CAR_Public/190207.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, February 7, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 28

                            Headlines

ADZEEY LLC: Walli Sues over Unwanted Text Message Advertisements
ALLEGHENY, PA: Donohue Appeals W.D. Pa. Ruling to Third Circuit
ALLERGAN PLC: Law Firms Seeks Suit Against Breast Implant Makers
AMER REALTY: Amador-Lopez Sues over Unsafe Building Situation
ASICS AMERICA: Faces Traynor's ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ATG CREDIT: Hamilton Sues over Debt Collection Practices
AXOGEN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Action
BALDUCCI'S HOLDINGS: Faces Traynor's ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BRIGANTINE INC: $550K Pataky Settlement Has Final Court Approval
CANADIAN HOCKEY: Faces Class Action From Former Players

CHICAGO, IL: Ct. Won't Dismiss CFD Applicants' Discrimination Suit
CHICAGO, IL: Sued over Automated Traffic Law Enforcement Program
COLE HAAN CO: Haggar Files Suit under ADA in California
CRUEGER DICKINSON: Napoli Shkolnik Files Class Action Lawsuit
CUSTOM BUILDING: Faces Will Hardy's Labor Suit in N.D. Georgia

DC TRANSPORT: Court Sets Settlement Approval Filing Date
DITMARS CREATE: Felix et al. Seek Minimum & Overtime Pay
DWDIRECT INC: Amaya Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
EDGEWATER INN: Borozny Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
ELITE COASTAL: Sued over Unwanted Pre-recorded Voice Message Calls

ENERGY FIRST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages Under FLSA, Armstrong Says
ENVER SOLAR: Collins Sues over Unwanted Cellular Telephone Calls
EQUIFAX INC: Made Me Look Like Deadbeat Debtor, Woman Says in Suit
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Fasman Sues over Background Checks
EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG: Polzin Files Suit Over FDCPA Violation

FACEBOOK INC: Court Allows CIR to Intervene in Refund Suit
FCH ENTERPRISES: Inks Settlement of Bokelman Class Action Lawsuit
FIRST AMERICAN: Court Stay Matis FDCPA Action for 60 Days
FIRST AMERICAN: Court Stays Huntsman FDCPA Action for 60 Days
FITBIT INC: Court Denies Interlocutory Appeal in Derivative Suit

FORAGER PROJECT: Juice Contains Toxic Substance, Suit Alleges
FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces Chiofalo Suit Under FDCPA in New York
FORTRESS SYSTEMS: Court Denies Bid for Conditional Certification
FREDDIE MAC: Medina Suit Removed to Maryland Dist. Ct.
GKT FOX CREEK: Nekouee Says Establishments not Wheelchair-friendly

GREENSKY INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
GREYHOUND LINES: Cordova Suit Moved to N.D. California
H&M: Sued Over Violation of Illinois Privacy Law
HELLY HANSEN: Faces Slade ADA Class Action in New York
HIGHLAND HOSPITAL: Violated Labor & Human Rights Laws, Suit Says

HSBC BANK: Antonicic Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud Act Violation
HUNTER WARFIELD: Arpino Suit Alleges FDCPA Breach
IMMUNOMEDICS INC.: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action

INTEGRATED MAIL: Court Orders Unredacted Phone Record Turnover
KINDERCARE EDUCATION: Westmoreland Asserts Labor Code Violation
KITEC PLUMBING: Canadians May Be Eligible for Compensation
LEVY SECURITY: Vaughan Sues over Alleged Illegal Use of Biometrics
LIFE INSURANCE: Court Awards $2.5K Attorney's Fees in Hartle Suit

LOFT ASSOCIATES: Abante Rooter Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
LOS ROBLES HOSPITAL: On Verge of Paying $2.95MM in Lawsuit
LOXO ONCOLOGY: Witmer Balks at Merger Deal with Eli Lilly
MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces Personal Injury Suit in Maryland
MARRIOTT INT'L: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit

MARRIOTT INT'L: Madolora Sues for Negligence Over Data Breach
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Fisher Sues over Starwood Data Breach
MARTINDALE-HUBBELL INC: Faces Aabbott Suit Over TCPA Violation
MATCO TOOLS: Failed to Pay Overtime Compensation for Distributors
MEDLEY CAPITAL: Lax Balks at Merger Deal with Sierra Income

MERCEDES BENZ: Faces Jones Suit in S.D. New York
MERCK SHARP: Suit Puts Drugmaker Defense to Supreme Court Test
METROPOLITAN TRANS: Finnigan Seeks OT Pay for Train Operators
MICHAEL E. CRIDEN: 4th Cir. Affirms Rejection of Fraud Claim
MIDLAND CREDIT: Gunther Moves to Certify Class of Utah Residents

MODERN SPACES: Olsen Files Suit Asserting Disabilities Act Breach
NAADAM INC: Kiler Files ADA Class Suit New York
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Briggs Files Class Action for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Brown Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Clement Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Clewis Files Personal Injury Case in Ind.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Dance Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Davis Brings Personal Injury Class Suit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Disregarded Student-Athletes' Health & Safety
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Drake Asserts Claim for Personal Injury

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Eischens Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Dovale Personal Injury Class Action
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Kimble Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Moor Personal Injury Class Action
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Taylor PI Class Action in Indiana

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Federico Files Personal Injury Case in Ind.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Foley Files PI Class Suit in Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Freeman Files PI Class Action in Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Garland Files Class Suit Over Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hawkins Files Personal Injury Suit in Ind.

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Jarmon Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Kunkle Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: McGregor Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claims
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Megna Files Personal Injury Class Suit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Pegross Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Randolph Files PI Class Suit in Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Reedy Brings Personal Injury Class Action
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Roberts Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Tabb Class Suit Asserts Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Wagner Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Webster Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Williamson Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Woods Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NAVIENT CORP: Kahn Swick Commences Securities Fraud Probe
NCAA: Disregards RHIT Student-Athletes' Safety, Havill Says

NESTLE INC: Supreme Court Revives Class-Action Suit Over Maggi
NORTON OUTDOOR: Court Refuses to Strike Class Allegations in Shipp
NOVA LIFESTYLE: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
NVIDIA CORP: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Court Orders Amendments to Weiner Scheduling Order

ONE TECHNOLOGIES: Carlson Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
PARKWOOD ENTERTAINMENT: Facing Class-Action Lawsuit
PENNSYLVANIA: Court Won't Allow Fennell Suit to Proceed as Class
PEP BOYS-MANNY: Fails to Provide Tire Registration Form, Suit Says
PERRIGO COMPANY: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action

PURITAN'S PRIDE: Court Narrows Claims in Deceptive Marketing Suit
QUESTROYAL FINE ART: Violates ADA, Dawson Suit Alleges
R&J SUPERMARKET: Arellano Suit Seeks Damages Over FLSA Violation
RARE BOOKS: Dawson Sues for Breach of ADA
RED HAT: Bishop Files Suit Over Sale to IBM Corp.

REHS CONTEMPORARY: Dawson Suit Alleges ADA Violation
ROGALLERY IMAGE: Dawson Asserts Breach of ADA in S.D. New York
RONALD FELDMAN: Dawson Asserts Violation of Disabilities Act
RUDD REALTY: Tenants Win Class-Action Status in Rent-Reg Fight
SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CA: Jail Suit Granted Class Action Status

SEIU: Hearing Requested on Forced Union Dues Refunds
SERVE U BRANDS: Dismissal Bid Converted to Summary Judgment Bid
SMILEDIRECTCLUB: Olsen Alleges Breach of Disabilities Act
STATE FARM: $6.7MM Long Class Settlement Has Final Court Approval
STATEWIDE CREDIT: Houck Sues Over Debt Collection Practices

SWISSPORT INT'L: Sued over Alleged Illegal Use of Biometrics
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Lowenbien Asserts Claim Under ADA in New York
TREPCO IMPORTS: Beirne Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California
TREPCO IMPORTS: Beirne Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California
UBER: Loses Ontario Court Battle Over Arbitration Clause

UBER: To Pay $1.3MM in Misclassification Case
UNITED STATES: Unpaid Air Traffic Controllers Hit Gov't Shutdown
UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI: O'Reilly Sues for Racial Discrimination
VAN RU CREDIT: Wis. Court Narrows Claims in D. Al's FDCPA Suit
VERIFICIENT TECH: Exam Proctoring Biz Scanned Exam Takers' Faces

VERTICAL FITNESS: Class Certification Sought in Wesolowski Suit
VIATOR INC: Slade Files Suit for Disabilities Act Violation
WALMART INC: Famuliner et al. Suit Moved to W.D. Missouri
WELBILT INC: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action
WELLS FARGO: Federal Judge OKs Class Action Brought by Ex-Advisors

WESTERN CAB: Court Narrows Claims in M. Reno's FLSA Suit
WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL: Courts Order Case Dismissal With Prejudice
WS OCEAN: Borozny Files ADA Class Action in Florida
YANGTZE RIVER: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
YANGTZE RIVER: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action Lawsuit

YRC WORLDWIDE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Lawsuit
YRC WORLDWIDE: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
ZIPPY'S: Settles Class-Action Suit Over Massive Hack

                            *********

ADZEEY LLC: Walli Sues over Unwanted Text Message Advertisements
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHER WALLI, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ADZEEY, LLC, doing business as THE
SOCIAL AGENT, the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00188 (M.D. Fla.,
Jan. 24, 2019), alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and implementing regulations by using an
automatic telephone dialing system when it sent Plaintiff and the
putative class members text message advertisements in order to
promote its social media advertising business without obtaining
prior express written consent from the Plaintiff.  The lawsuit
contends that the Defendant harmed Plaintiff and the members of the
putative class by invading their privacy and right to seclusion;
wasting their time; causing the risk of personal injury due to
interruption and distraction; forcing them to incur charges;
depleting a cell phone's or wireless phone's battery, resulting in
increased electricity costs; intrusion upon and occupation of the
capacity of a cell phone or wireless phone; causing the risk of
personal injury due to interruption and distraction; and shifting
the cost of advertising to them in violation of the TCPA.

