LLC is a Louisiana limited liability
company with its headquarters and principal place of business in
East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.

Brian D. Brousseau was the owner of Brousseau Property
Management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
     PARMET PC
     P.O. Box 540907
     800 Sawyer St. (77007)
     Houston, TX 77254
     Phone: 713 999 5228
     Fax: 713 999 1187
     Email: matt@parmet.law


CELESTIAL CARE: Talos Seeks Overtime Pay for Caregivers
-------------------------------------------------------
DAWN TALOS on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. CELESTIAL CARE, INC., 2645 North Mayfair Road,
Suite 210 Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53226, the Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-134 (E.D. Wisc., Jan. 24, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive
relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and Wisconsin's
Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a privately owned
company headquartered in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin that provides in-home
healthcare services in the State of Wisconsin. The Defendant
operated (and continues to operate) an unlawful compensation system
that deprived and failed to compensate all current and former
hourly-paid, non-exempt Caregivers for all hours worked and work
performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay, by:
failing to compensate said employees for compensable travel time
during the work day; and failing to include all non-discretionary
compensation, such as bonuses, commissions, incentives, and/or
other monetary rewards, in said Caregivers' regular rates of pay
for overtime calculation purposes.

Defendant's failure to compensate its hourly paid, non-exempt
Caregivers for compensable work performed, including but not
limited to at the correct and lawful overtime rate of pay, was
intentional, willful, and violated federal law, FLSA, and WWPCL,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attoneys for Plaintiff:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com

CHAMPION PETFOODS: Toxic Dog Food Case Faces Jurisdiction Hurdles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that a class action
alleging Champion premium dog food has excessive levels of toxic
heavy metals may not have been filed in the right court, a federal
court said Dec. 28.

The defendants and the conduct alleged aren't sufficiently
connected to Tennessee to justify the court's jurisdiction over the
case, Judge Eli Richardson wrote for the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee.

The court gave the plaintiff until Jan. 14 to amend his complaint
to explain why it has jurisdiction.

Matthew D. Ficarelli sued Champion Petfoods USA Inc. and Champion
Petfoods LP alleging its premium Orijen and Acana dog food brands
are contaminated with excessive quantities of heavy metals that are
toxic to dogs.

Mr. Ficarelli says he paid too much for the food, which he bought
because of Champion's deceptive advertisements.

The court granted Champion's motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction.

The court lacks general personal jurisdiction over the defendants
because neither is incorporated or principally does business in
Tennessee, the court said.

The court also lacks specific jurisdiction, it held. Mr. Ficarelli
didn't say he bought the dog food in Tennessee, but rather in
Florida where he lived previously.

"This is a critical flaw in the complaint because it is plaintiff's
purchase of the products that gives rise to this lawsuit," the
court said. "Although the court must construe the complaint in the
light most favorable to plaintiff, the court cannot reasonably
infer that plaintiff purchased the dog food in Tennessee."

Barnow and Associates P.C. and Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP
represented the pet owners.

Greenberg Traurig LLP and Patterson Intellectual Property Law P.C.
represented Champion.

The case is Ficarelli v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc., 2018 BL
481971, M.D. Tenn., No. 3:18-cv-361, 12/28/18. [GN]


CHECKMATE REALTY: Bufford Suit Asserts RLTO Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Eboni Bufford, Individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CheckMate Realty and Development, Inc.,
CheckMate Realty, Inc., Chicago Capital Fund II LLC and Chicago
Title Land Trust Company Trust Co #8002353288, Defendants, Case No.
2019CH01123 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., January 28, 2019) is a class
action against Defendants for violation of the City of Chicago
Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance ("RLTO").

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to attach to
Plaintiff's and the class's leases the then current RLTO summaries,
including the separate summary describing the respective rights,
obligations, and remedies of landlords and tenants with respect to
security deposits, required by the RLTO.

Plaintiff resides in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

CheckMate Development is an Illinois company registered with the
Illinois Secretary of State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey S. Sobek, Esq.
     JS Law
     29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 756-1330
     Email: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com


CORIN USA: Tristan Tanner Seeks Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------
TRISTAN TANNER, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CORIN USA LIMITED, CO., the
Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00187 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 24, 2019), seeks
all legal and equitable relief allowed by law including judgment
against Defendant for back pay, unpaid wages, commissions,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, payment of reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff began working for
Defendant on or about April 4, 2016 as a Warehouse Associate. The
Plaintiff's last day of employment was December 31, 2018. The
Plaintiff worked an average of 50 to 55 hours per week. The
Plaintiff was not paid time and a one-half his regular hourly rate
for each and every hour that he worked in excess of 40 hours in a
work week for all weeks that he worked.

Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff overtime at a rate not less
than 1 1⁄2 times the regular rate of pay for work performed in
excess of 40 hours in a work week, violates the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.
sections 201 et seq., including 29 U.S.C. section 207. The
Defendant knew or had reason to know that Plaintiff performed work
in excess of 40 hours per work week. The Defendant's violations of
the FLSA were intentional and willful and in reckless disregard of
the rights of Plaintiff. Defendant knew that it's conduct was
prohibited by the FLSA and/or showed reckless disregard about
whether it was. As a direct result of Defendant's violations of the
FLSA, Plaintiff suffered damages by being denied overtime wages,
the lawsuit says.

Corin provides hip, knee, ankle and shoulder solutions and
technologies.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          Christopher D. Gray
          FLORIN, GRAY, BOUZAS, OWENS, LLC
          16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
          Lutz, FL 33558
          Telephone (727) 254-5255
          Facsimile (727) 483-7942
          E-mail: wolfgang@fgbolaw.com
                  chris@fgbolaw.com

CORRECTIONS CORP: Bid to Certify Class in Grae Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Aleta A. Trauger denied the Motion to Certify Class in the
lawsuit entitled NIKKI BOLLINGER GRAE, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA, DAMON T. HININGER, DAVID M. GARFINKLE, TODD J. MULLENGER,
and HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Case No. 3:16-cv-02267 (M.D. Tenn.).

The Motion to Certify Class is filed by Amalgamated Bank, as
Trustee for the LongView Collective Investment Fund.

Judge Trauger also denied as moot the Motion for Evidentiary
Hearing filed by CoreCivic, Inc.[CC]


DELUXE CORP: James Mansapit Sues over Credit Background Check
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES M. MANSAPIT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELUXE CORPORATION; DELUXE CHECK
PRINTERS; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19CV340921 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Jan. 14, 2019) alleges
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Deluxe Corporation provides checks, forms, marketing solutions,
accessories, and other products and services for small businesses
and financial institutions. The company was formerly known as
Deluxe Check Printers, Incorporated and changed its name to Deluxe
Corporation in 1988. Deluxe Corporation was founded in 1915 and is
headquartered in Shoreview, Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          William M. Pao, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  scott@setarehlaw.com
                  william@setarehlaw.com


DENKA: Laplace Plant Chloroprene Class Actions Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
WVUE reports that a town of 30,000 people, Laplace sits in the
shadows of major oil and gas plants. With one of the highest cancer
rates per capita, it has earned the name "cancer alley."

And for years, people living here have questioned what's making
them, their family and friends so sick.

In 2015, scientists looked to the air. They found chloroprene, an
element the EPA has labeled a "likely carcinogen." For years people
had been breathing something they couldn't even see.

Chloroprene is a chemical used to make neoprene rubber, a substance
used in everything from wet suits to car parts. And the only plant
in the United States that produces it: the Denka plant, situated in
the middle of Laplace.

"They've been exposed to it for 49 years -- that's an awful long
time. . . . All the stories the citizens have are acute impacts,
short-term impacts and chronic impacts that match all the data we
have on chloroprene," said Wilma Subra with the Louisiana
Environmental Action Network.

In 2015, the EPA published a report of the link between chlorprene
and cancer. In response, in 2017 Denka said it had spent more than
$30 million to reduce chloroprene emissions and finished installing
"four major pieces of equipment and other projects to reduce
emissions."

Ms. Subra, a technician with the Louisiana Environmental Action
Network, studies the numbers every two weeks and discusses her
findings with concerned citizens.

"If it was happening in your house, wouldn't you want to know whats
going on? . . . Ignorance is not bliss in this case," she said.

In 2016, the EPA placed six monitoring stations around Denka to
record chlorprene levels in the air. Two were placed at Fifth Ward
Elementary and East St. John High School.

Ms. Subra says the average chloroprene concentration varies because
of plant production, wind direction and other variables that change
daily. She says when examining the highest chloroprene
concentrations per year, the numbers have trended downward, but not
near enough.

"It's about 150-500 times over .2, and the data that's coming in
for 2018. If they cut their production today and cut it back enough
it would be immediate, but they are the only producer in the United
States, and say they wont cut production," said
Ms. Subra.

That figure -- .2 -- appears on T-shirts and signs, and comes up in
conversations in Laplace all the time.

"We're still fighting and will continue to fight until they bring
it down to where its acceptable," said Mary Hampton.

Ms. Hampton has lived in Laplace her whole life, and most of her
extended family have also made their homes here. She says they all
live in fear every day.

"Everytime you go to the doctor for a test you wonder if you're
going to find cancer. You get a bump, you keep watching -- hey, it
might be cancer," said Ms. Hampton.

Ms. Hampton and others haven't been scared to fight back. Since the
2015 report linking chloroprene and cancer, lawsuits are stacking
up against the plant, including a series of class action lawsuits
alleging the plant is violating citizens' constitutional right for
health and safety.

"I think our corporations, they don't have hearts, they don't have
compassion, and so the only thing they pay attention to is a
judgement or the possibility of a judgement that hurts their
wallet," said attorney Hugh "Skip" Lambert.

Mr. Lambert says a federal judge signed an order remanding their
class action case back to state court, which he says gives them a
much better chance at getting their case heard.

Another class action lawsuit alleges the Denka plant causes
residents physical pain like heart and thyroid problems,
respiratory, vomiting and other issues.

Children are not immune. The families of 20 children and young
adults have also filed a wrongful death and negligence lawsuit
saying the plant caused illness, birth defects and cancer within
their children.

Gen. Russel Honore with the Green Army says lawsuits aren't the
only way to fight back.

"The bill we're looking at is to have the legislature have LDEQ
when the EPA sets a standard follow it there should be no
exception," said Gen. Honore.

The EPA recommends 0.2 micrograms of chlorprene emissions per cubic
meter, but it's not the law. Gen. Honore says he's been in
conversations, pushing for both local and state lawmakers to fight
for the people, not oil and gas.

The job of the state is to protect the people first. Not in
Louisiana. The operative word in Louisiana is business comes first,
business and jobs the health of the people come last. That's why we
have such poor outcomes and one of the highest cancer rates in
america. That's a crying shame and that needs to be fixed," said
Gen. Honore.

Meanwhile, Ms. Hampton says she's still scared to go outside,
driven inside by something she can't even see.

"We have the front porch I love the front porch everyone gathers on
the front porch you cant do that anymore you sit there and by the
time you get inside you're sick . . .  you cant breath you're
coughing and its terrible," said Ms. Hampton.

Ms. Hampton says when she and much of her extended family all
decided to move here, it was supposed to be a great start for
them.

"We want clean air . . . you couldn't get 50 dollars for your home
because you live in cancer alley . . . we fighting for the kids
coming up our kids our grandkids. We're fighting for the entire
community," said Hampton.

She says a great start turned into something they can't escape.

Denka leaders denied our request for an on-camera interview citing
several lawsuits against the plant. In a statement, Denka says in
part they are going to continue gathering and compiling air
monitoring reports at the five locations through 2019 and will
continue to work with EPA in future air impact reviews. [GN]


DXC TECHNOLOGY: Feb. 25 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., reminds investors that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of stockholders of NVIDIA
Corporation, DXC Technology Company, and Immunomedics, Inc.
Stockholders have until the deadline to petition the court to serve
as lead plaintiff.  Additional information about each case can be
found at the link provided.

DXC Technology Company (NYSE: DXC)

Class Period: February 8, 2018 - November 6, 2018

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 25, 2019

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding the company's business and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that the company had
changed or planned to change the operations of its sales teams,
deploying generalized sales teams as opposed to the specialized
teams that were better capable of delivering specialized services
to its clients; that the company's workforce optimization strategy
of sharply reducing staff while reducing costs was resulting in a
shortage of sales personnel who could execute on demand for
services, thereby risking and ultimately losing sales and revenue
opportunities; and that, as a consequence, the company's revenue
and financial performance guidance for fiscal 2019 was without a
reasonable basis.

To learn more about the DXC class action go to:
http://bespc.com/dxc/.

To learn more about the Immunomedics class action go to:
http://bespc.com/immu/.

         Contact:
         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Telephone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email: fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com [GN]


EQUIFAX, INC: Red Cliff Band's Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Individually and
on behalf of its members and class representatives for similarly
situated federally recognized Indian Tribes and Nations, the
Plaintiff, vs. Equifax Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00903,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Atlanta) on Jan 24, 2019. The Northern
District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00420-TWT
to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas W.
Thrash, Jr. The Lead case is Case No. 1:17-md-02800-TWT.

Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifax
collects and aggregates information on more than 800 million
individual consumers and more than 88 million businesses
worldwide.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          James Nixon Daniel, III, Esq.
          BEGGS & LANE, RLLP
          501 Commendencia St.
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 432-2451

               - and -

          T. Roe Frazer, II, Esq.
          FRAZER PLC
          1 Burton Hills, Blvd., Suite 215
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (615) 647-6464
          E-mail: roe@frazer.law

EQUITY EXPERTS: Eric Sommerness Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC SOMMERNESS, and MISTY SOMMERNESS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EQUITY EXPERTS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-00095-NEB-ECW (D. Minn., Jan. 14, 2019)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Nancy E. Brasel and
referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright.

Equity Experts, LLC is a debt collection agency. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel M Eaton, Esq.
          CHRISTENSEN LAW OFFICE PLLC
          800 Washington Ave. N., Ste. 704
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 823-0188
          Facsimile: (612) 823-4777
          E-mail: dan@clawoffice.com


FINANCE OF AMERICA: Faces Erica Priest's Suit in Sacramento
-----------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Finance of America LLC. The case is captioned as ERICA PRIEST,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. FINANCE OF AMERICA LLC; FINANCE OF AMERICA MORTGAGE
LLC; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
34-2019-00248630-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 15,
2019).

Finance Of America Mortgage LLC provides mortgage solutions in the
United States. It offers home loans, such as Federal Housing
Administration, VA, interest-only, jumbo, fixed rate, and
adjustable rate loans; reverse mortgages; and other services. The
company was founded in 1994 and is based in Horsham, Pennsylvania
with office locations in the United States. As per the transaction
announced on June 2, 2015, Finance Of America Mortgage LLC operates
as a subsidiary of Finance of America Holdings LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Justin Rodriguez, Esq.


FIRST CHINESE: Mercedes Pena Seeks Unpaid Wages for Health Aide
---------------------------------------------------------------
MERCEDES PENA, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE FIRST CHINESE
PRESBYTERIAN COMMUNITY AFFAIRS HOME ATTENDANT CORP., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00718 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 24, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant violated:

     (i) the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act;

    (ii) the overtime provisions of the New York Labor Law;

   (iii) the NYLL's requirement that employers furnish employees
with wage statements containing specific categories of accurate
information on each payday, NYLL section 195(3);

    (iv) the NYLL's requirement that employees receive one hour's
pay at the minimum wage rate for any day in which the spread of
hours exceeds 10, NYLL section 652(1), 12 NYCRR section 142-2.4;
and

     (v) the NYLL's requirement that employers pay wages to their
employees who perform manual work pursuant to the terms of
employment not less frequently than on a weekly basis, and/or pay
all wages owed in a timely manner not less frequently than the
regularly scheduled payday, NYLL section 191(1)(a) and/or (d).

The Defendant is a home health aide staffing agency.  According to
the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an in-home,
home health aide/attendant July 1, 2004 through October 2, 2018,
throughout New York City. Throughout her employment, the Defendant
willfully failed to pay Plaintiff the wages lawfully due to her
under the FLSA and the NYLL in several different ways.