Adzeey, LLC, doing business as The Social Agent, is a Colorado
Limited Liability Company that is engaged in the business of social
media advertising.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
          Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          974 Howard Ave.
          Dunedin FL 34698
          Telephone: (305) 323-6433
          E-mail: shawn@sjlawcollective.com
                  josh@sjlawcollective.com

               - and -

          Peter Bennett, Esq.
          Richard Bennett, Esq.
          Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
          BENNETT & BENNETT
          1200 Anastasia Ave., Ofc 360
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 444-5925
          E-mail: peterbennettlaw@gmail.com
                  richardbennett27@gmail.com

ALLEGHENY, PA: Donohue Appeals W.D. Pa. Ruling to Third Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Joseph Donohue and Deborah Kinest filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Joseph Donohue, et al. v.
Retirement System of Allegheny, et al., Case No. 2-17-cv-01167, in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 11, 2019, Chief
Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy (i) granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the second amended class action complaint
("SAC"), and (ii) denied as moot their motion to strike the class
action allegations, or, in the alternative, to deny class
certification.

The SAC names as a Plaintiffs is Joseph Donohue, Executor of Susan
Donohue's estate, and added a newly-named Plaintiff, Deborah
Kinest.

The Plaintiffs allege violations of the constitutional right to due
process because 16 P.S. Section 4711(a) ("the statute") provides no
means for an applicant to prove, or offer evidence in support of,
his or her entitlement to a disability pension, and no means to
obtain review of, or offer evidence challenging the opinion of a
Board-designated physician.  They aver that the statute provides no
standards for determining whether an employee is "totally and
permanently disabled" and the Board, despite having been empowered
to do so, has not adopted rules and regulations pertaining to
disability pension applications, citing 16 P.S. Section 4705.

The appellate case is captioned as Joseph Donohue, et al. v.
Retirement System of Allegheny, et al., Case No. 19-1163, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JOSEPH DONOHUE, Executor of the Estate of
SUSAN DONOHUE, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, and DEBORAH KINEST, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, are represented by:

          Tybe A. Brett, Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC LLC
          429 Fourth Avenue
          Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          E-mail: tbrett@fdpklaw.com

Defendants-Appellees RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY and
RETIREMENT BOARD OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY are represented by:

          Julie A. Aquino, Esq.
          Brian P. Gabriel, Esq.
          CAMPBELL DURRANT BEATTY PALOMBO & MILLER, P.C.
          535 Smithfield Street, Suite 700
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 395-1280
          E-mail: jaquino@cdblaw.com
                  bgabriel@cdblaw.com


ALLERGAN PLC: Law Firms Seeks Suit Against Breast Implant Makers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Magder, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that two
Montreal law firms intend to mount a class-action lawsuit against
several makers of textured breast implants.

A petition for a class-action suit was filed on Jan. 3 in Quebec
Superior Court by LPC Avocats and Tiger Banon Inc. It names five
implant manufacturers, alleging the textured version of breast
implants they sell is linked to a rare form of cancer called
anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). The petition seeks to
cover "all consumers in Canada (alternatively in Quebec)" who have
received these implants.

The implants have been the subject of safety recalls and have been
barred from sale in several countries. Allergan, the largest
manufacturer of the product, has stopped selling them in 33
countries after the company lost its certification. However, the
lawsuit points out that the implants are still being sold in
Canada.

"Basically, you have an extremely dangerous product that is being
implanted in women's bodies," said Joey Zukran, Esq. --
jzukran@lpclex.com -- a lawyer at LPC Avocats. "The risk is that it
will rupture, but if it doesn't rupture, there is still a risk and
it should be replaced."

Zukran said the companies named in the lawsuit — Allergan, Mentor
Worldwide, Johnson & Johnson Inc., Ideal Implant Inc. and Clarion
Medical Technologies — are responsible for warning customers of
the potential risks, but most of the literature he was able to find
made no mention of a cancer risk.

"The main violation is of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act, which
is the failure to mention an important fact," Zukran said.

He added that the potential plaintiffs would not necessarily all be
wealthy people, because many people save up for years to get breast
implants, and others have implants when they undergo breast
reconstruction surgery after a mastectomy due to breast cancer.

The plaintiff who is expected to become the example in the
class-action lawsuit can't afford the roughly $10,000 it would cost
to replace her implants, Zukran said.

The lawsuit will ask for the companies to reimburse the initial
operation cost and to pay for a new operation to replace the
implants. It will also ask for the patients to be compensated for
the trouble and inconvenience that comes with having to go through
surgery, and for moral and punitive damages. In all, the plaintiffs
will be asking for roughly $57,000 each. Zukran said roughly 20,000
patients underwent breast implant surgery over the last 10 years,
so that represents about $1 billion in damages.

The next step in the class action is for a judge to hear the merits
of the case over the next few months. If a judge deems the case to
have merit, the class action will be authorized. At that point,
lawyers representing the patients will have to prove their case in
court.

Because of Quebec's laws governing class-action lawsuits, everyone
eligible for a reward in the province is automatically included. If
the suit is successful, Quebecers only need to prove they were
given textured breast implants in order to receive the reward.

For more information about this case or to register to be part of
the class action, visit lpclex.com. [GN]


AMER REALTY: Amador-Lopez Sues over Unsafe Building Situation
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAQUEL MONCTON AMADOR-LOPEZ, the Plaintiffs, vs. AMER REALTY, LLC
AND ALPINE DISCOUNT STORE, INC., the Defendant(s), Case No.
501194/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Jan. 17, 2019), demands judgment
including compensatory damages against the Defendants for alleged
willful negligence in allowing a building/premises to be unsafe.

According to the complaint, the Defendants owned a building or
premises known as 435 Knickerbocker Avenue, Brooklyn, NY. The
Defendants has the duty to maintain its abutting sidewalk in a
reasonably safe condition. On August 13, 2018, while the Plaintiff
was lawfully at or about the premises, he/she was caused to sustain
serious personal injuries. That occurrence was caused by reason of
the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the Defendants and
by Defendant's breach of the multiple dwelling laws, in the
ownership, operation, management, maintenance, supervision and
control of the premises; in allowing suffering and permitting
premises and a portion thereof to be and remain in a dangerous,
broken and hazardous condition; in allowing premises to fall into
disrepair; in that the premises was and remained in a dangerous
condition and defective state constituting an unreasonable, actual
and potential trap and menace likely to cause severe and serious
personal injuries to patrons thereat and did actually cause said
injuries of this plaintiff, in failing to take reasonable and
adequate precautions and measures to prevent the said occurrence;
in failing to place warning signs or barricades about the dangerous
condition; in failing to have competent help or employees who would
prevent the occurrence and negligent condition; in failing to
conduct reasonable and proper inspections of said premises; in
failing to provide protection or protective devices to protect
plaintiff or person similarly situated and the conduct of the
defendants as aforesaid was wanton, willful and with conscious
disregard for the rights, safety and well-being of the plaintiff
and others similarly situated. The Plaintiff was rendered sick,
sore, lame and disabled, and suffered severe, painful and permanent
injuries to various parts of his person, with accompanying pain,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

          Jeffrey W. Bader, Esq.
          BADER & YAKAITIS
          1430 Broadway, Suite 1802
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 465-1110

ASICS AMERICA: Faces Traynor's ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Balducci's Holdings,
LLC. The case is captioned as YASEEN TRAYNOR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASICS AMERICA
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00474-JPO (S.D.N.Y., Jan.
16, 2019). The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge J. Paul Oetken.