From at least January 1, 2015 through October 2, 2018, the
Defendant required Plaintiff to routinely work more than 40 hours
in a workweek, but failed to compensate her at the
statutorily-required overtime rate of one and one-half times her
regular rate of pay for many of the hours that she worked in excess
of forty each week. Instead, Defendant paid her at her
straight-time rate of pay for thirty-nine of the first 72 hours
that she worked each week despite not providing her with three
hours per day of uninterrupted meal breaks and/or five hours per
day of uninterrupted sleep breaks. The Defendant only paid her
additional compensation -- either at her straight time or overtime
rates -- when she worked four or more 24 hour shifts in a week. The
Defendant therefore routinely paid Plaintiff nothing for at least
33 hours of work each week, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 279-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 679-5005

FITNESS 19: Hill Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------
Amanda Hill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FITNESS 19 LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:19-cv-00160 (C.D. Cal., January 28, 2019) seeks legal and
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant
in transmitting unsolicited, autodialed SMS or MMS text messages,
en masse, to Plaintiff's cellular device and the cellular devices
of numerous other individuals across the country, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

The unsolicited text messages were sent pursuant to a common
telemarketing scheme for which the Defendant, or any agent or
intermediary acting on its behalf, did not comply with, and thus
violated, the telemarketing and DNC List restrictions of the TCPA
and the telephone solicitation restrictions, the complaint
asserts.

Neither Plaintiff nor any members of the proposed Class provided
their "prior express written consent" to Defendant or any
affiliate, subsidiary, or agent of Defendant to permit Defendant to
transmit text messages to the her number or to any of the Class's
telephone numbers using an "automatic telephone dialing system",
says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Wildomar, California.

The Defendant maintains its corporate headquarters in
Temecula.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
     David W. Hall, Esq.
     HEDIN HALL LLP
     Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (415) 766-3534
     Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
     Email: fhedin@hedinhall.com
            dhall@hedinhall.com


FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over F-150 Transmission Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ford
F-150 transmission lawsuit alleges the trucks won't shift into
reverse gear unless the ignitions are shut off and turned back on.

According to the lawsuit, the transmissions have defects that cause
the trucks to consistently fail to engage reverse gear when drivers
shift to reverse. The plaintiff claims he was told the reverse gear
failures are a "normal characteristic" of the transmissions.

However, the problem allegedly creates serious safety hazards
because the trucks are not fit for ordinary use.

Plaintiff Steven Schneider filed the lawsuit after having
transmission problems in his leased 2016 Ford F-150 he claims fails
to shift into reverse gear. The proposed class-action lawsuit
includes all consumers in California who purchased or leased a Ford
F-150 after December 14, 2012.

Mr. Schneider says after shifting into reverse gear from a dead
stop and while slightly pressing the accelerator pedal, the truck
quickly hit more than 3,000 RPM even though the truck wouldn't
move. But after turning off the ignition and restarting the engine,
the truck finally went into reverse.

The plaintiff says he took the F-150 to a dealer in February 2017
and was told Ford knew about the problems with reverse gear but
also said it was "normal."

According to the lawsuit, Ford issued a special service message in
2015 admitting the reverse problem exists in 2015-2017 models but
told technicians "no repair should be attempted." In addition,
F-150 drivers were advised to "cycle the ignition on and off" to
fix the problem.

According to Mr. Schneider, the Ford dealership followed the
service message and didn't attempt to repair his truck.

The plaintiff claims his truck has malfunctioned while he was
making sharp turns as he found his truck stuck in the road because
he couldn't get it into reverse. He says the problem has occurred
11 times in less than a year of the first incident, creating too
much of a risk that Ford allegedly calls "normal."

Ford has allegedly concealed known defects while advertising the
F-150 trucks as "Ford Tough" even though the plaintiff claims the
trucks should have never been sold.

Ford filed a notice of removal to federal court and asserted based
on Schneider's restitution request that more than $5 million was at
stake in the class-action.

However, the district court disagreed by finding under California's
Song-Beverly Act, any "restitution award would be equal to the
F-150s' purchase price offset by any decrease in the truck's value
attributable to the buyer's use before the defect was discovered."

Ford appealed the district court's order remanding the class-action
to state court by turning to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit ruled the district court questioned Ford's
estimate but it did not give Ford the opportunity to provide
additional evidence. That evidence includes Ford's estimate that
the amount in question could exceed $3 billion dollars, an amount
far above the required $5 million necessary to enter as a proposed
class-action in federal court.

The automaker provided evidence that more than 68,000 new 2015-2017
F-150s were sold in California at an average MSRP of $45,498.94.

In other words, while the district court found Ford couldn't lose
$5 million if it lost the lawsuit, Ford concluded a restitution
award in favor of F-150 owners and lessees could exceed $3.1
billion. That's 620 times the $5 million required as a basis for
federal jurisdiction.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court ruling and sent the
case back to the lower court to proceed.

The Ford F-150 transmission lawsuit was originally filed in the San
Luis Obispo Superior Court - Steven Schneider, et al., v. Ford
Motor Company, et al.

The plaintiff is represented by Finkelstein & Krinsk. [GN]


GOOGLE INC: Judge Tosses Suit Over Face-Scanning Feature
--------------------------------------------------------
Luke Stangel, writing for Silicon Valley Business Journal, reports
that a federal judge in Illinois threw out a closely-watched case
involving Alphabet Inc.-owned Google's ability to identify people
in photos, saying the two victims who sued the search giant failed
to prove they suffered any injuries from the feature.

Two people from Illinois sued Google in early 2016, claiming a
face-scanning feature in Google Photos violates the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act. That state law, passed in 2008,
requires companies get explicit permission from people before
capturing their biometric information — think fingerprints, iris
scans, facial scans, body scans and walking gait analyses.

One of the plaintiffs, Lindabeth Rivera, claimed someone took 11
photos of her using an Android smartphone, which automatically
analyzed and uploaded the photos to a Google Photos server in the
cloud. She says the service analyzed her facial features, and then
suggested tagging her in other photos she appeared in — something
she didn't explicitly allow, in violation of Illinois state law,
she said.

The other defendant, Joseph Weiss, made similar claims, with the
only difference being he owned an Android smartphone, and used
Google Photos himself.

In his judgement, filed on Dec. 26, Judge Edmond Chang ruled Rivera
and Weiss hadn't demonstrated how they had been injured by the
feature. He also said his court, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, didn't have subject matter
jurisdiction over the case. It's unclear if Rivera and Weiss will
appeal the decision.

Bloomberg first spotted the filing.

Facebook Inc. and Snap Inc. are facing similar lawsuits over facial
scanning. In April, a federal judge in San Francisco allowed
plaintiffs to file a class-action lawsuit against Facebook over a
feature that automatically suggests tagging friends in photos,
Reuters reported at the time. [GN]


GOOGLE LLC: Photo Service Violates Privacy Laws, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
LINDABETH RIVERA and JOSEPH WEISS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. GOOGLE LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No.
2019CH00990 (Ill., Cir. Ct., Jan. 24, 2019), seeks to recover
damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of Google in collecting, storing and using
Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated individuals' biometric
identifiers and biometric information without informed written
consent, in direct violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act ("BIPA").

According to the complaint, in direct violation of the BIPA, Google
is actively collecting, storing, and using -- without providing
notice, obtaining informed written consent or publishing data
retention policies -- the biometrics of millions of unwitting
individuals whose faces appear in photographs uploaded to Google
Photos in Illinois. Specifically, Google has created, collected and
stored, in conjunction with its cloud-based "Google Photos"
service, millions of "face templates" (or "face prints") -- highly
detailed geometric maps of the face -- from millions of Google
Photos users. Google creates these templates using sophisticated
facial recognition technology that extracts and analyzes data from
the points and contours of faces that appear in photos taken on
Google "Droid" devices and uploaded to the cloud-based Google
Photos service.  Each face template that Google extracts is unique
to a particular individual, in the same way that a fingerprint or
voiceprint uniquely identifies one and only one person, the lawsuit
says.

Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware. It is considered one of the Big
Four technology companies, along with Amazon, Apple and
Facebook.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
                  kshamberg@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Theodore Maya, Esq.
          Bradley King, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Carey Rodriguez, Esq.
          David P. Milian, Esq.
          MILIAN GONYA, LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372-7474
          Facsimile: (305) 372-7475
          E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com

HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: Faces New Suit Over HIV, Hepatitis C Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Ford, writing for PIX11 News, reports that a new lawsuit has
been filed against the North Jersey health facility that had to
warn nearly 4,000 of its patients that they may have contracted HIV
or hepatitis due to unsanitary conditions at the facility.
HealthPlus, which operates the facility, says that it has taken
proper action regarding personnel and hygiene, but the number of
patients saying that the health care provider is continuing to
mismanage their situation is growing.

"I couldn't even enjoy my holiday," said Kristin Debenedictis. "And
I'm still living in fear. Every day, constant fear. Nobody will
give me any answers."

Ms. Debenedictis is one of 3,778 patients who'd been treated at the
HealthPlus Surgery Center in Saddle Brook, New Jersey between
January and September of 2018. Within days of Christmas, each of
them was supposed to have received a certified letter warning them
that the facility's poor hygiene during the first eight and-a-half
months of the year had subjected them to the blood-borne diseases.
It had also instructed them to get tested for the illnesses, free
of charge.

However, some patients now say, the notification was mishandled.

"Not only did I get my [certified] letter, I got someone else's
letter, with her name and address on it," said patient
Robert Stridiron, who'd had knee surgery at the facility.

"They messed up again," he told PIX11 News. "That's a federal HIPA
law violation."

Mr. Stridiron, who's also an emergency medical technician, was
referring to patient privacy laws. In full disclosure,
Mr. Stridiron is also a part-time news videographer, who
occasionally provides breaking news video to PIX11 News.

He's also among at least six patients who sought the services of
personal injury attorney Sanford Rubenstein regarding how the
holiday-time notification affected them. Some of the plaintiffs,
including Ms. Debenedictis, said, in interviews with PIX11 News, as
well as at a news conference here, that they still have not been
notified whether or not they tested positive for the illnesses,
even though their blood tests happened at least a week ago.

"It's very upsetting," Ms. Debenedictis said. "I just want
answers."

What patients do know is that the New Jersey Department of Health
inspected the facility on Sept. 7 and found a variety of unsanitary
conditions, including surgical tools with "brown, rust-like stains"
on them, and a stretcher with a blood-stained sheet, that was
improperly disinfected, even after an inspector called for it to be
sanitized, according to a department of health report.

Also, by HealthPlus's own admission, "sterilization and medication
dispensing were not operating consistent with standard procedure"
at the facility.

It also said, in a statement from its attorney, Mark Manigan, that
"multi-dose medicines were improperly dispensed and lapses in
sterilization procedures occurred, primarily concerning orthopedic
instruments and surgical trays."

HealthPlus also pointed out that a nursing supervisor at the
facility resigned the day before it was inspected, and that it
dismissed two other workers responsible for hygiene. It also shut
down the facility for two weeks in September for a thorough
sterilization, it said, and opened the facility for a media tour to
show that conditions met state standards.

That was inadequate for the patients filing suit.

"There is liability from this facility for these victims," said
Rubenstein, their attorney.

The HealthPlus facility where the unhealthy conditions were present
is owned by businessman Yan Moshe. He also owns Hudson Regional
Hospital in Secaucus, New Jersey, which was listed in letters to
patients as a testing center for them to find out if they had
contracted the diseases.

Mr. Rubenstein and his plaintiffs called that a conflict of
interest, which they find disturbing.

"I just want justice," said patient Steven Tapia, in an interview
with PIX11 News.

In response to the new legal action, Mr. Manigan, HealthPlus's
attorney, said, "I have no comment on the lawsuit."

He also pointed out that HealthPlus has posted information related
to the state department of health investigation and corrective
activity on its website.

"Since reopening on September 27, 2018, HealthPlus is fully
compliant and will provide additional updates as appropriate," Mr.
Manigan said.

A separate, class action lawsuit was filed against HealthPlus in
Bergen County, New Jersey. [GN]


HUSKY ENERGY: Faces Suit Over April 26 Blast Amid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Lovrien, writing for Duluth News Tribune, reports that a
contractor working at the Husky Energy refinery in Superior said
the April 26 explosion sent him 15 feet into the air, resulting in
severe injuries when he hit the floor, according to a lawsuit filed
against the refinery and its owners.

Contractor Taylor Mayr of Houston, Texas argues in a November
complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Madison that Husky
Energy, Inc. and Superior Refining Company LLC were negligent in
operating the refinery, conducted "extra hazardous and/or
ultrahazardous and abnormally dangerous activities" and are
responsible for over $75,000 in damages to him because the blast
left him with "permanent and severe injuries."

Mr. Mayr, employed by Evergreen North America Industrial Services
and tasked with chemical cleanup as the refinery shut down for
maintenance in late April, was working near the fluid catalytic
cracking unit, where the explosion occurred as crews worked to shut
it down for planned maintenance, according to the compliant.

When the blast occurred shortly after 10 a.m. on April 26, "The
initial shock wave caused by the explosion launched (Mayr) fifteen
. . .  plus feet in the air and hurled him to the floor," the
complaint states. "As a result (Mayr) suffered severe injuries."

The April 26 refinery explosion and subsequent asphalt fire led to
36 injuries, according to the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard
Investigation Board, and prompted the evacuation of much of
Superior.

Lawyers representing Mr. Mayr did not respond to News Tribune
questions about the extent of Mr. Mayr's injuries.

Husky Energy also did not respond to a request for comment by the
News Tribune.

Citing the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board's
ongoing investigation into the blast, Mr. Mayr's complaint argues
Husky "failed to exercise due care in the maintenance and monitor
of the Husky Superior Refinery so as to prevent fires, explosions,
or other harm to individuals, including (Mayr)."

In August, the board said a worn-out spent catalyst valve within
the fluid catalytic cracking unit allowed air to mix with
hydrocarbons, creating an explosive mixture which then contacted an
ignition source.

Then in October, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
said the company's Process Hazard Analysis -- a document explaining
risks involved in an industrial process, and operating procedures
-- failed to address what might happen if the valve seal failed.

Although OSHA and the board conduct separate investigations,
additional information released by the board in December mirrored
OSHA's findings.

The board said the refinery's "process hazard analyses," also
described by the board as a "safeguard," only considered what would
happen when the valve was open, not what would happen if it was
closed but unable to hold a seal.

Mr. Mayr's lawsuit is not the first filed against Husky Energy and
Superior Refining Company in the wake of the refinery explosion and
fire.

A lawsuit filed by contractors in August claims workers heard a
"strange knocking noise" shortly before the explosion, but were
ordered to return to work after they expressed concern. The
explosion then occurred within 30 to 40 minutes of returning work,
the lawsuit said.

A class action complaint filed by several Superior residents in
August argue Husky displayed negligence, nuisance, trespass on land
and strict liability -- extrahazardous and/or ultrahazardous
activity before, during and after the fire and evacuation. [GN]


ICON: Opal Tower Residents Mull Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Michael Bleby, writing for The Australian Financial Review, reports
that Opal Tower residents will likely stay out of their homes for
more than the 10 days builder Icon estimated, after NSW
government-appointed engineers identified "design and construction"
problems with the high-rise building that needed further
investigation.

Hours after engineering firm WSP on Jan. 4 said it had formed a
plan to remediate the problems on level 10 of the troubled tower,
the independent experts said further work was still necessary and
said it could take a week before they knew more.

"There is no evidence of any issues with the foundations of the
building, though we believe that there are a number of design and
construction issues that require further investigation," engineers
Mark Hoffman and John Carter said in a statement published by
Planning Minister Anthony Roberts.

"We are now able to focus our attention on these key areas to
determine what has caused the issues. We have also met with the
engineers working on these matters and those who are working on the
rectification proposals.

"We hope to be in a position to make a further statement by the end
of next week."

Prof Hoffman is University of NSW dean of engineering and Prof
Carter is a former University of Newcastle dean of engineering.
They are being assisted by Professor Stephen Foster from the School
of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of NSW.

Earlier on Jan. 4, builder Icon said engineering firm WSP, which
consulted on the original construction of the 36-level tower, had
formed a plan to fix the problems on level 10, where the first
cracked precast concrete panel was identified, and that subject to
approval by the NSW government-appointed engineering consultants,
would allow residents to return.

In its own statement Icon said nothing about other levels where the
same problem had also been identified - the 12th, 16th and 26th
levels of the building. Eight days ago, when it evacuated the
residents for a second time on Dec. 27, Icon said it could take 10
days to remediate the building.

That time frame now looks optimistic.

Cracks in precast concrete panels -- found originally on Level 10
but since found on other levels of the building, raised fears about
the building's safety,

Icon NSW director Julian Doyle, whose company bears contractual
responsibility for the building's faults, agreed it was a problem
for the company.

"In time I'd like to think it's less reputationally damaging," Mr
Doyle told The Australian Financial Review.

The news came as NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian said people found
responsible for the building's faults should be held accountable.

"Absolutely, I think residents should exercise every right, every
legal opportunity they have, I would if I was in their shoes," the
Liberal leader told reporters.

Shine Lawyers national special counsel for class actions Jan
Saddler, Esq. said the firm had held talks with some residents, who
were angry and anxious about their investment.

"Yes it would, at a very high level at least, look like there would
be grounds or the basis for bringing a class action in this
particular case subject of course to what is discovered," Ms
Saddler told AAP on Jan. .4

"Overwhelmingly the concern and feeling is one of fear,
uncertainty, then you get into those people who are very angry and
frustrated."

Ms Saddler said the law firm was awaiting the outcome of both the
government inquiry into the tower problems and a review
commissioned by the developer before taking things further.

"We've spoken to residents, obviously everyone needs to see the
outcome of the report," she said.

People have voiced their frustration on a Facebook group for Opal
Tower residents and owners over the lack of information being
provided to them.

"We still don't have an answer to the main question about the
reason of those concrete panels failures," one person wrote in the
group.

"We thankfully do not own our apartment but I feel for people who
do own with this situation and can imagine how many questions
people have," said another. [GN]


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Feb. 25 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. reminds investors that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of stockholders of
Immunomedics, Inc.  Stockholders have until the deadline to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.  Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Immunomedics, Inc. (NASDAQ: IMMU)

Class Period: August 23, 2018 - December 20, 2018

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 25, 2019

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

To learn more about the Immunomedics class action go to:
http://bespc.com/immu/.

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Telephone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email: fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com [GN]


INDIO: Settles Class Action Over Municipal Code Prosecution Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Metz, writing for Palm Springs Desert Sun, reports that Indio
has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it violated
residents' due process by hiring an outside law firm to prosecute
municipal code violations, then charged residents fees for the
legal services used to prosecute them -- fees it will now have to
pay the residents back.

In an investigation published starting in late 2017, The Desert Sun
found that, in 18 cases, Indio and Coachella had charged residents
accused of infractions ranging from messy yards to failure to
properly apply for building permits more than $122,000 in
"prosecution fees." One of the defendants, Indio resident Ramona
Rita Morales had been charged more than $6,000 over a dispute
regarding chickens she had kept in her backyard.

In February 2018, lawyers from the Institute for Justine and
O'Melveny & Myers filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
Morales. In April, Lew Blackwell, the owner of Investment
Development Group, which Indio billed more than $7,700, and two
additional plaintiffs similarly prosecuted by Silver & Wright in
the neighboring city of Coachella joined Morales' class.

The lawsuit claimed that by charging residents for the legal
services used to prosecute them, the two eastern Coachella Valley
cities had denied them fair treatment by the city and courts. On
Dec. 20, the residents' legal team filed paperwork with the
Riverside County Superior Court that stated Indio and the class had
reached an agreement on settlement terms. The proposed settlement
will be put before the presiding Judge Craig G. Reimer on Jan. 24.

Indio continues to dispute its residents' allegations, but under
the settlement, will pay the two named plaintiffs $13,700 in
restitution, an amount equal to the prosecution fees they were
charged. The city will also have to vacate the criminal convictions
of residents prosecuted by Silver & Wright not named in the class.

"The City will pay back all fees listed on the Nuisance Abatement
and Code Enforcement Cost Recovery Invoice that were collected from
Plaintiffs and Class Members who were criminally prosecuted by
Silver & Wright LLP," the settlement agreement stipulates.

The settlement also mandates the city reform the way Indio seeks to
recover its legal costs. In September, Gov. Jerry Brown signed
Assembly Bill 2495 into law, which made it illegal for cities to
charge residents the cost of legal services used to prosecute them,
making Indio and Coachella's previous policy unenforceable. The
settlement builds upon the bill by directly instructing Indio to
reform the policy.

In a press release, plaintiff's attorney Jeffrey Redfern said the
way Indio and Coachella had hired outside counsel to pursue
residents accused of municipal code violations "a scheme to charge
homeowners outrageously high fees."

"Thankfully, immediately after we filed suit, Indio recognized that
these prosecution fees were the wrong way to enforce the law and
obtain compliance," he said. "And now, with this settlement, they
have also agreed to reimburse anyone caught up in this scheme.  We
appreciate Indio re-examining its policy early in the litigation to
resolve this issue."

Although Indio had settled, Coachella remains a party to the class
action lawsuit. [GN]


JACKSON HEWITT: Jessica Robinson Sues over No-Poach Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA ROBINSON, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JACKSON HEWITT, INC., JACKSON HEWITT
TAX SERVICES INC., and TAX SERVICES OF AMERICAK, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00044 (E.D. Va., Jan. 24, 2019),
alleges that Defendant conspired to suppress the wages its
employees through agreements with its franchisees not to compete
for workers in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, Jackson Hewitt orchestrated and
enforced this conspiracy at least in part through an explicit
contractual prohibition (No-Poach Clause) contained in standard
Jackson Hewitt franchise agreements that severely limited
Plaintiff's and Class members job mobility and served to
significantly suppress their compensation.

Jackson Hewitt is the second-largest tax-preparation service in the
United States; responsible for preparing more than 2 million
federal, state, and local income-tax returns each year. The company
is based in Jersey City, New Jersey.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Conrad M. Shumadine, Esq.
          WILLCOX & SAVAGE, P.C.
          440 Monticello Avenue, Suite 2200
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 628 5500
          Facsimile: 757) 628 5566
          E-mail: cshumadine@wilsav.com

              - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333 8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339 6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  awilliam@gustafsongluek.com

LINDUS CONSTRUCTION: Shortchanges Workers Overtime Pay, Morgan Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Morgan on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Lindus Construction, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-00027 (W.D. Wis., January 11, 2019), seeks unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive
relief and/or any such other relief pursuant to Wisconsin's Wage
Payment and Collection Laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

Lindus Construction is a privately owned construction company
headquartered in Baldwin, Wisconsin that provides construction,
remodeling, siding, roofing, decking and gutter services primarily
in the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin. Morgan worked as a
non-exempt, hourly employee as laborer, and then eventually, as
foreman from May 15, 2017 to September 26, 2018. He claims his
overtime pay failed to include compensable travel time during the
work day and all nondiscretionary compensation, such as bonuses,
commissions, incentives and/or other monetary rewards. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      James A. Walcheske, Esq.
      WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
      15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
      Brookfield, WI 53005
      Phone: (262) 780-1953
      Fax: (262) 565-6469
      Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com


LOUISIANA: Catahoula Lake is Private Land, 3d Cir. Rules
--------------------------------------------------------
The Franklin Sun reports that Catahoula Lake is private land
according to a Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling Dec. 28.

The ruling on the popular duck hunting spot in central Louisiana
could cut off public hunting to the area.

The recent decision went along with the lower court's previous
ruling.

In 2006, Steve and Era Crooks filed a class action lawsuit against
the state of Louisiana that said the landowners surrounding the
body of water are actually owners of the lake.

In "Crooks vs State" Judicial District Court in Rapides Parish,
Ad-hoc Judge James Boddie ruled in factor of the plaintiffs. The
ruling was announced in 2017. The ruling stated Louisiana had
unlawfully expropriated the river banks, owing the landowners $38
million in damages as well as $4.5 million in unpaid oil and gas
royalties, after oil drilling took place in the area.

In the ruling, the Third Circuit made one exception by lowering
attorney fees for the state.

What is Catahoula Lake?

Catahoula Lake is the largest freshwater lake in Louisiana,
covering over 46 square miles.

The area once held a meandering stream that seasonally flooded
thousands of acres within the river basin for months at a time.

In 1962, the United States began constructing the Jonesville Lock
and Dam, Archie Weir on Little River and the Catahoula Diversion
Canal around the Catahoula Basin in accordance with  the River and
Harbor Act of 1960.

In connect with the project, the Catahoula Lake Water Level
Management Agreement was developed to ensure that proper water
level management would protect wildlife and public recreation
opportunities in the Catahoula Basin, including Catahoula Lake.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service began managing water
levels in and around the Catahoula Basin in 1972 after the basin
was permanently flooded.

Plaintiffs argue, that though referred to as a lake, the area known
as Catahoula Lake actually constitutes the banks of a body of water
in the Catahoula Basin called Little River. The plaintiffs went on
to argue because it is part of Little River, it is owned by the
property owners in accordance with Louisiana's laws of riparian
ownership.

Louisiana's laws of riparian ownership state the banks of navigable
rivers or streams are private things that are subject to public
use. The bank of a navigable river or stream is the land lying
between the ordinary low and the ordinary high stage of the water.

The Catahoula Basin in the 1800's

Witnesses for both plaintiffs and the State agree the best evidence
for determining whether or not the area is a lake or river is from
historical reports from the 1800's.

Thomas Jefferson in 1804 sent William Dunbar on an expedition that
included the Catahoula Basin.

Dunbar described the body of water as an inflow from Little River
"that preserves a channel running water at all season, meandering
along the bed of the lake; but all other parts of its superficies
during the dry season from July to November … are completely
drained and become clothed in the most luxuriant herbage," which
becomes grazing land for "immense herds of deer."

Dunbar's description presents the primary basis for the court's
analysis of the water body's legal classification.

Another explorer, William Darby, published a journal and map of his
observation of Catahoula Basin in 1816. Darby asserted the basin
was a lake which the court said was wrong. Darby further noted as
the water is seasonally drained by the river depression, the lake
bed becomes "a meadow of succulent herbage, with channels for the
waters that continue meandering through them." [GN]


M & L CLEANING: Underpays Cleaners, Jimenez Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. M & L CLEANING, INC.; and JOHN MELIA,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00078-KAD (D. Conn., Jan. 15, 2019)
seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Jimenez was employed by the Defendants as cleaner.

M & L Cleaning, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
the State of Connecticut. The company offers residential and
commercial cleaning services; window cleaning, power washing, post
construction water/fire/sewer damage restoration and carpet
cleaning. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. LaBella, Esq.
          URY & MOSKOW, LLC
          883 Black Rock Turnpike
          Fairfield, CT 06925
          Telephone: (203) 610-6393
          E-mail: anthony@urymoskow.com


MAIN STREET AMERICA: MSP Recovery Sues Over Unpaid Reimbursements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, a Delaware entity, and Series
15-09 157, a series of MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, Plaintiffs,
v. Main Street America Group, Inc., and Main Street Assurance
Company, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00128-MMH-JRK (M.D. Fla.,
January 29, 2019) is a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Medicare Secondary Payer ("MSP") Act or the MSP Law, arising from
Defendant's systematic and uniform failure to reimburse conditional
Medicare payments.

The Defendants have repeatedly failed to reimburse payments by
Plaintiff's assignors and the Class Members on behalf of Medicare
beneficiaries enrolled in Part C of the Medicare Act for medical
expenses resulting from injuries sustained in an accident (the
"accident-related medical expenses"), says the complaint.

Plaintiff, MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, is a Delaware series
limited liability company.

MSAG is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business
in Jacksonville, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gino Moreno, Esq.
     MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
     5000 SW 75 Avenue, Suite 300
     Miami, FL 33155
     Phone: (305) 614-2222
     Email: gmoreno@msprecoverylawfirm.com
            serve@msprecoverylawfirm.com


MANHATTAN AND BRONX: Romero et al. Seek Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit
Operating Authority, MTA Bus Company and MTA Headquarters seeks
payment of lost wages as well as other relief allowed under federal
and state laws, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.  According to the
complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to pay
overtime after 40 hours of work, as required by the FLSA. The
Defendant also failed to compensate their employees at the same
level as another Metropolitan Transportation Authority subsidiary,
which has employees doing the same or substantially similar work,
to wit, the New York City Transit Authority, which is a violation
of the Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and the
New York State Constitution.

The case is styled EDWIN ROMERO, DENISE WELLINGTON, MOSHIN AHMAD,
DAWN M. ALEXANDER, ANDREW AMIR, STANLEY ANDRE, WAI AUNG, GARY
BACCHUS, KHEMRAJ BAICHAN, ANGELA BONNETTE, DAVID CALLISON, DAVID
CARTY, SHAOMING CHANG, NEAL CHERNAKOFF, GERARD P. CORNET, JOHANNY
CRUZ, LESTER CUMBERBATCH, NOEL DALAL, HOWARD G. DALEY, JR., LESTER
DANIELS, GARY DESIMONE, DANIEL DIAZ, RAYMOND DOLAN, DENNIS DONOVAN,
FRANK ESTES, CHARLES M. FRIERSON, ROBERT GONZALEZ, JR., ARKADIY
GRIMBERG, EDWIN GUTIERREZ, DILWAR HASSAM, JUAN HERNANDEZ, OWEN
HEWITT, BENJAMIN JAMES, JANICE JOE, ANDREW JONES, GLADIS JOSEPH,
JOHNNY JUE, TREVOR JULIAN, ALEXANDER KALIKA, ISAAC F. LAPINIG,
GREGORY LAU, FREDERICK LAVEN, MANLUNG LEE, PAMELA LEE, BASIM LOUIS,
ANVAER LUDMILA, JIN QIANG LUO, CARL MAGNO, ALEXANDER MARTIN,
ALEXANDER J. MATLOSZ, RODERICK MCKRIETH, T. MILERSON, WAJHEE
MOHAMMED, GERARD N. NARDO, TODD J. NELSON, GINO J. OROLOGIO,
OSWALDO PALOMINO, NATASHA PARRIS, JAYSON PAYNE, MICHAEL QUINN,
BEVERLYN RICHARDS, JEANETTE RIVERA, FIONE ROBE, SOPHIA ROBERTS,
GERARD MAX ROGER, PAUL ROMANO, NORMAN RUBI, TERRANCE RUSSELL, JOSE
ANTONIO SANTIAGO, DONAVON SIMONETTE, MAHADEO SINGH, JOHN STANTYOS,
DORIAN STEWART, YOLANDA TABB, GUY TAIEB, DONNA THOMPSON, DEXTER H.
TYRRELL, WENDY TZUO, THEARA WASHINGTON, VERONDERLETTE WHITFIELD,
JITHENDRA J. YOGARASA, SUKKYUN YOON, JIASI ZHU, IRENE THOMAS,
JUDITH CHARLES, AMELIA LEE, MICHAEL CASTRO, THOMAS SCOURTOS,
JENNIFER BELLO, BARBARA BROOKS, LATEYA DAIMAGE, MYRNA ARCHER,
AVILIO MIESES, NITHIMA CHAKKRIJRATANA, CHRISTOPHE BLANCHARD, THOMAS
GERACI, FEONYUKKUEN MOK, ASHRAF ABDELKADER, EBTESAM AFIFY, JULIAN
DAVID BAUTISTA-ROJAS, KEITH BEST, WAYNE MUNRO, SHANNA PATTERSON,
DIANE SHIELDS, ADA IRIS CUEVAS, TRACEY HENDERSON, RENEE GRIFFITH,
TANYA BRAND-JONES, JOHN SCIOTTO, RUCHITA ACHARYA, YVETTE ANDERSON,
DARLEEN BELL, JOANNE BROOME, AMINATA CHARLES, and LOREN CHAUHAN, On
behalf of a class of employees employed with the Manhattan and
Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, MTA Bus Company, and MTA
Headquarters, the Plaintiffs, vs. MANHATTAN AND BRONX SURFACE
TRANSIT OPERATING AUTHORITY, MTA BUS COMPANY, and MTA HEADQUARTERS,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00694 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 24,
2019).[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq.
          Richard Soto, Esq.
          ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE CHARTERED ATTORNEYS
          225 Broadway, Suite 1902
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 285-1400

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Dittemore Data Breach Suit in D. Md.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marriott
International, Inc. The case is captioned as GARY DITTEMORE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
8:19-cv-00139-PWG (D. Md., Jan. 14, 2019). The case is assigned to
Judge Paul W. Grimm.