ASICS America Corporation designs and manufactures athletic shoes,
apparel, and accessories. It provides footwear for running,
training, trail, track and field, volleyball, tennis, wrestling,
walking, triathlon, soccer, and golf applications; apparel for men
and women; and shoes for pre-school and grade school kids. The
company also operates retail stores in the United States, as well
as sells products online. ASICS America Corporation was formerly
known as ASICS Tiger Corporation and changed its name to ASICS
America Corporation in October 2003. The company was founded in
1977 and is based in Irvine, California. ASICS America Corporation
operates as a subsidiary of ASICS Corp. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Harris Kohn, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: dkohn@steinsakslegal.com


ATG CREDIT: Hamilton Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
SHAKWAN HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATG CREDIT LLC; JH PORTFOLIO DEBT
EQUITIES LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00589-KM-JBC (D.N.J., Jan. 16, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The
case is assigned to Judge Kevin McNulty and referred to Magistrate
Judge James B. Clark.

ATG Credit LLC operates as an accounts receivable management firm.
The Firm offers contingency collection services, early out
programs, litigation services and special projects. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


AXOGEN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities
of AxoGen, Inc. ("AxoGen" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AXGN): (1)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's false and/or misleading
registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "November
2017 Registration Statement") issued in connection with the
Company's November 2017 secondary public offering ("November SPO");
and/or (2) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's false and/or
misleading registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"May 2018 Registration Statement") issued in connection with the
Company's May 2018 secondary public offering ("May SPO"); and/or
(3) on the open market between August 7, 2017 and December 18,
2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover AxoGen shareholders' investment losses.

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

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company aggressively increased prices to mask lower
sales; (2) the Company's pricing alienated customers and threatened
the Company's future growth; (3) ambulatory surgery centers form a
significant part of the market for the Company's products; (4) such
centers were especially sensitive to price increases; (5) the
Company was dependent on a small number of surgeons whom the
Company paid to generate sales; (6) the Company's consignment model
for inventory was reasonably likely to lead to channel stuffing;
(7) the Company offered purchase incentives to sales
representatives to encourage channel stuffing; (8) the Company's
sales representatives were encouraged to backdate revenue to
artificially inflate metrics; (9) the Company lacked adequate
internal controls to prevent such channel stuffing and backdating
of revenue; (10) the Company's key operating metrics, such as
number of active accounts, were overstated; and (11) as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

On December 18, 2018, Seligman Investments issued a report stating,
among other things, that "[a] number of former [AxoGen] employees
allege channel stuffing [at AxoGen], given that the company's
consignment model creates potential for abuse, as well as alleging
questionable revenue recognition practices." Further, the report
states that "allegations additionally include misleading operating
metrics, with one former rep implying that the company's definition
of 'active accounts' may overstate the actual number by a factor of
ten."

On this news, AxoGen's stock fell $6.17 per share or approximately
22% to close at $21.36 per share on December 18, 2018, damaging
investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 11, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased AxoGen securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options, please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/axogen-inc-axgn-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-102/


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


BALDUCCI'S HOLDINGS: Faces Traynor's ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Balducci's Holdings,
LLC. The case is captioned as YASEEN TRAYNOR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BALDUCCI'S
HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00475-JGK (S.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 16, 2019). The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge John G. Koeltl.

Balducci's Holdings, LLC retails food and beverages. The Company
offers coffee, tea, cocoa, chocolates, cookies, peanuts, beans,
grains, granola, marinades, mustards, pasta, gift cards, and
baskets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Harris Kohn, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: dkohn@steinsakslegal.com


BRIGANTINE INC: $550K Pataky Settlement Has Final Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Final
Approval of Class Settlement in the case captioned NEAL PATAKY,
JESSICA CLEEK, and LAUREN MICHELSON, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE BRIGANTINE, INC., a
California corporation, Defendant. Case No. 3:17-cv-352 GPC (AGS).
(S.D. Cal.).

This case is involves a wage-and-hour class action against
Defendant The Brigantine Corporation, Inc. (Defendant). Defendant
owns at least a dozen restaurants throughout San Diego County,
including Brigantine Seafood and Miguel's Cocina, each of which
have multiple locations.  

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) prohibition against forcing employees to share
tips with employees who do not provide direct table service to
customers in places where the kitchen staff does not customarily
and regularly receive tips.  The Plaintiffs further allege that
this violation is a predicate violation of the California Business
& Professions Code, section 17200, et seq. (Unfair Competition Law
or UCL).

Settlement Terms

The Plaintiffs and the Defendants negotiated a proposed settlement
that will benefit approximately 1,231 Settlement Class members with
monetary payments wherein the Defendant will pay $550,000 without
refund or reversion to the Settlement Class.

The Settlement Agreement contemplates that the Defendant will pay
certain compensation to settle the claims of the Plaintiffs and all
other servers within the class period and includes (1) all members
of the FLSA Collective Action who have filed Consent to Join forms
and (2) all other servers within the scope of the potential Rule 23
Class Action defined as:

     All current or former employees of The Brigantine, Inc. who
have worked anytime between February 22, 2013 and April 30, 2017 as
servers, including but not limited to under job titles of food
servers, cocktail lounge servers, dining room servers, and
bartenders.

Class Counsel have asked for $139,554.85 for attorneys' fees and
costs; $2,500 in service awards for each of the three class
representatives; and $18,556 in administrative fees for Rust
Consulting, Inc. Class counsel estimates that the $550,000
settlement fund represents a high percentage (approximately 75%) of
the value of the money alleged to have been deferred from the
Settlement Class members to other employees, after payment of all
settlement fees and costs.

The Court finds that the Hanlon factors strongly support settlement
approval. The settlement, as provided by the Settlement Agreement,
is in all respects fair, reasonable, adequate, and proper, and in
the best interest of the Settlement Class.

The Plaintiffs and the Class Counsel maintain that this action and
the claims asserted in this case are meritorious and that the
Plaintiffs and the FLSA Class, and now the Settlement Class, have
evidence to establish a case against the Defendant. The Defendant
denies any wrongdoing and argues that the voluntary nature of its
tip pooling is lawful. The parties acknowledge that protracted
litigation over their respective legal positions will entail
substantial risk for both sides, expense, uncertainty, and delays.


Based on the stage of litigation reached concerning relevant legal
issues and the parties' exchange of information through discovery
and the early Neutral Evaluation process, the Plaintiffs and the
Defendant were fully informed of the legal bases for the claims and
defenses herein, and capable of balancing the risks of continued
litigation and the benefits of the settlement. The Class Counsel
and the Defendant's Counsel are highly experienced civil litigation
lawyers and are capable of properly assessing the risks, expenses,
and duration of continued litigation.

Under the settlement and Settlement Agreement, the Defendant has
paid $550,000, without refund or reversion, inclusive and in
satisfaction of all requests for relief and payments to Plaintiffs
and the Settlement Class arising from and related to this case and
the settlement of it, including but not limited to: all claims for
damages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and
all other requests for relief and claims for payment under the
causes of action alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint; all of the costs
and expenses associated with the Settlement Agreement and
settlement administration; any service payments the Court may award
to any of the Plaintiffs; any attorneys' fees and costs the Court
may award; and employer tax withholding on a portion of the
payments to the Settlement Class which constitute W-2 wages;
provided however, that consist with the Court's Supplemental
Preliminary Approval Order, excess costs of administration above
$18,556 will be paid separately by Defendant.

In addition, the Court finds that the parties' fully executed
Settlement Agreement is appropriate and falls within the range of
reasonableness to be finally approved as the terms of settlement of
this action for the Settlement Class members. The settlement is the
product of good faith, arm's-length negotiations between the
Plaintiffs and Class Counsel, on the one hand, and Defendant and
its counsel on the other hand, before Magistrate Judge Andrew
Schopler. The Court has found no evidence of collusion or other
conflicts of interest between Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, and the
Settlement Class. The settlement comports with Rule 23.

Having found the proposed settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable
pursuant to Hanlon, the Court concludes that the settlement also
passes muster under the reasonable compromise standard applicable
to the fairness of FLSA collective actions. This case reflects
careful legal and factual analysis by the parties of issues
actually in dispute and a correspondingly crafted Settlement
Agreement which takes into account those factors.

With respect to Attorneys' Fees, Class Counsel seek $137,500, or
25% of the $550,000 settlement fund. They also seek $2,054.85 in
reasonable and substantiated costs.

In this case, these factors all point in favor of the 25% benchmark
rate. To wit, the result obtained here by Class Counsel here is
substantial. The value of the settlement is approximately 75% of
the value of the money alleged to have been deferred from the
Settlement Class members to other employees. The risk of nonpayment
assumed by Class Counsel was not insignificant, especially in light
of the disputed nature of the Plaintiffs' claims and the
contingency-based nature of their agreement with Plaintiffs. There
have been no objections by the Class Members to the proposed
settlement, indicating a favorable reaction of the class to the
Class Counsel. The effort, experience, and skill of Class Counsel
is also commendable.

The lodestar cross-check further confirms the soundness of the 25%
benchmark rate. The lodestar is calculated by multiplying the
number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the
litigation by a reasonable hourly rate. The hours expended and the
rate sought should be supported by adequate documentation and other
evidence. However, trial courts may use rough calculations and take
into account their overall sense of a suit to use estimates in
calculating and allocating an attorney's time, so long as they
apply the correct standard.  