The Dittemore suit is a member case in the multi-district
litigation proceeding, IN RE: Marriott International, Inc.,
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation (MDL No. 2879).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph T. Musso, Esq.
          ASHCRAFT & GEREL
          4900 Seminary Road, Suite 650
          Alexandria, VA 22311
          Telephone: (703) 931-5500
          Facsimile: (703) 820-0630
          E-mail jmusso@ashcraftlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gilbert S Keteltas, Esq.
          BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Ave. NW Ste. 1100
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 861-1530
          Facsimile: (202) 861-1783
          E-mail: gketeltas@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel R Warren, Esq.
          BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
          Key Tower 127 Public Square Ste. 2000
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 861-7145
          Facsimile: (216) 696-0740
          E-mail: dwarren@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Lisa M Ghannoum, Esq.
          BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
          Key Tower 127 Public Sq. Ste. 2000
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 861-7872
          Facsimile: (216) 696-0740
          E-mail: lghannoum@bakerlaw.com


MDL 2741: Richardson Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Moved
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled LUZ E. RICHARDSON, the Plaintiffs,
v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.: 4:18-cv-02103 (Filed Dec.
19, 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-00374-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 Richardson 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: Samaniego Suit v Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled GRACIELA SAMANIEGO, the Plaintiffs,
v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.: 4:18-cv-02018 (Filed Dec.
30, 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-00364-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 Samaniego 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: Sawyer Suit v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled DAVID E. SAWYER and SANDRA SAWYER,
the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.:
4:18-cv-02129 (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-00388-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 Sawyer 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: Shobe Suit v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ROBERT A. SHOBE, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.: 4:18-cv-02106 (Filed Dec.
19, 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-00376-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 Shobe 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: Weatherspoon v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MARYLOU WEATHERSPOON, the
Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.: 4:18-cv-02130
(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-00389-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 Weatherspoon 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: Weaver v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled RAY F. WEAVER and JOYCE E. WEAVER,
the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.:
4:18-cv-02110 (Filed Dec. 19, 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-00378-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 Weaver 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: Whitmire Suit v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled JERRY WHITMIRE, as Executor of the
Estate of BRENDA WHITMIRE, (deceased), the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02063 (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-00369-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 Whitmire 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

MINDBODY INC: Sabatini Balks at Merger Deal with Vista Equity
-------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC SABATINI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MINDBODY, INC., RICK STOLLMEYER,
KATHERINE BLAIR CHRISTIE, COURT CUNNINGHAM, GAIL GOODMAN, CIPORA
HERMAN, ERIC LIAW, ADAM MILLER, and GRAHAM SMITH, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00138-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 24, 2019), stems from a
proposed transaction announced on December 24, 2018, pursuant to
which MINDBODY, Inc. will be acquired by affiliates of Vista Equity
Partners. On December 23, 2018, MINDBODY's Board of Directors
caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger
with Torreys Parent, LLC and Torreys Merger Sub, Inc.  Pursuant to
the terms of the Merger Agreement, MINDBODY's stockholders will
receive $36.50 per share in cash for each share of MINDBODY common
stock they hold.

On January 23, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction.  According to the complaint, the
Proxy Statement, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the Proposed
Transaction for February 14, 2019, omits material information with
respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy
Statement false and misleading, in violation of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

MINDBODY was founded in 2001. It provides cloud-based business
management software for the wellness services industry. MINDBODY
serves about 35 million consumers located in over 130 countries and
territories.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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

MITCHELL D BLUHM: Saks Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Law Offices of
Mitchell D. Bluhm & Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Allen
Saks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. The Law Offices of Mitchell D. Bluhm & Associates,
LLC, CF Medical LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
0:19-cv-60232-DPG (S.D. Fla., January 28, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
   Zeig Law Firm, LLC
   3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103
   Hollywood, FL 33021
   Tel: (754) 217-3084
   Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Cloutier Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT CLOUTIER, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and JOHN DOES
1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-14024-DMM (S.D. Fla., Jan.
24, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francisco A. Albites, Esq.
          Jessica L. Richman, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          27300 Riverview Center Boulevard, Suite 103
          Bonita Springs, Florida 34134
          Telephone: (239) 390-8612
          Facsimile: (239) 390-0055
          E-mail: falbites@yourlawyer.com
                  jrichman@yourlawyer.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Raygozas Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
ARTURO RAYGOZA AND CHARLENE RAYGOZA, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00088 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 23,
2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Barna Files PI Class Action in Ind.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Karl Barna,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Hobart
and William Smith Colleges, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00386-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: Chambliss Files PI Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Myron Chambliss,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00413-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: Conn Files PI Class Suit in Ind.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Travis Conn,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and
Gardner-Webb University, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00346 (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 appears PRO SE.



NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Drake Wants Jury Trial in Personal Injury Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
James Drake, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
and Miles College, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00423-TWP-DML
(S.D. Ind., January 28, 2019) demands jury trial against Defendants
to obtain redress for injuries sustained as a result of Defendants'
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
Miles student-athletes.

Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, the Defendants failed to implement
adequate procedures to protect Plaintiff and other Miles football
players from the long-term dangers associated with them, asserts
the complaint.

As a direct result of the Defendants' acts and omissions, Plaintiff
and countless former Miles football players suffered and continue
to suffer brain and other neurocognitive injuries. As such,
Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate
those players' rights and hold the NCAA and Miles accountable.

Plaintiff James Drake is a natural person and resident of the State
of Alabama.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis,
Indiana 46206.

Miles College, Inc. is a private university located at 5500 Myron
Massey Boulevard, Fairfield, Alabama 35064.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com

          - and -

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Phone: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

          - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Nowell PI Suit in Indiana
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Dwight Nowell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00282-SEB-DML (S.D. Ind., January 25, 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 Ritenour Personal Injury Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Steven Ritenour,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00399-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: Faces Rycroft Class Action for Personal Injury
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Kendall Rycroft,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00387-TWP-DML (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: Faces Wertz PI Class Suit in Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Austin Wertz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Ripon
College, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-JRS-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: Harris Brings Class Action for Personal Injury
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Brian Harris,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Wingate
University, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00316-TWP-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: Hayes Files Class Action Over Personal Injury
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as William Hayes,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00402-SEB-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: Horton Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Timirr Horton,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00343-JMS-DLP (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: Jackson Class Suit Alleges Personal Injury
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Anthony Jackson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and La Salle
University, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00314-JMS-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: Keo Files Personal Injury Class Action in Ind.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Jared Keo, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00286-JRS-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 25, 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: Kimbrough Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Nathan Kimbrough,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00414-JMS-MPB (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: Oliver Files Personal Injury Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Brian Oliver,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Coe
College, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00317-JMS-DLP (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: Samuel Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Herman Samuel,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00284-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 25, 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: Schroeder Class Action Asserts Personal Injury
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Donald Schroeder,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Illinois
College, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00319-JMS-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: Shamsid-deen Files PI Class Suit in Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Hassan Shamsid-deen,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00283-TWP-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 25, 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: Walls Alleges Claim for Personal Injury
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Jerry Walls,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00288-TWP-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 25, 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: Warner Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Steven Warner,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00400-TWP-DML (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: Whalen Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Timothy Whalen,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00345-RLY-DLP (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


NEW YORK, NY: Court Certifies Diabetic Students Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit against the New York City Department of
Education, The New York City Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene, The Office of School Health, The City of New York and Bill
De Blasio, the Hon. Judge Nina Gershon entered an order on Jan. 23,
2019:

   1. certifying action to proceed as a class action on behalf of:

      "all students with diabetes who are now or will be entitled
      to receive diabetes-related care and attend New York City
      public schools";

   2. appointing M.F., a minor, by and through his parent and
      natural guardian Yelena Ferrer, M.R., a minor, by and
      through her parent and natural guardian Jocelyne Rojas, and
      I.F., a minor, by and through her parent and natural
      guardian Jennifer Fox, as representatives for the Class;

   3. appointing Disability Rights Advocates as counsel for the
      Class.

The case is captioned as M.F., a minor, by and through his parent
and natural guardian YELENA FERRER; M.R., a minor, by and through
her parent and natural guardian JOCELYNE ROJAS; I.F., a minor, by
and through her parent and natural guardian JENNIFER FOX, on behalf
of themselves and a class of those similarly situated; and THE
AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION, a nonprofit organization, the
Plaintiffsf, vs. THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; THE NEW
YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE; THE OFFICE OF
SCHOOL HEALTH; THE CITY OF NEW YORK; BILL DE BLASIO, in his
official capacity as Mayor of New York City; RICHARD A. CARRANZA,
in his official capacity as Chancellor of the New York City
Department of Education; OXIRIS BARBOT, in her official capacity as
Acting Commissioner of the New York City Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene; and ROGER PLATT, in his official capacity as Chief
Executive Officer of the Office of School Health, the Defendants,
Case No. 18-CV-6109 (NG) (SJB) (E.D.N.Y.).[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Michelle Caiola, Esq.
          Seth Packrone, Esq.
          Torie Atkinson, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          655 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 644-8644
          Facsimile: (212) 644-8636
          E-mail: mcaiola@dralegal.org
                  spackrone@dralegal.org
                  talkinson@dralcgal.org

               - and -

          Sarah Fech-Baughman, Esq.
          AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION
          2451 Crystal Drive, Suite 900
          Arlington, VA 22202
          Telephone: (703) 253-4823
          E-mail: sfech@diabetes.org

               - and -

          Alan L. Yatvin, Esq.
          Law Offices of Popper & Yatvin
          230 S Broad St Suite 503
          Philadelphia, PA 19102

NEW YORK: Court Tosses Firefighter Applicant's Physical Test Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Marsh, Tina Moore, Ruth Brown and Kenneth Garger, writing for
New York Post, report that meet the flameout who wants to be a
smoke-eater.

A firefighter wannabe who failed the FDNY physical test three times
has sued the city and the department, demanding he get the job
anyway, in a brazen effort an FDNY source called "absurd."

Kevin Walker, 47, had been a lead plaintiff in the Vulcan Society's
class-action case against the city, which accused the department of
discriminating against minority firefighter applicants and was
settled in 2014 for $100 million. The Jamaica, Queens, resident got
$22,500 of that payout.

Because of Mr. Walker's participation in the case, he became a
"priority hire" when he passed the 2013 qualifying exam and would
have been allowed to come aboard well past the usual maximum age of
35 -- but was not able to because he repeatedly flunked the
physical test.

"It's my understanding that he petitioned the court to just put him
in. That's absurd if you've already proven . . . that you can't
get it done," an FDNY source said.

Mr. Walker first failed a practice test on May 13, 2013, for
"grasping at the wall or handrail three times" while on a stair
machine, the city said in court documents.

In his next test a week later, he didn't even make it past the
20-second warmup on the stair machine and was failed because he
"fell or dismounted" three times.

But Mr. Walker complained that the proctor made an error, and the
department agreed to give him another shot.

On the do-over two days later, however, he flunked yet again for
failing to complete the entire Candidate Physical Ability Test in
the allotted time of 10 minutes and 20 seconds. He hit the time
limit while still on the seventh of the test's eight challenges.

After his attempts to appeal the failure were rejected, Mr. Walker
sued the city in Manhattan Supreme Court in 2016, asking a judge to
appoint him "to the position of firefighter with the seniority he
would have if not for the irrational disqualification."

In his suit -- which lists slightly different dates for the tests
and describes the machine he struggled with as a "treadmill" rather
than the city's StepMill -- he claims that the proctor first failed
him as retaliation for his role in the Vulcan suit, and that the
same proctor then flunked him again by recording a bogus time.

Mr. Walker didn't have a watch during the test but insists he had
time to spare.

"Petitioner was going through the obstacle course even quicker than
prior occasions but was suddenly stopped (with less than a minute
to complete the obstacle course) by the examiner he had complained
about claiming the time was up," his suit reads.

Responding in court documents, the city said Walker failed fair and
square and noted that he had provided no evidence to prove his time
was recorded inaccurately or that the proctors knew of his
involvement in the lawsuit.

"Petitioner provides no basis, other than his alleged 'thought' or
‘belief,' to support his assertion that the proctor even knew
that petitioner was a lead plaintiff in the Vulcan lawsuit," the
city wrote in a 2016 motion to dismiss.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Carmen Victoria St. George
dismissed Mr. Walker's suit on Dec. 14 because his place on the
Civil Service list of eligible applicants had expired, so placing
him in the department would be unconstitutional. She encouraged him
to retake the test.

"The department and city made significant efforts to ensure that
priority hires from the Vulcan suit were brought onto the job," a
city Law Department spokesman said in a statement.

"The court ruled that this particular candidate could not be hired
because his eligibility under the civil service list had expired."

Mr. Walker's attorney did not respond to requests for comment, and
Mr. Walker could not be reached for comment. [GN]


NOOM INC: Kiler Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Noom, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled Marion Kiler,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. Noom, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00522 (E.D. N.Y., January 28, 2019).

Noom, Inc. develops and provides mobile health coaching solutions.
The company offers direct-to-consumer weight loss and exercise
tracking mobile applications, and diabetes prevention program
(DPP). Additionally, it provides a behavior change platform to
treat chronic and pre-chronic conditions, such as hypertension. The
company was formerly known as WorkSmart Labs, Inc.  Noom, Inc. was
founded in 2008 and is headquartered in New York, New York with
additional offices in Seoul, South Korea and Tokyo, Japan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   44 Court Street, Suite 1217
   Brooklyn, NY 11217
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Fax: (718) 504-7555
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


NVIDIA CORP: Feb. 19 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., reminds investors that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of stockholders of NVIDIA
Corporation have until the deadline listed below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff.  Additional information about
each case can be found at the link provided.

NVIDIA Corporation (NASDAQ: NVDA)

Class Period: August 10, 2017 - November 15, 2018

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 19, 2019

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period defendants
assured investors that the company followed the market closely and
could adjust to rapid changes in the cryptocurrency markets.  Even
as analysts increasingly began to question the company's ability to
manage inventory in the face of an uncertain cryptocurrency market,
defendants touted that NVIDIA and its executives are "masters at
managing our channel, and we understand the channel very well."
NVIDIA also repeatedly assured investors that surging demand for
GPUs among cryptocurrency miners would not have a negative impact
on the company because of strong demand for GPUs by NVIDIA's core
customer base of computer gamers.

To learn more about the NVIDIA class action go to:
http://bespc.com/nvda/.

To learn more about the Immunomedics class action go to:
http://bespc.com/immu/.

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Telephone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email: investigations@bespc.com
                fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com [GN]


OKLAHOMA: Shows "Marked Improvement" in Child Welfare System
------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Jones, writing for Tulsa World, reports that the state has
shown "marked improvement" recently in how it cares for foster
children, but there still are several areas in which good-faith
efforts are lacking, according to an oversight panel.

The three national experts released a report on Dec. 31 that
knocked the Oklahoma Department of Human Services in areas
involving child maltreatment, and the numbers of therapeutic foster
homes and caseworkers from Jan. 1 through June 30, 2018.

The experts, dubbed "co-neutrals," release a report every six
months to chart progress toward achieving 31 target metrics to
improve Oklahoma's child-welfare system. The Pinnacle Plan is the
name given to the settlement agreement of a 2008 federal
class-action lawsuit filed against OKDHS that alleged abuses of
state foster kids.

In their summer report that covered the second half of 2017, the
co-neutrals found the Department of Human Services failed to make
good-faith efforts in nine of the 31 metrics. The agency questioned
that determination, given six of those metrics in the prior report
were deemed to be good-faith efforts and had been for at least a
year.

Specifically, the five metrics of concern highlighted in the latest
report are the:

   * Percentage of children in foster care who weren't victims of
confirmed or reported maltreatment.

   * Percentage of children in legal custody of OKDHS who weren't
victims of confirmed or reported maltreatment.

   * Number of new therapeutic foster homes reported by OKDHS as
approved.

   * Net gain/loss in therapeutic foster homes.

   * Number of caseworkers.

The 148-page report notes that in several of the areas the
co-neutrals have seen "positive, emerging efforts" after the
conclusion of the six-month period covered in the report.

The Department of Human Services in a news release emphasized the
latest report's data are from the first half of 2018, with data in
the most recent six months showing even more improvement.

"We continue to receive positive feedback from the Co-Neutrals,
particularly about the agency's efforts in dramatically decreasing
shelter care use, achieving stable and manageable caseloads, and
preventing the actual maltreatment of children who are in the
custody and care of DHS," Director Ed Lake said in a statement.

The report is the 11th since the settlement terms were agreed to in
2012. The terms require OKDHS to demonstrate good-faith efforts in
every metric for two consecutive years before the agency is
released from oversight obligations of the lawsuit.

There are 16 of 31 metrics with sustained, positive trends toward
the target outcomes, the same as in the summer report. Six of them
have achieved the target goals, up from five.

In a news release from A Better Childhood, the organization said
maltreatment and the failure to develop an adequate number and
range of therapeutic foster homes for children with special needs
are "long-standing problems" and weren't appropriately addressed in
the most recent reporting period.

A Better Childhood is a national child-welfare advocacy group. Its
executive director is Marcia Lowry, a lead attorney in the lawsuit
that led to the Pinnacle Plan.

"We are pleased with some of the state's progress in certain areas
but are deeply troubled by a combination of high rates of
maltreatment in care, the state's failure to act to develop
additional placements for children with long-recognized needs for
specialized placements, and the fact that the state's rate of
hiring additional workers has dropped to an unacceptable low point,
putting children in further jeopardy," Lowry said.

The oversight panel obtained a court order that forced the
Department of Human Services to shutter the Laura Dester Children's
Center in Tulsa by June 30 after the experts cited an "alarmingly
high" number of child maltreatment reports and confirmed cases —
primarily from lack of supervision and unsafe living conditions.
The agency had worked to eliminate shelter use since January 2015
to build capacity to serve children in family-like settings.

Laura Dester was the final state-operated shelter to shutter. Since
its closure, the facility is nearly ready to reopen as a short-term
treatment program for foster children with co-occurring
intellectual disabilities and severe behavioral struggles. [GN]


OLD SPICE: Faces Class Action Over Deodorant Products
-----------------------------------------------------
Rob Fox, writing for Rare, reports that a $5 million class-action
lawsuit against deodorant brand Old Spice alleges that its products
gave thousands of its customers chemical burns and rashes. The
first complaint was made by Rodney Colley, of Alexandria, Virginia,
whose armpit was badly burned after using Old Spice products. Since
the lawsuit was first filed, more and more people have come
forward, many with photographic evidence, that Old Spice products
had given them burns or severe rashes as well.

A spokesperson for Proctor & Gamble, the parent company of Old
Spice, insists that their deodorant products are completely safe to
use, and further claims that any skin irritation or reactions
caused by their products could be the result of several factors,
including combining their products with alcohol or fragrances.

Proctor & Gamble further claimed that the skin irritation may very
well be due to certain customers' general sensitivity to
ingredients found in deodorants, specifically alcohol sensitivity.
They say that because these ingredients are found in virtually all
deodorants, the complainants would have suffered similar skin
reactions had they used any other brand's deodorants as well.

Still, the lawsuit is moving forward.

Pictures of the chemical burns and rashes show raw armpits and deep
irritations. Many Old Spice users were so upset with the brand that
they took to online product forums to complain about the burns and
warn others to stay away from Old Spice deodorants and other
products.

The lawsuit alleges that the following Old Spice products had
caused the burns and skin irritation.

Old Spice After Hours Deodorant
Old Spice Champion Deodorant
Old Spice Pure Sport High Endurance Deodorant
Old Spice Artic Force High Endurance Deodorant
Old Spice Bearglove Deodorant
Old Spice Lion Pride Deodorant
Old Spice Swagger Deodorant
Old Spice Fresh High Endurance Deodorant
Old Spice Aqua Reef Deodorant
Old Spice Classic Fresh Deodorant
Old Spice Fiji Deodorant
Old Spice Wolfhorn Deodorant
Old Spice Champion Deodorant [GN]


PNC BANK: Removes Kennedy-Rose Suit to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of SIMON KENNEDY-ROSE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THIRD
FORCE NEGOTIATION, LLC; and PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit
Court of the State of Illinois, County of Cook (Case No.
18-CH-15093) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois on January 14, 2019. The clerk of court for the
Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00277. The
case is assigned to Honorable Ronald A. Guzman.

PNC Bank, National Association provides various banking services to
individuals, small businesses, corporations, and government
entities in the United States. PNC Bank, National Association was
formerly known as Midlantic Bank, National Association and changed
its name to PNC Bank, National Association in September 1996. The
company was founded in 1804 and is based in Wilmington, Delaware
with additional offices in the United States. PNC Bank, National
Association operates as a subsidiary of PNC Bancorp, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David B. Levin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Telephone: (224) 218-0882
          E-mail: dlevin@toddflaw.com

               - and -

          Steven Gene Perry, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Telephone: (244) 218-0875
          E-mail: sperry@toddflaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Timothy Robert Carwinski, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 207-6549
          E-mail: tcarwinski@reedsmith.com


RANDSTAD INHOUSE: Removes Rice et al. Suit to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of MARK POPE, and JAMAL RICE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. RANDSTAD INHOUSE SERVICES LLC; RANDSTAD NORTH AMERICA,
INC.; and SPHERION STAFFING, LLC, Defendants, filed a notice to
remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda (Case No. RG18930360) to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on January
14, 2019. The clerk of court for the Northern District of
California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00258. The case is assigned to
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley.

Randstad North America, Inc. provides human resources and staffing
services in the United States. It offers temporary staffing and
permanent placement services for manufacturing and logistics,
office and administration, technologies, engineering, finance and
accounting, human resources, sales and marketing, executive
services, healthcare, and life science sectors. The company was
incorporated in 1998 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia with
additional offices in the United States. Randstad North America,
Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Randstad NV. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lori Erin Andrus, Esq.
          Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
          ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
          155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 986-1400
          Facsimile: (415) 986-1474
          E-mail: lori@andrusanderson.com
                  jennie@andrusanderson.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Fraser Angus McAlpine, Esq.
          Mariko Mae Ashley, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          50 California Street, 9th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
          Telephone: (415) 394-9400
          Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
          E-mail: fraser.mcalpine@jacksonlewis.com
                  mariko.ashley@jacksonlewis.com


RAVEN PROTECTION: Mundle Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime, Last Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Mundle, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Raven Protection Services, Inc. and Lori-Ann A. Rhone,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-60117, (S.D. Fla., January
13, 2019), seeks to recover minimum and overtime compensation
during the course of his employment under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Raven Protection provides security services in the State of
Florida, where Mundle worked an average of fifty-seven hours per
week without being paid the mandatory overtime premium. He also
claims the last four weeks' pay of his employment. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jordan Richards, Esq.
      Melissa Scott, Esq.
      USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
      805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Tel: (954) 871-0050
      Email: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
             Livia@jordanrichardspllc.com
             Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
             Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com


SALAS CONCRETE: Underpays Construction Workers, Cavazos Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN CAVAZOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SALAS CONCRETE, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00062-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal.,
Jan. 14, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal
and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Cavazos was employed by the Defendants as
construction worker.

Salas Concrete, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of California. The Company is engaged in the construction
business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 312
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 582-3086
          Facsimile: (818) 582-2561
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com


SKOTO GALLERY: Dawson Alleges Disabilities Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Skoto Gallery, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled Deshawn
Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Skoto Gallery, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00824
(S.D. N.Y., January 28, 2019).

Skoto Gallery, LLC is in the Art Dealers business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




SONY INTERACTIVE: Lopez Sues Over Game-relates Charges
------------------------------------------------------
Christina Lopez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sony Interactive Entertainment America,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00507 (N.D. Cal., January 29,
2019) is a class action on behalf of Plaintiff and other parents
and guardians who (a) downloaded or permitted their minor children
to download a supposed free App from SIE, and (b) then incurred
charges for game-related voidable purchases that the minor children
were induced by SIE to make, without the parents' and guardians'
knowledge or permission.

The targeting of children by SIE and inducing them to purchase,
without the knowledge or permission of their parents, millions of
dollars of Game Currency, is unlawful exploitation in the extreme,
asserts the complaint. Fortunately, for the members of the Class,
such purchases of Game Currency constitute voidable contracts
because they were entered into with minors.

However, SIE has not offered to return to its account holders any
of the millions of dollars it received from their minor children's
purchases of Game Currency, notes the complaint.

Plaintiff is a citizen of, and domiciled in, California and is the
guardian of D.W., a minor.

SIE is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Corporation of
America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Keith Altman, Esq.
     Solomon Radner, Esq.
     Excolo Law, PLLC
     26700 Lahser Road, Suite 401
     Southfield, MI 48033
     Phone: 516-456-5885
     Email: kaltman@excololaw.com
            sradner@excololaw.com

          - and -

     Ari Kresch, Esq.
     1-800-LAWFIRM
     26700 Lahser Road, Suite 401
     Southfield, MI 48033
     Phone: 516-456-5885
     Email: akresch@1800lawfirm.com


SPERONE WESTWATER GALLERY: Violates Disabilities Act, Dawson Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sperone Westwater Gallery, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled Deshawn Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SperoneWestwater Gallery, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00825 (S.D. N.Y., January 28, 2019).

Sperone Westwater is a contemporary art gallery in New York City.
The partners are Angela Westwater and Gian Enzo Sperone. The
gallery was started in 1975.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ST. LOUIS, MO: Dixon Sues Over Equal Protection Rights Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Dixon, Jeffrey Rozelle, Aaron Thurman, and Richard Robards,
On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. City of St. Louis, Sheriff Vernon Betts, Judge Robin
Ransom in her official capacity as presiding judge, Judge Rex
Burlison in his official capacity as interim Presiding Judge, Judge
Elizabeth Hogan in her official capacity as Division 16 Judge and
Duty Judge, Judge David Roither in his official capacity as
Division 25 Judge and Duty Judge, Judge Thomas McCarthy in his
official capacity as Division 26 Judge, Commissioner Dale Glass in
his official capacity as St. Louis Commissioner of Corrections,
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00112 (E.D. Mo., January 28, 2019)
seeks a declaration from the Court that the Defendants' policies
and practices violate Plaintiffs' equal protection, substantive due
process, and procedural due process rights. Plaintiffs further
request the Court to remedy these unconstitutional actions by
issuing appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief that will
ensure the substantive and procedural safeguards are followed and
that individuals in St. Louis do not remain jailed based solely on
their poverty.

According to the complaint, the system inflicts devastating harm on
people solely because of their poverty and violates the most
fundamental of American axioms, that all people are equal under the
law. Moreover, the Defendant Judges in the 22nd Judicial Circuit of
Missouri and officials from the City of St. Louis are responsible
for these harms, as they employ policies and practices that
imprison people on unaffordable money bail, deny them even the most
basic procedural protections, and violate their fundamental
constitutional right to pretrial liberty and their equal protection
right not to be detained because of their poverty. Plaintiffs'
rights to equal protection under the law, as well as substantive
and procedural due process, are systematically violated by the
Defendants, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are all residents of St. Louis

City of St. Louis is responsible for setting policy regarding
pretrial release through its Public Safety Director, the office of
the Mayor, and most specifically through the Bond Commissioner and
the Defendant Sheriff.

Sheriff Vernon Betts is the head of the St. Louis Sheriff's
Department.

Circuit and Associate Circuit Judges are all judges in the 22nd
Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri and are sued in their official
capacity.

Commissioner Dale Glass is the Commissioner of the St. Louis
Division of Corrections.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Blake A. Strode, Esq.
     Michael-John Voss, Esq.
     Jacqueline Kutnik-Bauder, Esq.
     Sima Atri, Esq.
     John M. Waldron, Esq.
     ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, INC.
     440 N. 4th Street, Suite 390
     Saint Louis, MO 63102
     Phone: 855-724-2489
     Fax: 314-925-1307
     Email: bstrode@archcitydefenders.org
            mjvoss@archcitydefenders.org
            jkutnikbauder@archcitydefenders.org
            satri@archcitydefenders.org
            jwaldron@archcitydefenders.org

          - and -

     Thomas B. Harvey, Esq.
     Derecka Purnell, Esq.
     ADVANCEMENT PROJECT
     1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 850
     Washington, DC
     20005
     Phone: (202) 728-9557
     Fax: (202) 728-9558
     Email: tharvey@advancementproject.org

          - and -

     Seth Wayne, Esq.
     Nicolas Riley, Esq.
     Robert Friedman, Esq.
     INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY AND PROTECTION (ICAP)
     Georgetown University Law Center
     600 New Jersey Ave. NW
     Washington, DC 20001
     Phone: 202-662-9042
     Email: sw1098@georgetown.edu
            rdf34@georgetown.edu
            nr537@georgetown.edu

          - and -

     Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
     CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
     910 17th Street NW, Suite 200
     Washington, DC 20006
     Phone: 202-599-0953
     Fax: 202-609-8030
     Email: alec@civilrightscorps.org


TEAM ST. PETE: Failed to Reimburse Delivery Drivers, Clark Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action suit ROBERT CLARK, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TEAM ST. PETE,
INC., a Florida Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 83689068 (Fla.
6th Jud. Ct. in and for Pinellas Cty., Jan., 22, 2019), the
Plaintiff asks Court to order Defendant to pay all its delivery
drivers reimbursement rate sufficient to ensure that delivery
drivers receive hourly wages equal to or exceeding those law
mandated by Florida.

The Defendant owns Domino's restaurants.  According to the
complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a delivery driver
since January 2017, working at the St. Petersburg, Florida
location.  During Plaintiff's tenure as an employee of Defendant,
he consistently worked a full-time schedule with his time split
between delivery driving and in-store work.

The Plaintiff and the other delivery drivers were paid a tipped
minimum wage for all time they spend on the road as delivery
drivers. Because Defendant paid the minimum wage, it was legally
obligated to fully reimburse the Plaintiff and his colleagues for
the full amount of their driving expenses. However, Defendant
failed to fully reimburse its drivers for the full amount of their
driving expenses, thus forcing the drivers' total compensation far
below the minimum.

Defendant's systematic failure to adequately reimburse delivery
drivers for their automobile expenses constitutes a kickback to the
Defendant, such that hourly wage it pays and has paid to Plaintiff
and other delivery drivers are not paid free and clear of all
outstanding obligations to Defendant, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA.
          20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 418-2069
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
          E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Fox Misreported Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Carey, writing for Temple Update, reports that Temple
University announced on December 21 that a class action lawsuit has
been settled in regards to misreported data to U.S. News & World
Report for FOX's rankings.

According to a press release, Temple has agreed to pay the Online
MBA class $4 million to settle the lawsuit, plus an addition $1.5
million to settle the claims of students enrolled in the Executive
MBA, Global MBA, Part-time MBA, and the MS in Human Resource
Management, MS in Digital Innovation in Marketing and Online
Bachelor of Business Administration programs.

The lawsuit stems from a July investigation into the rankings for
the FOX School submitted by Temple University to U.S. News & World
Report. Upon the release of the rankings in January of 2018, Temple
University had informed U.S. News that the rankings were
"misreported." U.S. News moved Temple to the "Unranked" category
following the discovery and the university started an internal
investigation.

Following the investigation concluding in July, Temple removed
Moshe Porat as Dean of FOX.

In an e-mail to the Temple Community accompanying the new
announcement, President Richard Englert reaffirmed his belief in
FOX's status as one of the best schools for business in the
country.

"As I have said in the past, I remain firm in my belief that our
Online MBA program, and the Fox School as a whole, is one of the
best in the nation," President Englert stated. "It remains an
excellent choice for students who want an exceptional education in
a vibrant urban environment. [GN]


TORRENT PHARMA: Sanders Sues over Contaminated Generic Losartan
---------------------------------------------------------------
IRA SANDERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TORRENT PHARMA, INC., THE KROGER CO.,
HARRIS TEETER, LLC, and HARRIS TEETER SUPERMARKETS, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01017-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., Jan. 24, 2019),
is a class action lawsuit regarding Defendant Torrent's
manufacturing and distribution of losartan-containing generic
prescription medications contaminated with N-Nitrosodiethylamine
("NDEA"), a carcinogenic and liver-damaging impurity. In turn,
Harris Teeter sold these contaminated generic medications to
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated consumers.