Class Counsel's lodestar calculation employs hourly rates of $450
for partners, $350 for associates, and $150 for paralegals who
worked on the instant litigation. Based on its knowledge of
prevailing standards in the community and absent any objection to
the hourly rates, the Court finds the hourly rates for the various
timekeeper categories used by Class Counsel to be reasonable.
Furthermore, in light of Mr. Williams' declarations, Court is
satisfied by the hours claimed by Class Counsel.  

In light of the lodestar cross-check, the Court approves the
$137,500 attorneys' fees sought by Class Counsel, and the $2,054.85
in costs requested.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 14, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y73mk5og from Leagle.com.

Neal Pataky, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Jessica Cleek, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated & Lauren Michelson, individually, and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Stephanie
Reynolds -- reynolds@popeberger.com -- Berger, Williams & Reynolds,
LLP & Timothy Garr Williams -- williams@popeberger.com -- Berger,
Williams & Reynolds, LLP.

Carlos Soto, Samantha Brennan, Grace Snow, Jade Martin, Kendall
Straessle, Stanford J. Mikels, Maricela Garcia Huerta, Jesse
Goodsell, Sara Stockwell, Juan Carlos Carrillo, Shawna Erwin, Clark
Wilhelmina, Mercedes Zoffel, Maria de la Paz Hagen, Mathias
Hummelberger, Brooke Preece, Lauren Wood, Ashley Porter, Amanda M.
Stevens, Hooman Sadjadi, Madelyn Taylor, Mollie Meddleton, Ryan
Mitch, Jessical Haynsworth, Clare Erickson, Sara Role, Chelsea
Geyer, Mami Vilardi, Katherine J. Kelleher, Melissa Green, Valerie
Conklin, Michael I. Penter, Jonathan A. Gruca, Cecilia Bedolla,
Lairin Bargon, Devin M. Laskowski, Bryan Stark, Noelani Aipa, Cory
Baraoidan, Rena Sagman Chandler, Craig Myers, Kianna Rae Fahey,
Trey Douglas Jacobson, Tiffany Siaweleski, Karimah Mendez, Sara I.
Schaldach, Daniel R. Bolyarde, Brian Cantor, Kevin Crowell, Rhami
Hasenin, Nicole Schaefer, Christopher Upton, Christina Jones,
Mallory Thysell, Susana Hunt-Bootorabi, Erin Antrim, Bryer
Bidegain, Brittney Anthony, Katherine Julie Dickens, Madisen
Castello Boone, Fernando A. Forero, Trevor Lee Hinkey, Margaret
Heikes, Gregory Field, Julia Freda, Jasmine LaBeau, Paola Najera,
Colleen Nitchman, Anne Delgado, Jorge I. Lopez Rivera, Alison
Sterner, Michael Thoman, Jessica A. Barros de Souza, William Erwin,
Ubaldo Galicia, Emily Horta, Kaitlyn McNutt, Heather Merrill,
Jordan Soper, Mark Tarantino, Michael A. Carnevale & Marisa Taylor,
Plaintiffs, represented by Timothy Garr Williams , Berger, Williams
& Reynolds, LLP.

The Brigantine, Inc., a California corporation, Defendant,
represented by James Charles Fessenden --
jfessenden@laborlawyers.com -- Fisher Phillips LLP.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


CHICAGO, IL: Ct. Won't Dismiss CFD Applicants' Discrimination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued an Opinion and Order denying
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the captioned JENNIFER LIVINGSTON,
KIRSTEN BAIN, TAVI BURROUGHS, KENIA CHAVEZ, CHRISTINA GUARINO,
KATHARINE LAZZARA, JESSICA MAPLES, SHANNON MARKEY, DONNA RUCH,
JAMIE SNEVELY, LISETTE VENEGAS, and MARY YOUNGREN, Plaintiffs, v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation, Defendant. No. 16-10156.
(N.D. Ill.).

The City moves to dismiss Bain, Ruch, Youngren, and Venegas
(Non-Filing Plaintiffs) because they have not exhausted their
administrative remedies, as required by Title VII.

Plaintiffs Jennifer Livingston, Kirsten Bain, Tavi Burroughs, Kenia
Chavez, Christina Guarino, Katharine Lazzara, Jessica Maples,
Shannon Markey, Donna Ruch, Jamie Snevely, Lisette Venegas, and
Mary Youngren, all once female candidates for Fire Paramedic
positions in the Chicago Fire Department (CFD), allege that
Defendant City of Chicago (City) discriminated against them on the
basis of their sex in the hiring process for the Fire Paramedic
position, in violation of Title VII.

The City argues that the Court should dismiss the Non-Filing
Plaintiffs from the case because they have not exhausted their
administrative remedies.

Failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense that plaintiffs need
not address in their complaints however, dismissal is appropriate
in cases where it is clear from the face of the complaint that the
plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

To bring a Title VII suit, a plaintiff must have exhausted her
administrative remedies by filing a timely EEOC charge and
receiving a right to sue letter. The reason behind the requirement
that allegations not contained in an EEOC charge cannot be
contained in the complaint is that the defendant must have notice
of the charge, and the EEOC must have the opportunity to
investigate and conciliate the charge.

Ruch's Claim

The City argues that Ruch's claim does not arise out of the same or
similar conduct as the Filing Plaintiffs' claims because the City
terminated her on August 3, 2016, eight months after the most
recently filed charge. It also argues that, because Ruch's
termination occurred in 2016 and the latest charge was filed in
December 2015, Ruch's claim would not be timely.

Both of these arguments boil down to one question: is the
discriminatory conduct linking Ruch's claim to Chavez's charge (1)
the administration of the physical tests during the Academy, or (2)
the decision to ultimately fire both women?

If the former, the two claims clearly stem from the same or similar
discriminatory conduct and occurred in the same time period.
Looking to the Chavez charge, the actual conduct of which Chavez
complains is the use of the physical tests to create a barrier to
women graduating from the Academy. Put plainly, the City of Chicago
has discriminated against me and other women similarly situated by
its adoption, use, administration, and reliance upon unvalidated
and discriminatory physical tests. This is also the discriminatory
conduct that Ruch describes in the complaint: the principal focus
of this complaint is the City's discriminatory use of physical
testing of candidate Fire Paramedics that is not job related and
operates as a barrier to employment for women. Both women allege
that the City prevented them from graduating from the Academy
because of their performance on its physical tests and that either
the City imposed the test with a discriminatory intent or that the
test had a disparate impact on women. This is the discriminatory
conduct that forms the basis for their claims. As such, Ruch's
claim is reasonably related to Chavez's charge, and the conduct she
complains of occurred during the same time period as the conduct
described in the Filing Plaintiffs' charges.

Bain's Claim

The City contends that the Court should dismiss Bain because she
alleges that the City constructively discharged her, rather than
terminated her, as a result of her performance on the Step Test.
This argument contains the same flaws as the City's arguments
regarding Ruch: the relevant conduct at issue here is the
imposition of the physical tests as a barrier to women graduating
from the Academy. Looking to the complaint, Bain alleges that she
took and did not pass the Step Test' as a candidate Fire Paramedic
in the CFD Training Academy. In October 2014, the City's medical
officer, Dr. William Wong, threatened to permanently disqualify her
from the CFD if she did not quit. The City constructively
discharged her from her employment, because of her sex.

The Plaintiffs add in their response brief that the City
constructively discharged Bain after she failed the Step Test and
became fatigued during jump squats.

According to the City, Bain's claim lapsed in August 2015, and her
claims of constructive discharge are not the same or similar
discriminatory conduct as the Filing Plaintiffs who had filed
charges by that time.  Bain alleges that the City constructively
discharged her in October 2014, and Chavez filed her charge on
December 21, 2015. The City is correct that Bain cannot rely on
Chavez's charge using the single-filing rule.

However, Livingston, Burroughs, Guarino, and Snevely all had filed
their EEOC charges within 300 days of October 2014. All of these
women complained in their charges that the City used the Step Test
and Lifting and Moving Sequence to prevent women from graduating
from the Academy. For example, Livingston's charge describes the
use of these tests to eliminate more than half the women in her
class at the Academy, and complained that because of those tests,
she was not permitted to graduate.  This is the same discriminatory
conduct that Bain protests in the complaint: use of the Step Test
to prevent her from graduating from the Academy and becoming a fire
paramedic. Bain's claims, like most of the other plaintiffs in this
case, rest on the theory that the City used the Step Test and
Lifting and Moving Sequence as a pretense for preventing her from
continuing on through the Academy, because of her sex.

Thus, Bain can properly rely on Livingston, Burroughs, Guarino, and
Snevely's charges for her claim regarding the Step Test using the
single-filing rule because her claim involves the same or similar
conduct in the same time period as those charges. The City's
argument is correct, however, to the extent that Bain cannot bring
claims regarding ad hoc tests (such as jump squats) administered
during the Academy only Chavez's charge detailed those ad hoc
tests, and Bain cannot rely on Chavez's charge. Bain may use the
single-filing rule to proceed on her claim regarding the Step
Test.