Originally marketed under the brand names Cozaar, Tozaar, and
Tozam, losartan is a prescription medication mainly used for the
treatment of high blood pressure, diabetic kidney disease,
congestive heart failure, and left ventricular enlargement, among
other issues. However, due to manufacturing defects originating
from overseas laboratories in India, certain generic formulations
have become contaminated with NDEA.

NDEA is an organic chemical. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration
reports that NDEA is found in "air pollution, and industrial
processes, and has been classified as a probable human carcinogen
as per international Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
classification." NDEA is also classified as a Group 2A carcinogen
(probable human carcinogen) by the World Health Organization. NDEA
is acutely toxic when consumed orally.

Torrent recalls its losartan-containing medications due to the
presence of an impurity, NDEA, resulting from manufacturing defects
from an overseas supplier in India. On December 20, 2018, Defendant
Torrent "voluntarily recalled lots of Losartan potassium tablets,
USP to the consumer level due to the detection of trace amounts of
unexpected impurity found in an active pharmaceutical ingredient
('API'),"resulting from Torrent's overseas API supplier in India.
Further, "the impurity detected in the API is N-nitrosodiethylamine
(NDEA)", the lawsuit says.

The case alleges breach of express warranty; breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability; violation of North Carolina's Unfair
or Deceptive Trade Practices Act; unjust enrichment; fraudulent
concealment; fraud; conversion; strict products liability; gross
negligence; negligence; and battery.

Torrent manufactures, fabricates, and processes drugs in
pharmaceutical preparations for human and veterinary use.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: aobergfell@bursor.com

TRANSAMERICA CORP: Faces Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Transamerica
Corp. is again facing a proposed class action targeting the
affiliated investment funds in its $1.9 billion 401(k) plan.

The Dec. 28 lawsuit accuses the mutual fund and retirement plan
provider of offering workers six 401(k) investment options managed
by a Transamerica affiliate that consistently underperformed their
benchmarks.

The company is also accused of encouraging workers to sign up for
its Portfolio Xpress tool, which the lawsuit says "automatically
allocated" workers' retirement dollars toward investment products
affiliated with Transamerica. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Federal Workers File Class Action Over Shutdown
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Ryan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that two
Bureau of Prisons employees filed a federal class action on Dec. 31
claiming the Trump administration is violating federal labor laws
by not paying certain employees during the ongoing partial
government shutdown.

When the government shut down on Dec. 22, some 400,000 federal
workers who were deemed "excepted employees" had to continue
working. This included Justin Tarovisky and Grayson Sharp, who say
in a nine-page complaint filed in the Court of Federal Claims they
received no pay for work they put in on the day the government shut
down.

"Excepted employees were required to report to work and perform
their normal duties, but they were not timely compensated for
certain work performed in pay period 25, including work performed
on December 22, 2018," the complaint states.

In a statement announcing the lawsuit on Dec. 31, the American
Federation of Government Employees noted many of the employees
deemed excepted work in dangerous situations, such as
Messrs. Tarovisky and Sharp, who work at high-security prisons.

The lawsuit currently only covers employees who broke through their
overtime threshold with the hours they put in on Dec. 22. However,
Heidi Burakiewicz, an attorney with the Washington, D.C. firm
Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman & Fitch who is handling the case, said in
an interview more federal employees could have a legal claim if the
shutdown continues to the next pay day and their paychecks fall
below minimum-wage thresholds.

Ms. Burakiewicz brought a similar suit on behalf of federal
employees in the wake of the 2013 government shutdown, winning a
verdict that entitled employees to twice their back pay.

"This is not an acceptable way for any employer, let along the U.S.
government, to treat its employees," Ms. Burakiewicz said in a
statement on Dec. 31. "These employees still need to pay childcare
expenses, buy gas, and incur other expenses to go to work every day
and yet, they are not getting paid. It is a blatant violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act."

Attorneys with the American Federation of Government Employees are
joining Ms. Burakiewicz in representing Messrs. Tarovisky and
Sharp.

The Justice Department did not immediately return a request for
comment on Dec. 31. The agency's website, through which press must
submit requests for comment, is not being updated during the
shutdown. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Wash. Attorney Files Class Action Over Shutdown
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Temin, writing for Federal News Network, reports that a
Washington attorney has made good on her pledge to file a class
action lawsuit against the federal government over the current
government shutdown.

Heidi Burakiewicz, a partner at Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman and Fitch,
filed the lawsuit on Dec. 31 in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
It seeks back pay -- including overtime -- and liquidated damages
for exempted employees forced to work without pay.

Ms.. Burakiewicz, who filed the Dec. 31 action in conjunction with
the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), won a
similar suit for 25,000 employees in the 2013 shutdown.

Judge Patricia Elaine Campbell-Smith, then chief judge, sided with
the plaintiffs. A consultant, Ms. Burakiewicz said, is still
calculating the damages -- equal to twice the pay for the shutdown
period. She said because of the precedent from the 2013 case, she
is confident the court will again decide in favor of the
plaintiffs.

At issue is whether the government is violating the Depression-era
Fair Labor Practices Act. In the 2013 case, the judge ruled the
government had. At the time, the Obama administration sought to
have the case dismissed outright. But the court awarded liquidated,
or double, damages because it was found to have knowingly violated
the FLPA.

In an interview on Dec. 31, Ms. Burakiewicz said her real aim is
not so much getting cash for her clients as it is forcing the
government to fully reopen.

Two plaintiffs named in this afternoon's suit are Justin Tarovisky
and Grayson Sharp, both Bureau of Prisons employees and members of
the AFGE union. Ms. Burakiewicz said she is particularly sensitive
to BOP employees, whom, she said, are working in understaffed,
dangerous situations to start with.

Ms. Burakiewicz said her law firm would be posting information on
how other excepted federal employees can join. She said she was
prepared to add all of the estimated 400,000 of them, if necessary.
[GN]


VALLEY HOME CARE: Morgan Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Morgan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Valley Home Care Solutions, LLC and Angela
Robinson, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00278-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio,
January 29, 2019) is a case that challenges policies and practices
of Defendants that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
and the Ohio Wage Laws; and concerns the underpayment of overtime
to non-exempt employees and of minimum wages to Plaintiff and
others similarly situated.

Plaintiff and others similarly situated regularly worked more than
40 hours in a workweek. The Defendants' failure to pay drive time
resulted in minimum wage and overtime violations, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Morgan is an adult individual, residing in Tuscarawas
County, Ohio.

Defendants are and have been individually and jointly engaging in
the business of providing home health care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
     Nilges Draher LLC
     34 N. High St., Ste. 502
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Telephone: (614) 824-5770
     Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
     Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

          - and -

     Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
     Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
     Nilges Draher LLC
     7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
     Massillon, OH 44646
     Telephone: (330) 470-4428
     Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
     Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
            sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


VERSATILE ENERGY: Rilea Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL RILEA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. VERSATILE ENERGY SERVICES CORPORATION
(USA), the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00022-CSM (D. N.Dak., Jan.
24, 2019), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtimes wages, and
liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Versatile Energy classified Plaintiff
and the Putative Class Members as independent contractor. Although
they routinely worked in excess of four hours per workweek, the
Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members were not paid overtime of
a least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

The Defendant knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate
Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members their proper wages, the
lawsuit says.

Versatile Energy offers frac flow backs, coil clean outs, inline
testing, and well clean up procedures for the oil and gas industry.
The company is based in Minot, North Dakota.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com

               - and -

          Justin L. Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS ATTORNEYS, PLLC
          500 N. Water  Street Suite 500
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 885 0184
          E-mail: justin@williamstrial.com
                  service@williamstrial.com

               - and -

          1715 Burnt Boat Drive
          Madison Suite
          PAGEL WEIKUM PLLP
          Bismarck, ND 58503
          Telephone: (701) 250 1369
          E-mail: jweikum@pagelvveikum.com

VOLKSWAGEN AG: May 10 Diesel Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL"
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC)

This Document Relates To: Securities Actions
City of St. Clair Shores, 15-1228 (E.D. Va.)
Travalio, 15-7157 (D.N.J.)
George Leon Family Trust, 15-7283 (D.N.J.)
Charter Twp. of Clinton, 15-13999 (E.D. Mich.)
Wolfenbarger, 15-326 (E.D. Tenn.)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD
OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: All persons and entities in the U.S. or elsewhere who purchased
or otherwise acquired Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft ("VWAG")
Ordinary American Depositary Receipts (CUSIP: 928662303) and/or
VWAG Preferred American Depositary Receipts (CUSIP: 928662402) from
November 19, 2010 through January 4, 2016, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), and who were allegedly damaged thereby (the "Settlement
Class"):

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, in accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, that the
above-captioned securities litigation (the "Action") has been
conditionally certified as a class action on behalf of the
Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are
excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as stated in the
full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed
Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award
of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a
proposed settlement of the Action for $48,000,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"), which, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Action.

A hearing will be held on May 10, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Charles R. Breyer at the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, Courtroom 6 of the Phillip
Burton Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue,
San Francisco, CA 94102, to determine (i) whether the proposed
Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against
Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated August 27, 2018 (and
in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan
of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv)
whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and the Proof of Claim and Release Form (the
"Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by
contacting the Claims Administrator at:  Volkswagen ADR Litigation,
c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., P.O. Box 4390,
Portland, OR 97208-4390, 1-888-738-3759,
info@VolkswagenADRLitigation.com.  Copies of the Notice and Claim
Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the
Claims Administrator, www.VolkswagenADRLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than April 18, 2019.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper
Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution
of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be
bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than April 18, 2019, in
accordance with the instructions in the Notice.  If you properly
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound
by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, and
you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.

Any objection to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses must be mailed to or filed with the Court
such that it is filed or postmarked no later than April 18, 2019,
in accordance with the instructions in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants, or
Defendants' counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about
this notice, the proposed Settlement, your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement, or the claims process, should be
directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

         Volkswagen ADR Litigation
         c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc.
         P.O. Box 4390
         Portland, OR 97208-4390
         1-888-738-3759
         info@VolkswagenADRLitigation.com
         www.VolkswagenADRLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

         James A. Harrod, Esq.
         Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
         1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
         New York, NY 10020
         1-800-380-8496
         settlements@blbglaw.com
                                                                   
                                                     By Order of
the Court [GN]


WAHLSTEDT FINE ART: Dawson Files ADA Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wahlstedt Fine Art, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
Deshawn Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Wahlstedt Fine Art, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00829 (S.D. N.Y., January 28, 2019).

Wahlstedt Fine Art specializes in modern and contemporary American
prints, drawings & photographs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WELLS FARGO: Delaware to Get $2MM from Insurance Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Delaware Business Now reports that Delaware customers will get
about $2 million from Wells Fargo in a 50-state settlement over
allegations of unneeded insurance for auto loans and accounts being
opened without customer authorization.

The agreement also calls for measures to ensure that customers who
believed they were wronged by the company to seek redress.

Wells Fargo is one of Delaware's largest banks and is a bigger
player in the Philadelphia-area market.

Under previous settlements, the company is barred from growing its
assets through expansion or mergers, a rare penalty for banking
giants.

Wells has realigned management of its branch banking system and has
made outreach efforts to businesses and consumers in the region and
throughout its national footprint.

Delaware funds will go into the state's Consumer Protection Fund.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro announced in late
December that Wells Fargo Bank N.A., will pay $575 million to
resolve claims that the bank violated state consumer protection
laws.

Allegations included:

   -- Opening millions of unauthorized accounts and enrolling
customers into online banking services without their knowledge or
consent.
   -- Referring customers for enrollment in third-party renters and
life insurance policies.
   -- Charging more than 850,000 auto finance customers for
unnecessary and duplicative insurance policies.
   -- Tailing to ensure that customers received refunds of unearned
premiums on certain optional auto finance products, and (5)
incorrectly charging customers for mortgage rate lock extension
fees.

Pennsylvania's Bureau of Consumer Protection led the investigation
and negotiation of the settlement.

Additionally, the company will pay a sum of money to consumers who
were harmed.

The settlement was another chapter in a long-running scandal that
the financial services company. It led to the ouster of the CEO and
other top managers, who were cited for pushing for aggressive sales
goals that led staff to open accounts without the consent of
customers, who often saw charges that proved difficult to resolve.

Much of the activity took place in Wells Fargo's West Coast
stronghold of California and Arizona.

Shapiro noted that Wells Fargo has previously entered into consent
orders with federal agencies -- including the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB) -- related to its alleged conduct.

Wells Fargo is providing restitution to consumers in excess of $600
million through its agreements with the OCC and CFPB as well as
through settlement of a related consumer class-action lawsuit and
has paid over $1.2 billion in civil penalties to the federal
government and to the City and County of Los Angeles.

The bank also recently agreed to a $480 million settlement of a
related securities class action. Additionally, under an order from
the Federal Reserve, the bank is required to strengthen its
corporate governance and controls and is currently restricted from
exceeding its total asset size.

As part of the most recent settlement with the states, Wells Fargo
has agreed to implement within 60 days a program through which
consumers who believe they were affected by the bank's conduct but
fell outside the prior restitution programs, can contact Wells
Fargo to be reviewed for potential redress.

Wells Fargo will create and maintain a website for consumers to use
to access the program and will provide periodic reports to the
states about ongoing restitution efforts. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Delaware to Get $2MM from Insurance Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Delaware Business Now reports that Delaware customers will get
about $2 million from Wells Fargo in a 50-state settlement over
allegations of unneeded insurance for auto loans and accounts being
opened without customer authorization.

The agreement also calls for measures to ensure that customers who
believed they were wronged by the company to seek redress.

Wells Fargo is one of Delaware's largest banks and is a bigger
player in the Philadelphia-area market.

Under previous settlements, the company is barred from growing its
assets through expansion or mergers, a rare penalty for banking
giants.

Wells has realigned management of its branch banking system and has
made outreach efforts to businesses and consumers in the region and
throughout its national footprint.

Delaware funds will go into the state's Consumer Protection Fund.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro announced in late
December that Wells Fargo Bank N.A., will pay $575 million to
resolve claims that the bank violated state consumer protection
laws.

Allegations included:

   -- Opening millions of unauthorized accounts and enrolling
customers into online banking services without their knowledge or
consent.
   -- Referring customers for enrollment in third-party renters and
life insurance policies.
   -- Charging more than 850,000 auto finance customers for
unnecessary and duplicative insurance policies.
   -- Tailing to ensure that customers received refunds of unearned
premiums on certain optional auto finance products, and (5)
incorrectly charging customers for mortgage rate lock extension
fees.

Pennsylvania's Bureau of Consumer Protection led the investigation
and negotiation of the settlement.

Additionally, the company will pay a sum of money to consumers who
were harmed.

The settlement was another chapter in a long-running scandal that
the financial services company. It led to the ouster of the CEO and
other top managers, who were cited for pushing for aggressive sales
goals that led staff to open accounts without the consent of
customers, who often saw charges that proved difficult to resolve.

Much of the activity took place in Wells Fargo's West Coast
stronghold of California and Arizona.

Shapiro noted that Wells Fargo has previously entered into consent
orders with federal agencies -- including the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB) -- related to its alleged conduct.

Wells Fargo is providing restitution to consumers in excess of $600
million through its agreements with the OCC and CFPB as well as
through settlement of a related consumer class-action lawsuit and
has paid over $1.2 billion in civil penalties to the federal
government and to the City and County of Los Angeles.

The bank also recently agreed to a $480 million settlement of a
related securities class action. Additionally, under an order from
the Federal Reserve, the bank is required to strengthen its
corporate governance and controls and is currently restricted from
exceeding its total asset size.

As part of the most recent settlement with the states, Wells Fargo
has agreed to implement within 60 days a program through which
consumers who believe they were affected by the bank's conduct but
fell outside the prior restitution programs, can contact Wells
Fargo to be reviewed for potential redress.

Wells Fargo will create and maintain a website for consumers to use
to access the program and will provide periodic reports to the
states about ongoing restitution efforts. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over Foreclosure Errors
-------------------------------------------------------
Renae Merle, writing for The Washington Post, reports that Michaela
Christian lost a long battle with Wells Fargo in 2013 to save her
Las Vegas home, a defeat she says changed the course of her life.
When the bank refused to modify her mortgage, Christian moved in
with a friend and scrambled to rebuild her life.

Five years later, Wells Fargo admits it made a mistake. Christian,
46, qualified for the kind of mortgage help that may have saved her
home after all.

It's a mistake the giant bank admits it made nearly 900 times over
several years, pushing hundreds of distressed homeowners into
foreclosure.

Christian said when she learned of Wells Fargo's error, "I was sick
to my stomach."

"They destroyed me and destroyed my everything."

Wells Fargo's admission is part of a cascade of lapses that
increased scrutiny of the San Francisco-based bank with some
Democrats in Congress calling for the ouster of its CEO, Tim Sloan.
Over the last two years, the bank paid more then $1 billion in
fines after admitting it opened millions of bogus accounts
customers didn't want and then found itself is more trouble after
improperly repossessing thousands of cars.

Critics have also jumped on Wells Fargo's decision to cut 26,000
jobs while it reaps the benefits of a corporate tax cut that is
expected to boost its profits $3.7 billion in 2018.

The bank has repeatedly apologized for its missteps but is
struggling to repair its image. Customers who lost their homes are
being offered compensation or can enter mediation, company
officials say.

Wells Fargo says an internal review found the bank denied help to
hundreds of homeowners after fees charged by foreclosure attorneys
were improperly used when the bank determined whom to offer
mortgage help. The computer error began in 2010 and was not
corrected until last April, the bank said.

Overall, 870 homeowners were denied help for which they qualified,
including 545 who lost their homes to foreclosure. Wells Fargo says
it has reached most of the customers affected and set aside $8
million to compensate them, though industry analysts say that
number is likely to increase.

The revelation echoes the complaints of thousands of borrowers in
the years after the financial crisis that banks were stingy about
offering help with borrowers' exploding loans.

"Wells Fargo failed to maintain its systems, failed to find
problems when they occurred and then masked the problem for years,"
said Alys Cohen, staff attorney for the National Consumer Law
Center.

Christian bought her home in 1998 when she was just 24. At the
time, the three-bedroom home was on the outskirts of a growing Las
Vegas. There weren't a lot of stores nearby, but Christian said she
loved the neighborhood. "In the 15 years we were there, everything
was perfect," she said.

But in 2011, Christian lost her job as a bartender as the economy
continued to sputter after the global financial crisis. Then she
was in a car accident that left her with a fractured pelvis and
crushed tibia. "I wasn't even able to walk for seven months. I
couldn't work."

One of her first calls for help, she said, was to Wells Fargo.
Christian asked the bank to defer her more than $1,000 monthly
mortgage payment or lower the 7 percent mortgage interest rate to
the prevailing rate at the time, about 4 percent. That would have
lowered her payments to about $500 a month, Christian said.

"They said 'Have a nice day' and denied it," she said.

A few months later, Christian said, Wells Fargo began foreclosure
proceedings against her. With the help of her father, she found a
job that allowed her to maneuver with a cane, and spent months
searching for help. she said. Christian said she even offered Wells
Fargo an additional $4,000 to make up for some of her missed
payments.

Ultimately, Christian said, she faced what she considered an
unfathomable choice: sell her home or lose it in foreclosure.

"It was the last thing I wanted," she said. "I didn't want to
uproot my son. He had grown up there."

After a quick sale of the home, Christian temporarily moved in with
a friend and then into an apartment.

"I was in a daze," Christan said through tears. "I thought, 100
percent, I was going to be able to save my home. I had my finances
in order. I could not for the life of me figure out why they
wouldn't refinance."

The answer came in September when Christian received a letter and a
$15,000 check from Wells Fargo, admitting its mistake.

"We want to make things right," the letter states. "We realize that
our decision impacted you at a time you were facing a hardship."

Wells Fargo's letter didn't explain how it determined Christian was
only due $15,000. After selling the home for $135,000 in 2013,
Redfin now estimates it is worth about $250,000. And Christian
estimates she had already accumulated about $30,000 in equity after
making mortgage payments for more than a decade. And that, she
said, doesn't include the $20,000 pool she had installed.

"You can't put a price on what we lost. The scars will be there
forever, I will never get over it," said Christian, now part of a
class-action lawsuit against the bank. "I still miss my
neighbors."

Wells Fargo has declined to discuss what, if any, formula it has
used to determine how much each customer is owed. The compensation
offered each homeowner is based on "individual circumstances," said
Tom Goyda, a bank spokesman.

Wells Fargo worked extensively with Christian and "completed
multiple reviews in an effort to find an option that would allow
her to keep the home," Mr. Goyda said. Unfortunately, he said, the
bank was unsuccessful. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Settles Fake Account Scandal Claims for $575MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zacks Equity Research and Zacks.com report that Wells Fargo &
Company WFC has finally settled numerous investigations and legal
cases it had been involved in since the fake account scandal came
into light. The bank will be paying about $575 million in order to
clear the claims made by 50 states.

Earlier in December, Wells Fargo received the final court approval
for $480 million settlement of the class action lawsuit that was
filed by shareholders, claiming to be harmed by the bank's false
statements about its misdeeds.

These claims relate to the revelation of a sales scam, wherein the
bank's employees allegedly opened millions of unauthorized accounts
to meet aggressive internal sales goals.

The news broke in September 2016, post which Wells Fargo was
subjected to investigations of several departments and businesses.
As a result, a cap on the company's asset growth has been imposed
by the authorities, which will remain in place until the bank is
able to give a reasonable assurance to stay out of trouble. The
revelation also led to several layoffs and restructuring of
operations.

For Wells Fargo, 2018 had been a year of settlement, wherein it has
made considerable efforts to put behind past misdeeds. In April, it
paid $1 billion to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to settle investigations
related to mortgage and auto-lending practices.

In May, the District Court for the Northern District of California
had approved a $142-million settlement related to the lawsuit filed
by the customers wronged by Wells Fargo.

Also, in August, Wells Fargo was slapped with a penalty of $2.09
billion by the U.S. Department of Justice for actions that the
regulator assumed contributed to the 2008 financial crises.

In 2018 so far, the stock has lost 24.5% compared with 19.3%
decline recorded by the industry it belongs to. [GN]


WONDERFUL COMPANY: Roy and Perez Seek Minimum & Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC ROY and ERIC PEREZ on behalf of themselves and on behalf of
all other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE
WONDERFUL COMPANY, LLC; WONDERFUL CITRUS PACKING, LLC; WONDERFUL
PISTACHIOS & ALMONDS, LLC; POM WONDERFUL HOLDINGS, LLC; TELEFLORA
HOLDINGS, LLC; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00555 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2019), alleges that Defendants
failed to pay minimum wages, compensate for all hours worked, pay
overtime wages, and provide legally-compliant meal and rest periods
under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and Class Members were
required to answer work related questions posed to them by
supervisory personnel while on meal and rest breaks, and, as a
result were routinely not provided duty free meal or rest breaks.
Defendants uniformly failed to pay the Plaintiffs and Class Members
meal and rest break premiums for interrupted meal and rest breaks.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs and class members were required by
Defendants to answer work related questions after paid time had
concluded and before paid time had begun, but were not paid
overtime pay on days in which they worked 8 hours or longer and
likewise were not paid for all time worked on days of less than
hours.

Wonderful Company chose and implemented the time/attendance keeping
system in use by all Defendants. Wonderful's timekeeping and
attendance system not only uniformly denied premiums for
interrupted meal breaks, but also was deliberately programmed such
that legally non-compliant rest breaks could not be identified and
recorded and thus no rest break premiums could be paid to workers
not provided with legally compliant rest breaks for any reason.
This policy and practice for uniform denial of due and owing rest
break premiums is a direct result of Wonderful's directed policies
and practices including the choice of, programming of, and
implementation of the time/attendance keeping system. As a result,
the Plaintiffs and Class Members, who were not provided with rest
breaks, were uniformly Never Paid rest break premiums as required
under California law within the class period, the lawsuit says.

The Wonderful Company LLC, formerly known as Roll Global, is a
private corporation based in Los Angeles, California. With revenues
of over $4 billion, it functions as a holding company for Stewart
and Lynda Resnick, and as such is a vehicle for their personal
investments in a number of businesses.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the proposed Class

          Cory G. Lee, Esq.
          THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (610) 324-2848
          Facsimile: (610) 813-4579
          E-mail: downeyjsuticelee@gmail.com

YARES ART PROJECTS: Dawson Suit Alleges ADA Breach
--------------------------------------------------
Yares Art Projects, L.P. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
Deshawn Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Yares Art Projects, L.P., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00831 (S.D. N.Y., January 28, 2019).

Yares Art Projects is a multi-faceted entity within the spectrum of
the arts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




[*] Locke Lord Attorney Discusses IC Misclassification Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Reibstein, Esq. -- rreibstein@lockelord.com -- of Locke
Lord LLP, in an article for JDSupra, said that "As reported six
months ago in an article in the E&P Journal, the oil and gas
industry is under attack by plaintiffs' class action lawyers filing
independent contractor misclassification lawsuits. My colleagues
Bill Swanstrom and Mike Rose joined me in commenting on some of the
more notable lawsuits against energy companies that use independent
contractors to perform specialty services in the areas of
exploration and production."

"We commented in that article on an IC misclassification case
brought by a rig welder in Colorado against a modest-sized oil
exploration and production company; another brought in California
by well site managers who sued a large energy company; a third
brought by flow testers against an Oklahoma oil patch company; and
a fourth by welders in Texas against a Chinese oil rig company."

Even more lawsuits against companies in the oil and gas industry
have surfaced in the past six months, several of which are
discussed below.  While on the lookout for additional IC
misclassification cases, we came across a website for a plaintiffs'
class action law firm includes a "hit list" of energy companies as
potential defendants in claims for independent contractor
misclassification.  That list has over 130 companies' names, and
the site suggests that workers "may have claims" if they are
providing the following types of services:  Base Operators, Flow
Back Operators, Pipeline Inspectors, Drillers, Field Specialists,
Field Engineers, Field Operators, Field Coordinators, and Tool
Pushers.

This type of advertising by plaintiffs' class action lawyers is
increasingly common.  What can companies do to minimize the risk of
class action IC misclassification lawsuits?  After summarizing
these new cases, we provide an in-depth analysis and then discuss
in our "Takeaways" some ways that companies, including those in the
oil and gas industry, can maximize compliance with federal and
state IC laws and reduce the likelihood of becoming a defendant in
these types of class actions.

More Recent IC Misclassification Cases in the Oil and Gas Industry

OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMPANY AGREES TO PAY OILFIELD WORKERS $2.9
MILLION IN SETTLEMENT OF IC MISCLASSIFICATION CLASS ACTION

A Pennsylvania federal court granted final approval of a $2.9
million settlement of a class and collective action brought by
oilfield workers against Rice Energy, Inc., an oil and natural gas
company. The plaintiff, a drilling fluid engineer, provided
specialty services in Ohio and Pennsylvania in the Marcellus,
Utica, and Upper Devonian Shales for six months beginning in August
2016.  The plaintiff asserted that Rice Energy engaged in
violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state
wage and hour laws as a result of its alleged misclassification of
plaintiff and other oilfield workers as independent contractors and
not employees.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff's primary job duties
included monitoring fluid activities at jobsites, operating
oilfield equipment, coordinating transfer of fluids between rigs,
controlling fluid within defined specifications, and building and
maintaining various fluid systems associated with drilling and
completion of wells. In support of the misclassification claims,
the complaint alleged that: Rice Energy directed the hours and
locations where the plaintiff worked, the tools he used, and the
rates of pay he received; the plaintiff did not provide his own
equipment or incur operating expenses like rent, payroll,
marketing, and insurance; no real investment was required of the
plaintiff; the plaintiff was economically dependent on the company
and was prohibited from working other jobs while working on jobs
for the defendant; Rice Energy directly determined the plaintiff's
opportunity for profit and loss; and that very little skill,
training, or initiative was required of plaintiff to perform work
for the company.

The defendant's answer denied these allegations and focused on the
fact that the plaintiff "independently contracted with Patriot
Drilling Fluids, a company with which [Rice Energy] contracted to
perform services at well sites."  The answer also contained more
than a dozen defenses, including: the plaintiff and proposed class
and collective members were properly classified as independent
contractors; they were engaged by a third party, Patriot Drilling
Fluids, and not by the defendant; and any alleged damages were the
sole responsibility of the third party and not the defendant. The
court's order approving the settlement expressly stated that it
"makes no finding or judgment as to the validity of any claims
released under the Settlement or whether Rice Energy is liable
under the Fair Labor Standards Act or any other applicable law."
Williford v. Rice Energy, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00945-DSC (W. D. Pa.
Dec. 19, 2018).

ENERGY AND PETROCHEMICAL SERVICES COMPANY IS NOT ENTITLED TO
SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN IC MISCLASSIFICATION COLLECTIVE ACTION BY
CONSULTING "COACHES", BUT SECURES DE-CERTIFICATION ORDER FROM THE
COURT

Two months ago, an Oklahoma federal court denied the summary
judgment motion of Check-6, Inc., a company in the business of
providing consulting services in the energy, manufacturing, mining,
petrochemical and transportation industries brought against it by
consulting "coaches" who provided services at the work sites of
Check-6's clients. A collective group of coaches, consisting of the
named plaintiff and 18 opt-ins, claimed that they were denied
overtime compensation under the FLSA due to their alleged
misclassification as independent contractors and not employees.  In
its decision, the court stated that the Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit has "repeatedly denied summary judgment motions where
there remained disputed facts material to the classification of
workers as employees or independent contractors." Applying the
six-factor "economic realities" test, the court found that a
reasonable trier of fact could find that the facts supported a
determination that the coaches were employees and not independent
contractors; therefore, the court held, summary judgment must be
denied. Specifically, the court found that the evidence was in
dispute as to four of the six factors: the degree of control over
the coaches; their opportunity for profit and loss; the coaches'
investment in their individual business; and the permanence of the
parties' working relationship. Goodly v. Check-6, Inc., No.
16-CV-334-GKF-JFJ (N.D. Okla. Oct. 18, 2018).

Although the court denied summary judgment in favor of the company,
less than two weeks later the court "de-certified" the
class/collective action.  It stated: "[D]ecertification is
warranted by individualized issues, which include, but are not
limited to, . . . the determination of each plaintiff's status as
an independent contractor or employee."  With regard to the issue
of whether the "coaches" were properly classified as independent
contractors, the court utilized the fact-intensive economic
realities test and concluded that any such determination would
require individualized analysis of each of the opt-in plaintiffs
especially because they worked at different Check-6 client sites
and had different responsibilities depending on the site. Goodly v.
Check-6, Inc., No. 16-CV-334-GKF-JFJ (N. D. Okla. Nov. 1, 2018).

DRILLING/WELL SITE CONSULTANT FILES IC MISCLASSIFICATION CLASS
ACTION IN PENNSYLVANIA

This past September, a drilling consultant/well site supervisor
filed a proposed class and collective action on behalf of himself
and other oil field personnel against EdgeMarc Energy Holdings,
LLC, an oil and natural gas company primarily doing business in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. The lawsuit is aimed at
recovering unpaid overtime compensation under the FLSA and wage and
hour laws of Pennsylvania and Ohio that the plaintiff claims is due
because he and the other oil field workers were classified as
independent contractors and not employees.

According to the complaint, the workers operate oilfield machinery;
perform manual labor and work long hours in the field, and are paid
a day-rate with no overtime compensation.  The complaint further
alleged, among other things, that the daily activities of the
workers were mostly governed by EdgeMarc's or its clients'
standardized plans, procedures, and checklists; virtually every job
function was pre-determined by EdgeMarc or its clients, including
what tools to use, what data to compile, the schedule of work and
related work duties; and the workers were prohibited from varying
their job duties outside pre-determined parameters. The plaintiff
also alleges that no substantial investment was required of him;
that EdgeMarc or the company it contracted with exercised control
over all aspects of the plaintiff's job, including the hours and
locations of work, tools used, and rates of pay received; he did
not incur operating expenses like rent, payroll, marketing and
insurance; he was prohibited from working other jobs for other
companies; and his work required little skill, training or
initiative.  Larsen v. EdgeMarc Energy Holdings LLC, No.
2:18-cv-01221 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2018).