Youngren's Claim

The City argues that Youngren's claim does not arise out of the
same or similar conduct because Youngren alleges she was injured on
the Step Test and placed on Suspended Assignment. The City further
argues that the charges filed by the Filing Plaintiffs were
insufficient to put the City on notice of Youngren's claim. This is
more of the same: the City attempts to paint Youngren's claim as a
claim against the CFD Medical Division, and thus distinct from the
Filing Plaintiffs' charges. This is unpersuasive; Youngren's claim
does not allege that the Medical Division discriminated against her
through its suspended assignment policy, but rather that the City
discriminated against her because of the discriminatory physical
test that it required her to take to continue through Academy.
Despite the City's attempt to frame Youngren's claim differently,
her claim, like all the other plaintiffs' claims, rests on the same
allegations regarding the physical tests that the City imposed
during the Academy.

In her complaint, she tried to bring claims for the defendant's
hiring decision regarding the job mentioned in the charge, and also
of the defendant's hiring decision regarding a different job
position. The Seventh Circuit held that she only put the defendant
on notice of discrimination claims for one job position and thus
could not bring claims regarding the other position.  

Here, the policy at issue is the same in the Filing Plaintiffs'
charges as it is in Youngren's claim. The discriminatory conduct is
the same. The problem is not with the City's suspended assignment
policy, it is with the fact that Youngren alleges she would not
have been injured (or have needed the suspended assignment policy)
but for the discriminatory physical tests that the City required
her to take to continue through the Academy. The Filing Plaintiffs
put the City on notice that the Step Test requirement was
discriminatory, and this claim is based on exactly that conduct.
Thus, Youngren may rely on the single-filing rule to proceed with
her claim.

Venegas' Claim

The City argues that Venegas' claim does not arise out of the same
or similar conduct because Venegas' allegations are based on an ad
hoc lunge test rather than the specific tests identified by all of
the Filing Plaintiffs. For the reasons discussed above, the Chavez
charge sufficiently describes ad hoc physical tests, and so Venegas
may use the single-filing rule to proceed on her claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 14, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9wpbaxa from
Leagle.com.

Jennifer Livingston, Kirsten Bain, Tavi Burroughs, Kenia Chavez,
Christina Guarino, Katharine Lazzara, Jessica Maples, Shannon
Markey, Donna Ruch, Jamie Snevely, Lisette Venegas & Mary Youngren,
Plaintiffs, represented by Marni J. Willenson , Willenson Law, LLC,
Caryn Cecelia Lederer -- clederer@hsplegal.com -- Hughes Socol
Piers Resnick & Dym Ltd., Charles David Wysong --
cwysong@hsplegal.com -- Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd.,
Christopher J. Wilmes -- cwilmes@hsplegal.com -- Hughes Socol Piers
Resnick & Dym, Ltd. & Samantha M. Kronk, Willenson Law, LLC.

City Of Chicago, a municipal corporation, Defendant, represented by
Brian Weinthal -- bweinthal@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius &
Hollister LLP, Allan T. Slagel -- aslagel@taftlaw.com -- Taft
Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Daniel W. Myerson, City of Chicago,
Department of Law, Elizabeth Erin Babbitt -- ebabbitt@taftlaw.com
-- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Heather Ann Jackson --
hjackson@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Ioana
Maria Guset -- iguset@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister
LLP, Rachel L. Schaller -- rschaller@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius
& Hollister LLP & Spiridoula Mavrothalasitis, City of Chicago
Department of Law.


CHICAGO, IL: Sued over Automated Traffic Law Enforcement Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRED HAMPTON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF CHICAGO, A Municipal
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH01089 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty., Jan. 25, 2019), arises from the City of Chicago's
unlawful operation of an automated traffic law enforcement (ATL)
program it implemented in 2003. When implementing the ATL program,
as well as an automatic speed enforcement (ASE) program commenced
in 2013, the Chicago City Council enacted certain mandatory
administrative requirements it required the City to observe prior
to entering judgment against, and issuing a determination of
liability to, an alleged offender, and levying a fine and, in some
cases, late payment penalties.

According to the complaint, until May 6, 2015, the Municipal Code
of Chicago ("MCC") required the City to send alleged ATL offenders
a second notice of violation prior to issuing a determination of
liability to, and levying a fine upon, any alleged offender who
failed to request an administrative hearing or contest the
violation in writing within 21 days of receiving a first notice of
violation. Only if an alleged violator failed to request a hearing
or contest the violation within 14 days of receiving that second
notice did the MCC authorize the City to issue a determination of
liability and levy fines and penalties.  From 2003 through May 17,
2015, however, the City consistently and uniformly disregarded the
MCC's mandate and issued determinations of liability to alleged
violators without first providing them the second notice of
violation to which the MCC entitled them.

Indeed, the City admitted in prior litigation that, prior to May
17, 2015, not once did the City issue the second notice the MCC
required prior to issuing determinations of liability and assessing
fines and penalties to alleged A TL offenders. The City's knowing
and deliberate failure to observe the MCC's procedural
requirements, including the second notice mandate, renders null and
void as a matter of law each and every determination of liability
the City issued from the program's inception through May 17, 2015.
Because the administrative judgments the City entered against
Plaintiff and the Class are void, they are subject to attack,
either directly or collaterally, in any court at any time, and each
and every alleged ATL violator who did not contest the violation
(whether in writing or at an administrative hearing) is entitled to
full restitution of any monies paid to the City in satisfaction of
such a void judgment, and/or the forgiveness of any debts
purportedly owed to the City as a result of alleged ATL violations.
The City thus has yet to provide Plaintiff and all others to whom
it issued determinations of liability prior to March 23, 2010, the
relief to which they, too, are entitled.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Dom J. Rizzi, Esq.
          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          John Scheflow, Esq.
          Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENG EL LLP
          150 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          E-mail: drizzi@caffertyclobes.com
                  dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
                  jscheflow@caffertyclobes.com
                  emeriwether@caffertyclobes.com

COLE HAAN CO: Haggar Files Suit under ADA in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Cole Haan Company Store, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Elia Haggar and Kyo Chu, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Cole
Haan Company Store, LLC and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00554-R-AGR (C.D. Cal., January 24, 2019).

Cole-Haan Company Store, LLC operates as an online clothing store.
The Company provides apparel, bags, accessories, and footwear for
men, women, and children. Cole-Haan Company Store serves customers
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
   Wilshire Law Firm
   3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
   Los Angeles, CA 90010
   Tel: (213) 381-9988
   Fax: (213) 381-9989
   Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com

      - and -

   B Bobby Saadian, Esq.
   Wilshire Law Firm
   3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
   Los Angeles, CA 90010
   Tel: (213) 381-9988
   Fax: (213) 381-9989
   Email: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com


CRUEGER DICKINSON: Napoli Shkolnik Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, along with co-counsel, Crueger Dickinson, has
filed a class action lawsuit against Tyco Fire Products L.P.,
Chemguard, Inc. and ChemDesign, Inc. for contaminating the
groundwater around Marinette, WI with the toxic chemicals
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS") and perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") through the manufacturing and testing of aqueous filming
forming foams ("AFFF").  The class action seeks to certify a
medical monitoring class for those who have ingested these
chemicals, as well as a class for property owners whose home values
are diminished due to the water contamination. Tyco has admitted
that 56 private drinking water wells have been contaminated with
PFOA/PFOS, and has installed treatment systems in 37 of those
homes.

The Complaint was filed in Marinette County Circuit Court (Case
2018CV000277) on December 17, 2018. It alleges that for over fifty
(50) years, Tyco's manufacturing and testing of AFFF at its various
properties around Marinette and the Town of Peshtigo, has permitted
PFOA and PFOS to contaminate the groundwater, that has now
travelled underground and polluted dozens of residents' private
water supplies all the way to Green Bay, Lake Michigan.

Paul J. Napoli explained, "since the 1970's, Tyco was aware that
the constituents of its AFFF were toxic, non-biodegradable, and
would travel readily through groundwater. Yet, an important
corporate member of Marinette elected to put profits ahead of the
health and safety of the community. The goal of the lawsuit is to
help compensate the residents for their exposure and polluted water
supply, as well aid in the early detection of certain cancers and
diseases. This would of course, have the added benefit of reduced
health care costs to the City and State."

Studies have shown an association between increased PFOA and PFOS
blood levels and an increased risk for kidney cancer, prostate
cancer and testicular cancer. Other health effects include impacts
to the immune system, high cholesterol, high blood pressure,
preeclampsia, changes in thyroid hormone (hypothyroidism or
hyperthyroidism), and ulcerative colitis.

Partner Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq. will lead his team of experienced
environmental lawyers dedicated to the residents of Marinette,
including associates Tate J. Kunkle, Esq., Patrick J. Lanciotti,
Esq.  and Of Counsel, Paul J. Napoli,Esq,. [GN]


CUSTOM BUILDING: Faces Will Hardy's Labor Suit in N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Custom Building Products, Inc. The case is captioned as WILL HARDY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CUSTOM BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00310-SCJ (N.D. Ga., Jan. 16, 2019). The case is assigned
to Judge Steve C. Jones.