Takeaways:  How Companies in the Oil and Gas Industry Can Minimize
IC Misclassification Exposure and Maximize Compliance with IC Laws

   1. Restructuring, re-documenting, and re-implementing their IC
relationships

While the U.S. Department of Labor may have dialed down its
crackdown on IC misclassification and leveled the playing field
under a new Administration, class action lawyers have increased
their focus on these types of lawsuits against companies in the oil
and gas industry.

The threshold inquiry by any company using ICs should be whether
the workers in question are suitable candidates for payment on a
1099 basis.  Not all workers are.  Although the tests for IC status
vary dramatically between the states and there are different tests
under various federal statutes, it is not particularly challenging
to determine, as an initial matter, whether any particular group of
workers might qualify as valid ICs.

While most tests for IC status consist of several factors, some as
many as 20 or more, there is one factor that is constant in every
test: is the individual directed "how" to perform his or her
services? Plainly, every IC and every employee are directed as to
"what" work they are expected to perform.  But unlike employees,
who are subject to being told "how" to do their work, the most
important factor in determining IC status is whether the service
providers decide the manner and means by which they render
services, consistent of course with industry standards and any
legal or client requirements.

Even if the workers in question may qualify as ICs, companies all
too often create their own exposure to IC misclassification if they
fail to properly structure, document, and implement their IC
relationships in a manner that complies with IC laws – or if the
companies that directly engage ICs fail to do so.  This is where a
comprehensive process, such as IC Diagnostics™, can be
effectively deployed, assessing well over 48 factors bearing on
workers' IC status before an IC relationship is established – or,
if it is already in existence, determining how it can be
restructured, re-documented, and re-implemented to minimize IC
misclassification exposure.

The tests for IC status have vexed legal practitioners and
companies for years, and a great number of the factors bearing on
IC status are counter-intuitive.

What can happen to a company that does not structure or document
its IC relationships in a manner that enhances compliance? The
results can be costly, such as what happened to one of the
country's Fortune 500 companies, FedEx. The wording of its
independent contractor agreement covering its Ground Division
drivers was held by two federal appellate courts as creating an
employment relationship as a matter of law.  As a result, FedEx
chose to settle several dozen IC misclassification cases for nearly
$500 million in the past several years.

In the Larson v. EdgeMarc Energy case reported above, if the
allegations are true that the company prepared standardized plans,
procedures, and checklists for the oilfield workers treated as
independent contractors, it would be far more challenging for the
company to defend the case than if its documentation was free from
direction and control.

Solid documentation alone will not always protect a company; it is
not uncommon for companies with decent IC agreements to fail to
carry out or implement their IC relationships in a way that is
consistent with IC laws and the IC agreement.

What is a company in the oil patch to do?  There are no shortcuts
or "quick fixes" when seeking to enhance IC compliance, and "one
size fits all" solutions are likely to be ill-fitting.  Companies
that rely on ICs should seek out sustainable solutions that offer
state-of-the-art approaches to enhancing IC compliance. While such
an approach is more time-intensive, a customized approach is far
more likely to effectively minimize IC misclassification exposure.

   2. Avoid treating all those classified as independent
contractors in the same fashion

In the Goodly v. Check-6 case, the court de-certified the
class/collective, which requires the plaintiff and each of the 18
opt-ins to litigate their cases on an individual basis.
De-certification can sometimes lead to settlement on a far more
cost-efficient basis. But de-certification can usually only be
obtained where there are meaningful differences in treatment or
circumstances between the plaintiff and many of the proposed class
or collective members. While uniformity and consistency may create
efficiencies, businesses that treat some contractors differently
can lead to a court to out an end to a class or collective action
at the preliminary or final stages of a lawsuit.

   3. Adding a state-of-the-art arbitration clause to IC
agreements

In addition, companies should consider adding to their IC
agreements arbitration provisions with class action waivers.  While
such provisions are not applicable to governmental agencies
conducting audits, investigations, or administrative proceedings,
their inclusion in IC agreements has served the interests of many
employers.

For example, in a blog post a year ago, we reported that a
California federal court had granted Chevron Corporation's motions
to compel arbitration of collective action claims brought by well
site/drill site managers who alleged that Chevron had violated the
wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA due to alleged
misclassification of the managers as independent contractors. Each
of the four managers who were the subject of the motion to compel
arbitration had entered into arbitration agreements with different
consulting firms to provide services for Chevron. In granting the
motion to compel arbitration, the court ruled that Chevron was
entitled, as a third-party beneficiary, to enforce the arbitration
provisions in the managers' contracts with the consulting companies
that had assigned the managers to work for Chevron. Each
consultancy agreement contained similar arbitration language: "All
claims, disputes or controversies arising out of, in connection
with or in relation to this Agreement or the Services, including
any and all issues of arbitration of such claim, dispute or
controversy . . . shall be submitted to a mandatory and binding
arbitration . . ."  McQueen v. Chevron Corp., No. C 16-02089 (N.D.
Cal. Dec. 18, 2017).

When arbitration agreements are in place, class action lawyers
oftentimes take a closer look at whether they wish to invest the
time and resources necessary to pursue and litigate a class or
collective action case.  The lawyers in the Williford v. Rice
Energy case, which we summarized above, are located in Texas, but
they were retained by a drilling fluid engineer who worked in
Pennsylvania and Ohio.  That law firm has a robust internet
presence and advertises its services by asking "Have you been
misclassified as an independent contractor?"  While those lawyers
don't have a "hit list" of oil and gas companies, they do have a
"hit list" of 14 industries they say on their website have
"independent contractor issues," and they list "oil and gas -- both
service companies and operators," at the very top. If the
third-party contractor that contracted with Rice Energy had
included a Chevron-type arbitration clause with a class action
waiver in its IC agreement with its independent contractors, the
lawyers engaged by Williford may have chosen not to accept the case
due to the existence of the arbitration clause.  Or, even if they
chose to pursue the matter, Check-6 may have been able to do what
Chevron accomplished -- compel arbitration and forestall the class
action lawsuit.

Ideally, companies that make use of ICs in the oil and gas industry
-- and in virtually all other industries -- will seek to carry out
all three of the above steps to minimize class action IC
misclassification lawsuits while enhancing their compliance with IC
laws. [GN]


[*] Ogletree Attorney Expects Positive Developments for Employers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark G. Kisicki, Esq. -- mark.kisicki@ogletree.com -- of Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., in an article for The
National Law Review, reports that in 2019, employers can expect
positive developments as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
addresses a number of significant issues under the National Labor
Relations Act (NLRA). Most significantly, we will see the Board
continue to reverse Obama-Board decisions that had dramatically
expanded the number of companies that would be deemed joint
employers and the nature and scope of what employee concerted
activities are protected under Section 7 of the Act.

NLRA Section 7
Returning to the Act's Purpose and the Historical Understanding of
Its Protections: Epic Systems
Numerous Obama-Board decisions had expanded the historical
understanding of what employee conduct is protected under the Act.
In 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States concluded that the
Act's protections for concerted activities did not include the
right of employees to pursue class action lawsuits in Epic Systems
Corporation v. Lewis. The Court reversed the Obama Board's
decisions that concluded the Act's protection of "other concerted
activities" included employees' right to file class action lawsuits
despite agreements they made to arbitrate their employment
disputes, and to do so in individual arbitrations with their
employers rather than as a class. The primary technical bases for
the Court's decision were its conclusion that arbitration
agreements, including class action waivers, are enforceable on
their terms under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and its finding
that the NLRA's protection of "other concerted activities" was not
intended by Congress to limit the strong policy favoring the
enforcement of arbitration agreements that it had articulated when
adopting the FAA (long before it enacted the NLRA).

The decision provides significant practical benefits to employers
by ensuring they can broadly use and enforce agreements that limit
class actions—the most problematic and expensive type of
employment lawsuits that confront most companies. A less immediate
but still potentially significant benefit of the Court's decision
has gone largely unnoticed: in articulating the meaning of what the
Court called Section 7's "catchall" protection of "other concerted
activities," the Court provided employers with a meaningful
statutory basis for challenging any future NLRB efforts to
expansively define the types of employee activities protected by
the Act. In particular, the Court opined that Section 7's general
"catchall" provision appeared after its enumeration of specific
rights and that under general principles of statutory construction,
when a general provision follows an enumeration of specific ones,
the general term is understood to "embrace only objects similar in
nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific
words."

Applying the Court's analysis leads to the conclusion that Congress
meant Section 7 to protect "other concerted activities" similar to
those employees engage in when deciding about whether to elect
unions as their bargaining agents to deal with their employers, not
to protect an expansive and ever-growing number of employee
activities unrelated to the Act's fundamental purpose of
encouraging collective bargaining and employee free choice
regarding union representation.

How this aspect of the Court's Epic Systems decision will play out
is far from certain, but the Court's implicit recognition that
Section 7's protection of "other concerted activities" is far more
limited than the Obama Board held provides employers with a
powerful weapon to challenge any future NLRB overreach when
defining Section 7's protections.

Applying a Rational Approach for Evaluating Employer Policies and
Rules
The NLRB's recent jurisprudence, like the Supreme Court's limited
view of Section 7's protections as articulated in Epic Systems,
reflects a far more narrow interpretation of Section 7's
protections than the Obama Board had created. The NLRB's decision
in The Boeing Company is a primary example. In The Boeing Company,
the Board held that even the protections of Section 7 are not
absolute and that, provided employers' policies do not expressly
violate Section 7, those policies will be legal even if they
potentially restrict Section 7 activities when they are justified
by legitimate business purposes.

Protecting Employer Property Rights
The NLRB is set to revisit and, in all likelihood, reverse the
Obama Board's decision in Purple Communications, Inc., which
redefined the fundamental nature of property rights in the
employment setting. Historically, the Board and courts had
routinely enforced an employer's right to control its property and
limited the employer's right to do so only when the employer
exercised it in a way that discriminated against employees for
engaging in activities protected by Section 7. For example, the
Board had recognized employers' right to have bulletin boards but
prohibit employees from using them for non-work purposes, or to
allow employees to use copy machines to do their jobs but prohibit
them from using the machines for personal purposes, provided the
employers did not discriminate against Section 7 activities when
applying those rules.

Purple Communications changed that fundamental understanding of
property rights by holding that the NLRA gives employees the right
to use their employers' email systems even if their employers had
neutral rules prohibiting employees from using the email systems
for personal purposes (absent "special circumstances," which Purple
Communications neither defined nor provided meaningful standards
for employers to apply). Before Purple Communications, the Board
recognized that employers had the right to allow employee use of
email systems for certain types of personal purposes but not allow
them to use email systems for all personal purposes, such as
solicitation.

The Board is set to return to the historical protections of
employer property rights and adopt a standard that ensures
employees are not discriminated against for engaging in protected
activities but that does not create a Section 7 right for employees
to use employer property.

Joint Employment
The NLRB has proposed new rules to define, and limit by regulation,
the definition of what entities can be deemed to be joint employers
of another entity's employees. Despite multiple political attempts
to stop the Board's efforts, most observers believe that the Board
will adopt its proposed rule in 2019. Under that rule, only those
employers that exercise actual and significant control over
"substantial" terms and conditions of employment of another
employer's employees will be deemed a joint employer of those
employees. Again, the proposed rule would return the NLRB to its
historical roots—and even narrow the Board's historical approach
when defining joint employment.

The Department of Labor's Stance on Joint Employment
The Department of Labor (DOL) is poised to join the NLRB in
limiting the definition of "joint employment" through regulatory
action by March of 2019. The agency's Fall 2018 Unified Agenda of
Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions indicates that the DOL will
issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to define and limit what
entities will be deemed joint employers under the federal
employment laws the DOL enforces and interprets, such as wage and
hour laws under the Fair Labor Standards Act. While the agency
seldom is able to meet all the goals it sets for itself in its
regulatory agenda, limiting the definition of "joint employment" to
entities that actually control the terms and conditions of another
entity's workers is a top priority for the DOL in 2019. [GN]


[*] Roy Arnold Joins Blank Rome as Class Action Defense Partner
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blank Rome LLP on Jan. 29 disclosed that Roy W. Arnold has joined
the Firm's Pittsburgh office as Partner in the Commercial
Litigation group and Co-Chair of the National Class Action Defense
team.  Mr. Arnold focuses his practice on the defense of corporate
litigation, class actions, and claims under Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").  He joins from Reed Smith
LLP where he led the firm's Class Action Defense Team.

"We are thrilled to welcome Roy, one of the country's top class
action litigators, to our Firm," said Grant S. Palmer, Blank Rome's
Managing Partner and CEO.  "Roy's significant courtroom experience
and legal talent strengthens our Firm's formidable class action
defense team and corporate litigation capabilities and, coupled
with his complementary experience in ADA Title III cases, further
diversifies our Firm's offerings across numerous industries and
advances our robust growth strategy in 2019."

"Roy's courtroom skills and advocacy are exceptional, and we could
not be more excited to welcome him to our Firm," added James J.
Barnes, Partner and Chair of Blank Rome's Pittsburgh office.  "His
commitment and determination to achieve a favorable result for his
clients are relentless, yet he is practical and bottom-line
oriented when he needs to be.  He will be a terrific addition to
our commercial litigation practice and class action defense team,
and further strengthen our growing Pittsburgh office's service
offerings and talent."

For more than 25 years, Mr. Arnold has represented clients faced
with alleged class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits, as
well as other complex litigation throughout the United States.  He
has successfully defended and resolved a variety of major cases
brought against banks and other financial services companies,
retailers, hotels/resorts, real estate companies, and energy or
natural resources companies.  His broad and deep experience
includes the defense of claims arising from mergers and
acquisitions, corporate governance and fiduciary duties,
residential mortgage lending, auto finance, loan servicing,
consumer finance, securities, and secondary market issues.  As a
result, he has defended well over 250 class action lawsuits.

Through a string of high-profile engagements in Western
Pennsylvania and elsewhere, he has successfully represented a
number of Fortune 500 corporations and their boards of directors in
shareholder transaction-related litigation seeking to enjoin
mergers valued in the billions of dollars, resulting in his
reputation as a "go to" lawyer for this type of work.  As part of
his class action defense practice, Mr. Arnold has developed a very
active practice advising clients faced with ADA Title III claims.
Among other things, he has counseled and defended clients with
respect to improving the accessibility of automated teller
machines; retail point of sale systems; parking lots for banks,
retailers, and shopping centers; websites; and mobile
applications.

"Roy's strong litigation experience will be a great complement to
our group," said Jason A. Snyderman, Co-Chair of Blank Rome's
Commercial Litigation group.  "His background in class action
defense as well as his exemplary track record of success for
financial services companies and other clients faced with
significant claims is extensive.  He brings a complete repertoire
of skills and experience having handled class action litigation
effectively via motions practice, defeating class certification,
trying the case to verdict, or winning on appeal."

"It is an honor to join Blank Rome, a firm focused on delivering
the highest-quality representation of clients while remaining
resolute in achieving their business objectives," stated Mr.
Arnold.  "In the commercial litigation practice, and across the
Firm, you find accomplished lawyers committed to client service and
developing strong, lasting relationships built on trust and mutual
respect."

Mr. Arnold earned his B.A., with honors, from the University of
Pennsylvania and his J.D., with honors, from the University of
Pittsburgh School of Law where he was elected to Order of the Coif
and served as lead executive editor of the University of Pittsburgh
Law Review.

An active member of his community, Mr. Arnold sits on the board of
directors for the Pittsburgh International Children's Theatre,
which presents award-winning professional theater for young
audiences.  He also devotes time to pro bono causes, primarily
representing children and families in the adoption setting and
protecting women from abusive situations.

Since January 1, Blank Rome has welcomed a number of lateral
partners across its U.S. offices, enhancing the Firm's services and
capabilities throughout its various practices.

                     About Blank Rome LLP

Blank Rome -- http://www.blankrome.com-- is an Am Law 100 firm
with 13 offices and more than 600 attorneys and principals who
provide comprehensive legal and advocacy services to clients
operating in the United States and around the world.



                            *********

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 ***