Custom Building Products, Inc. manufactures and markets flooring
preparation products, tile, and stone installation systems for
residential and commercial projects. Custom Building Products, Inc.
was founded in 1964 and is based in Huntington Beach, California.
The company has manufacturing facilities in Bakersfield, Stockton,
and Bell, California; Lithia Springs, Georgia; Grand Prairie,
Texas; Logan Township, New Jersey; Miami, Florida; Frankfort,
Indiana; North Las Vegas, Nevada; and Surrey and Brampton, Canada.
As per the transaction announced on August 26, 2013, Custom
Building Products, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Quikrete
Holdings, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          The Leach Firm, P.A.
          1950 Lee Road, Suite 213
          Winter Park, FL 32789
          Telephone: (321) 287-6021
          Facsimile: (407) 960-4789
          E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com


DC TRANSPORT: Court Sets Settlement Approval Filing Date
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order setting Settlement Approval Filing Date
in the case captioned VALERIY BYKOV, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DC TRANSPORT, INC., a
California Transport Company; DC TRANSPORT, INC., a Texas
Corporation; DC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. dba DC TRANSPORT
state of corporation unknown; and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive,
Defendants. No. 2:18-cv-01691 DB. (E.D. Cal.).

The Parties participated in mediation and reached a settlement of
the matter on a classwide basis.  

The Court issued its Minute Order ordering Counsel to file
settlement/dismissal documents no later than 30 days from the date
of the Minute Order.

The Parties are still in the process of finalizing the terms of the
long-form settlement agreement, and anticipate finalizing the
long-form settlement agreement and fully executing it within the
next 10 days.

The Parties jointly request that the Court allow the Parties until
February 11, 2018 to file the Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement.

The plaintiff shall file a motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement on or before Dated: February 11, 2019.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 14, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y75jhyc4 from Leagle.com.

Valeriy Bykov, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Justin Ackermann --
cja@ackermanntilajef.com -- Ackermann & Tilajef, PC & Jonathan
Melmed, Melmed Law Group P.C.

DC Transportation Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brandon
Reed McKelvey -- brandon@medinamckelvey.com -- Medina McKelvey LLP
& Timothy B. Nelson, Medina McKelvey LLP.


DITMARS CREATE: Felix et al. Seek Minimum & Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
EVARISTO GALINDO FELIX and LUIS FERNANDO GALINDO QUIROZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. DITMARS CREATE LLC (D/B/A CREATE), MARIO GONZALEZ,
NICO DOE, and THEODORE KARAGIANNIS, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00513 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 1, 2019), seeks payment of unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938, and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Defendants own, operate, or control a
restaurant, located at 2921 Ditmars Blvd., Astoria, NY 11105-2718
under the name "Create". The Plaintiffs are former employees of
Defendants working as a dishwasher and a delivery worker at the
restaurant. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40
hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and
spread of hour's compensation for the hours that they worked.
Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium.

Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over
hours a day. Furthermore, the Defendants repeatedly failed to pay
Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis. The Defendants employed and
accounted for Plaintiff Galindo as a delivery worker in their
payroll, but in actuality his duties required a significant amount
of time spent performing the alleged non-tipped duties. However,
under both the FLSA and NYLL, Defendants were not entitled to take
a tip credit because Plaintiff Galindo's non-tipped duties exceeded
20% of each workday, or 2 hours per day, whichever is less in each
day. 12 N.Y. C.R.R. section 146.

The Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising
Plaintiff Galindo's actual duties in payroll records by designating
him as a delivery worker instead of a non-tipped employee. This
allowed Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiff at the minimum wage
rate and enabled them to pay him above the tip-credit rate but
below the minimum wage rate, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-162
          E-mail: Faillace@employementcompliance.com

DWDIRECT INC: Amaya Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS AMAYA, ET AL. v. DwDIRECT INC., and DANIEL W. WILSON,
INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 3:19-cv-00026 (S.D. Tex., January 21, 2019),
seeks to recover alleged unpaid compensation, including overtime
wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees owed to the
Plaintiffs and to other similarly situated employees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

DwDirect Inc. is a Texas corporation with its principal place of
business located in Manvel, Brazoria County, Texas.

The Company installs and services DirecTV satellite systems and
related equipment, including upgrades to existing equipment.
Daniel W. Wilson is the Company's sole officer and/or
director.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Siurek, Esq.
          Patricia Haylon, Esq.
          WARREN & SIUREK, L.L.P.
          3334 Richmond Ave., Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 522-0066
          Facsimile: (713) 522-9977
          E-mail: msiurek@warrensiurek.com
                  thaylon@warrensiurek.com


EDGEWATER INN: Borozny Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Edgewater Inn is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Austin
Borozny, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Edgewater Inn, a Florida corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00112-BJD-PDB (M.D. Fla., January 24,
2019).

The Edgewater Inn is a quaint Florida hotel that offers a
waterfront oasis just steps away from the downtown historic
district of St. Augustine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
   The Advocacy Group, LLC
   200 SE 6th St Ste 504
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3424
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: jkerr@advocacypa.com


ELITE COASTAL: Sued over Unwanted Pre-recorded Voice Message Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
RICK GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ELITE COASTAL PROPERTIES, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-20355-KMM (S.D. Fla., Jan. 25, 2019), challenges
Defendant's practice of making unauthorized pre-recorded voice
message calls to consumers promoting its realty services. Elite
Coastal's unsolicited pre-recorded voice message calls allegedly
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and caused
Plaintiff and putative members of the Class to suffer actual harm,
including the aggravation, nuisance, loss of time, and invasions of
privacy that result from the receipt of such calls, lost value of
cellular services paid for, and a loss of the use and enjoyment of
their phones, including wear and tear to their phones’ data,
memory, software, hardware, and battery components, among other
harms.

Elite Coastal Properties is a Broward County real estate brokerage.
To increase its sales, and as part of a general cold call based
marketing scheme, Elite Coastal markets realty services using
pre-recorded voice message calls to consumers, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Counsel for Rick Garcia and all others similarly situated:

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

ENERGY FIRST: Fails to Pay Proper Wages Under FLSA, Armstrong Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK ARMSTRONG, and ERNEST SANCHEZ v. ENERGY FIRST ENGINEERING &
CONSULTING, LLC, and SANCHEZ OIL & GAS CORPORATION, Case No.
5:19-cv-00056 (W.D. Tex., January 21, 2019), is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated accusing the
Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to
pay them for each hour worked at the proper hourly rate and for
overtime hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week at a rate of
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay.

Energy First Engineering & Consulting, LLC, is a domestic limited
liability company doing business in the state of Texas and
maintains its principal office in San Antonio, Texas.

Energy First is an oil and gas staffing company that provides
personnel categorized as supervisors, consultants, or helpers to
Sanchez O&G to assist at the well site with its oil and gas
exploration and recovery.

Sanchez Oil & Gas Corporation is a foreign corporation doing
business in the state of Texas and maintains its principal office
in Houston, Texas.  Sanchez O&G is engaged in the business of oil
and gas exploration and recovery.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David G. Langenfeld, Esq.
          LEICHTER LAW FIRM, PC
          1602 East 7th Street
          Austin, TX 78702
          Telephone: (512) 495-9995
          Facsimile: (512) 482-0164
          E-mail: david@leichterlaw.com


ENVER SOLAR: Collins Sues over Unwanted Cellular Telephone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
HAROLD L. COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ENVER SOLAR INC., SMART
SOLAR MARKETING, MARC GUYOU, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and
each of them, the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00146 (C.D. Cal.,
Jan. 25, 2019), seeks damages and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendants
in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on
his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Additionally, the Defendants knowingly, and/or willfully employing
and/or causing to be employed certain recording equipment in order
to record telephone conversation/s with Plaintiff without the
knowledge or consent of the Plaintiff, in violation of California
Penal Code sections 630 et seq., thereby invading Plaintiff's
privacy.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around March 2, 2018,
the Defendants contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular
telephone numbers ending in -1560, in an attempt to solicit
Plaintiff to purchase Defendants' services. The Defendants called
Plaintiff multiple times in a row. The Plaintiff picked up one of
the calls and explicitly told Defendants not to call him. Despite
this, the Defendants proceeded to call him five additional times.
The pattern of dialing Plaintiff experienced is indicative of an
automatic telephone dialing system. Additionally, when Plaintiff
picked up the original call, there was an audible delay and click
before Defendants' agent came on the line. Defendants used an
"automatic telephone dialing system", to place its call to
Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

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

EQUIFAX INC: Made Me Look Like Deadbeat Debtor, Woman Says in Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmie E. Gates, writing for Mississippi Clarion Ledger, reports
that Equifax, in duplicating two delinquent bills on a credit
report, is making a Byram woman look like a deadbeat debtor, a
lawsuit filed Jan. 3 against the credit reporting giant says.

Attorney Curtis Hussey, Esq. of Fairhope, Alabama, filed the
lawsuit in federal court in Jackson on behalf of Cynthia Walker of
Byram. The suit asks U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves to declare
that Equifax Information Service's actions violate the Federal
Credit Reporting Act.

Walker's suit says Equifax has four negative trade lines on her
report for the same two delinquent payments and that the company
"failed to conduct a reasonable investigation into plaintiff's
dispute and failed to maintain reasonable procedures to prevent
duplicate accounts from repeatedly hurting the credit scores of
consumers."

It's the second lawsuit filed against Equifax by a Mississippi
resident in two months. In November, Martha Wilborn of Lucedale in
a lawsuit blamed Equifax for an error in her credit report that she
said led to loan rejections to purchase a house and a car. Equifax,
the suit said, failed to correct the mistake for several years.

In 2012, Wilborn said she was awarded a judgment of $800 in George
County Justice Court against a defendant. Equifax, however,
continued to misreport that a judgment was made against her,
Wilborn said in the lawsuit.

Equifax has filed a motion seeking dismissal of the lawsuit,
arguing it was filed past the statute of limitations and that the
company isn't a consumer reporting agency as defined by the Federal
Credit Reporting Act, and thus is not subject to liability.

In Walker's lawsuit, she said in June she sent a dispute letter to
Equifax stating that both accounts were being reported with
duplicate active balances on the same debt.

After receiving her dispute letter, Equifax said it transmitted the
dispute to the debtors and subsequently verified the information as
accurate and continued reporting the duplicate accounts.

"This is hurting plaintiff's credit score and credit worthiness two
times as much as it should," the lawsuit said. "Plaintiff's credit
report looks as though plaintiff is delinquent on four separate
debts, making her look like a deadbeat debtor for failing to pay
two bills. This inaccuracy severely impacts plaintiff's
debt-to-income ratio and misleads potential creditors."

Hussey is also seeking class action status, arguing Equifax has
been reporting duplicate trade lines for the same debts on
hundreds, if not thousands, of credit reports for consumers in
Mississippi, each of which violates the FCRA. Whether such status
is granted will be determined by Reeves.

The lawsuit also seeks:

   -- An order for injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in
the future.

   -- To appoint Walker as representative for others in the class
action lawsuit, and appoint Hussey as lead attorney.

   -- To enter judgment against the Equifax for statutory, actual
and punitive damages.

To award costs and reasonable attorneys' fees; and, grant such
other and further relief that may be just and proper.

In 2017, Equifax announced a national security breach possibly
affecting up to 143 million people, including 1.29 million in
Mississippi.

Equifax offered free credit monitoring to those possibly impacted
by the breach.[GN]


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Fasman Sues over Background Checks
-------------------------------------------------------
YULIYA FASMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC; DISCOVER
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. A/K/A DISCOVER BANK; and JOHN DOES 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00333-JS-AYS (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2019)
alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Equifax Information Services LLC collects and reports consumer
information to financial institutions. The company was formerly
known as Equifax Credit Information Services Inc. and changed its
name to Equifax Information Services LLC in June 2004. The company
was incorporated in 1937 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Equifax
Information Services LLC operates as a subsidiary of Equifax Inc.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Uri Horowitz, Esq.
          HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
          14441 70th Road
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Telephone: (718) 705-8706
          Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
          E-mail: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com


EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG: Polzin Files Suit Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EquityExperts.Org
Midwest LLC. The case is styled as Susanne Polzin, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
EquityExperts.Org Midwest LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-00175
(D. Minn., January 24, 2019).

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

Equity Experts is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Thomas J Lyons , Jr, Esq.
   Consumer Justice Center P.A.
   367 Commerce Court
   Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
   Tel: (651) 770-9707
   Fax: (651) 704-0907
   Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com

      - and -

   Mark L Vavreck, Esq.
   Gonko & Vavreck, PLLC
   401 N. Third Street, Suite 600
   Minneapolis, MN 55401
   Tel: (612) 659-9500
   Email: mvavreck@cgmvlaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Court Allows CIR to Intervene in Refund Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting Center for
Investigative Reporting (CIR)'s Motion to Intervene in the case
captioned GLYNNIS BOHANNON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FACEBOOK, INC.,
Defendant. Case No. 12-cv-01894-BLF. (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff I.B., a minor, asked his mother Glynnis Bohannon for
permission to spend $20 on his Facebook account to purchase
Facebook Credits to use in a game called Ninja Saga.  I.B. gave his
mother $20, and used her Wells Fargo MasterCard to purchase
Facebook Credits.  I.B. claims he was unaware that Facebook would
store this credit card information, and thereafter continued to
make in-game purchases in Ninja Saga.  I.B. believed these
purchases were being made with virtual currency, and that his
mother's credit card was not being charged for these purchases.
Glynnis Bohannon's card was ultimately charged several hundred
dollars.
Ms. Bohannon sought a refund from Facebook, but was not provided
one until after this action was filed.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(1) allows intervention in an
action when an applicant has a claim or defense that shares with
the main action a common question of law or fact. The Ninth Circuit
has interpreted this rule to encompass a range of scenarios outside
the context of litigating a claim on the merits.  One such scenario
is when a non-party news organization seeks to intervene in a civil
case to move to unseal judicial records.

CIR seeks to intervene to move to unseal previously sealed
documents in this case. Facebook does not oppose this request. CIR
is the oldest investigative newsroom in America and has won
numerous journalism awards. CIR seeks to vindicate the rights of
its readers and listeners to have access to documents concerning
Facebook's data and customer practices over time, particularly
those affecting minors. CIR intends to produce a documentary and
radio special on the general subject of this litigation. As the
Ninth Circuit has recognized, non-party news organizations, like
CIR, have the right to intervene to seek to unseal documents.  

The Court grants CIR's request to intervene.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 14, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yaqrewpr from Leagle.com.

Glynnis Bohannon, individually and on behalf of her minor Child
I.B. and on behalf of all others similarly situated, J. W., by and
through his guardian ad litem Steven Wright & Julie Wright,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by John R. Parker, Jr., Cutter Law P.C.,
Curtis Brooks Cutter, Cutter Law, P.C., & Daniel B. Edelman --
edelman@kmblegal.com -- Katz, Marshall and Banks LLP, pro hac
vice.

I. B., by and through his guardian ad litem Glynnis Bohannon,
Plaintiff, represented by John R. Parker, Jr., Cutter Law P.C.,
Benjamin Gordon Edelman, Attorney of the Law, pro hac vice, Curtis
Brooks Cutter, Cutter Law, P.C. & Daniel B. Edelman, Katz, Marshall
and Banks LLP, pro hac vice.

Facebook, Inc., Defendant, represented by Whitty Somvichian --
wsomvichian@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Benjamin Hansel Kleine --
bkleine@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Kristine Anne Forderer --
kforderer@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Michael G. Rhodes --
rhodesmg@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.

The Center for Investigative Reporting, Intervenor, represented by
Diana Victoria Baranetsky -- vbaranetsky@revealnews.org -- The
Center for Investigative Reporting.


FCH ENTERPRISES: Inks Settlement of Bokelman Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CPT Group, Inc. disclosed that a proposed settlement has been
reached and preliminarily approved in the class action lawsuit
Bokelman, et al., v. FCH Enterprises, Inc., No. 18-00209-RJB-RLP
(the "Action"), brought on behalf of the Settlement Class, and
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Hawaii.  The Complaint asserts claims against FCH for negligence,
unjust enrichment, and violations of the Hawaii Data Breach
Notification Act and Hawaii Unfair Competition Law, arising from a
security incident that affected FCH's credit and debit card
processing systems between November 23, 2017 and March 29, 2018
(the "Security Incident") and FCH's response to the Security
Incident.

The Settlement Class includes all residents of the United States
who used a credit or debit card to make a purchase at certain FCH
Restaurants in Hawaii between November 23, 2017 and March 29, 2018
(the "Settlement Class Member(s)").  The FCH restaurants included
in the settlement are any branch of Zippy's Restaurants, Napoleon's
Bakery, Kahala Sushi, Pearl City Sushi or Pomaika'i Ballrooms.  The
Security Incident and settlement do not involve the use of a credit
or debit card at the FCH restaurants A Catered Experience or Food
Solutions International.

Defendants have agreed to pay $725,000.00 into a "Settlement Fund"
as part of the settlement.  The Settlement Fund will be the sole
and exclusive source of payment for all Awards and payments to
Settlement Class Members, Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Award and
Representative Plaintiffs' Awards.

You must be a Settlement Class Member and file a valid claim form
to receive a payment.  You can obtain and complete the claim form
by visiting the website www.zippyssettlement.com, or can request a
paper claim form by calling 1-888-906-2033.  The deadline to submit
a claim is June 2, 2019.

You may also request exclusion from the settlement if you do not
wish to be legally bound by it, or you may raise objections to the
settlement if you are a Settlement Class Member and do not request
exclusion. Requests to be excluded from the settlement and
objections to the settlement are due by April 3, 2019. [GN]


FIRST AMERICAN: Court Stay Matis FDCPA Action for 60 Days
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Orlando Division, issued an Order granting Parties' Joint
Stipulation Regarding First American Title Insurance Company's
Motion to Stay in the case captioned  MICHAEL A. MATIS and FRANCES
S. MATIS, Plaintiffs, v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant. Case No. 6:18-cv-1993-Orl-40TBS. (M.D. Fla.).

David E. Bartine and Judith S. Bartine filed a putative class
action against Diamond Resorts Management, Inc. and First American
Title Insurance Company, Case No. 6:18-cv-1364-Orl-40TBS (M.D.
Fla.). The Bartines allege that Defendants violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and Florida Consumer Collections Practices
Act by sending them statutorily-authorized notices as part of
Florida's trustee foreclosure process for timeshare interests. The
Bartines' attorney subsequently filed three additional cases on
behalf of other plaintiffs, all of which make identical allegations
against First American: this case, Case No. 6:18-cv-1850-Orl-40TBS
(M.D. Fla.), and Case No. 6:18-cv-2002-Orl-40TBS (M.D. Fla.)
(Subsequent Cases).

All four cases rest on identical legal theories and closely
analogous factual allegations. There are motions to dismiss pending
in all the cases and motions to stay pending in the Subsequent
Cases.   

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

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 14, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8o2t4xu from Leagle.com.

Michael A. Matis & Frances S. Matis, Plaintiffs, represented by
Brian P. Parker -- brianparker@collectionstopper.com -- DC Capital
Law, LLP.

First American Title Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Louis M. Ursini, III, Adams & Reese, LLP & Rebecca Marie Harris,
Adams & Reese, LLP.


FIRST AMERICAN: Court Stays Huntsman FDCPA Action for 60 Days
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Orlando Division, issued an Order granting Parties' Joint
Stipulation Regarding First American Title Insurance Company's
Motion to Stay in the case captioned MAVA HUNTSMAN, Plaintiff, v.
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Case No.
6:18-cv-1850-Orl-40TBS. (M.D. Fla.).

David E. Bartine and Judith S. Bartine filed a putative class
action against Diamond Resorts Management, Inc. and First American
Title Insurance Company, Case No. 6:18-cv-1364-Orl-40TBS (M.D.
Fla.). The Bartines allege that Defendants violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and Florida Consumer Collections Practices
Act by sending them statutorily-authorized notices as part of
Florida's trustee foreclosure process for timeshare interests. The
Bartines' attorney subsequently filed three additional cases on
behalf of other plaintiffs, all of which make identical allegations
against First American: this case, Case No. 6:18-cv-1993-Orl-40TBS
(M.D. Fla.), and Case No. 6:18-cv-2002-Orl-40TBS (M.D. Fla.)
(Subsequent Case").

All four cases rest on identical legal theories and closely
analogous factual allegations. There are motions to dismiss pending
in all the cases and motions to stay pending in the Subsequent
Cases.  

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

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 14, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycdkpk34 from Leagle.com.

Mava Hutsman, Plaintiff, represented by Brian P. Parker --
brianparker@collectionstopper.com -- DC Capital Law, LLP.

First American Title Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Louis M. Ursini, III, Adams & Reese, LLP & Rebecca Marie Harris,
Adams & Reese, LLP.


FITBIT INC: Court Denies Interlocutory Appeal in Derivative Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of Delaware issued an Order denying
Defendants' Application for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal
in the case captioned  IN RE FITBIT, INC. STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE
LITIGATION. Consolidated C.A. No. 2017-0402-JRS. (Del. Ch.)

Nominal defendant, Fitbit, filed an application for certification
of an interlocutory appeal of the Opinion.

The Plaintiffs filed a derivative complaint on behalf of Fitbit,
Inc. alleging that certain members of the Fitbit board of directors
and certain other Fitbit fiduciaries sold stock in Fitbit's initial
and follow-on public offerings before negative news regarding the
efficacy of one of Fitbit's key products was disclosed to the
market, and that other directors allowed them to do so.

The Court issued a Memorandum Opinion in which it denied
Defendants' motion to dismiss upon concluding that Plaintiffs
alleged sufficient facts to plead with particularity that demand
was excused under Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 with respect to
Plaintiffs' insider trading and breach of fiduciary duty claims.

The motion asserts three grounds for interlocutory appeal under
Supreme Court Rule 42: (1) the opinion conflicts with the decisions
of the trial courts upon a question of law (2) the case involves a
question of law resolved for the first time in this state (3)
review of the interlocutory order may terminate the litigation.

Supreme Court Rule 42(b)(i) provides that no interlocutory appeal
will be certified by the trial court or accepted by the Court
unless the order of the trial court decides a substantial issue of
material importance that merits appellate review before a final
judgment.

When certifying an interlocutory appeal, the trial court should
identify whether and why the likely benefits of interlocutory
review outweigh the probable costs, such that interlocutory review
is in the interests of justice. If the balance is uncertain, the
trial court should refuse to certify the interlocutory appeal.

The Application's arguments to the contrary are rejected for the
following reasons.

First, the Opinion does not decide an issue that relates to the
merits of the case. Indeed, the Court went out of my way to make
clear that Court was not making a final determination on the merits
in denying Defendants' motion to dismiss. Rather, given the serious
nature of these claims, the Court emphasized that the Court had
determined only that Plaintiffs have alleged facts that are
adequate to survive dismissal given the liberal pleading stage
inferences to which they are entitled.   

In making this determination, the Court acknowledge that an
implicit risk of refusing to certify an appeal following the denial
of a Rule 23.1 motion to dismiss is that the Supreme Court may
determine, well after the parties have engaged in expensive
litigation efforts, that Plaintiffs should not have been granted
standing to pursue their claims derivatively on behalf of the
Company in the first place. Defendants focus on this risk in
arguing that the denial of their motion to dismiss determines a
substantial issue of material importance.

Second, the Opinion does not conflict with existing trial court
decisions. The Application asserts that the Court erroneously
inferred scienter on the part of outside directors Jonathan
Callaghan, Steven Murray, and Christopher Paisley based solely upon
the so-called core operations doctrine, which some courts have held
does not apply in the context of Rule 23.1's heightened pleading
standard. As emphasized in the Opinion, however, Plaintiffs
well-pled that the products featuring the PurePuls technology
accounted for 80% of Fitbit's revenue. In other words, Plaintiffs
alleged that the success or failure of PurePulse could make or
break the Company. These well-pled facts supported a more than
reasonable inference that the Fitbit board of directors would have
known when serious problems with the PurePuls technology, as
alleged, began to emerge.

The Court found the Plaintiffs' allegations regarding the timing
and selective waiver of the lock-ups and the Board's decision to
lower Fitbit's allocation in the Offerings thereby ensuring that
the overallotment was triggered and causing more of the Selling
Defendants' shares to be sold in the Offerings, were also
supportive of a reasonable inference of scienter. Given my reliance
on additional, particularly alleged facts, a pleading stage
inference of scienter, even if that inference relied in part on the
core operations doctrine, was appropriate.

Third, the Opinion did not address a novel question of law. As
required on a motion to dismiss, the Court accepted Plaintiffs'
well-pled facts as true and drew reasonable inferences in
Plaintiffs' favor. Since the pled facts are that two outside
directors profited from the stock sales they executed through their
associated investment funds over which they exercised control, an
inference that the directors could be liable on a Brophy claim is
reasonable. If discovery reveals that the circumstances of these
directors' relationships with their funds are more nuanced or
different than those pled in the complaint, then Defendants will
have their opportunity to present those facts to the Court on
summary judgment and, if undisputed, Plaintiffs' Brophyclaims
against these directors may not pass through the summary judgment
filter.  

Accordingly, the Defendants' application for certification of
interlocutory appeal, therefore, must be refused.

A full-text copy of the Chancery Court's January 14, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8472fch from Leagle.com.


FORAGER PROJECT: Juice Contains Toxic Substance, Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MADELEINE WACHS, and GABRIELA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FORAGER PROJECT, LLC;
WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC.; MRS. GOOCH'S NATURAL FOOD
MARKETS, INC.; WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV00085 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Jan. 16, 2019) alleges that the Defendants knowingly
and actively concealed the material fact that the Forager juice
contains a dangerous toxic chemical that poses serious health risks
to the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated consumers.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants have engaged in
advertising and marketing campaigns that fail to provide warnings
or even disclose that the Forager juice contains a hidden,
undisclosed danger, the presence of lead in unacceptably high
levels.

Forager Project, LLC produces and sells organic foods. The company
offers a line of organic green juices; non-dairy, non-juice
beverage lines; root vegetable blends; avocado line creamy drinks;
probiotic cashew smoothies; and nut milks, as well as organic
vegetable chips. It offers its products through partners, as well
as its online store. The company was incorporated in 2014 and is
based in Indio, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andre E. Jardini, Esq.
          K.L. Myles, Esq.
          Michael D. Carr, Esq.
          KNAPP PETERSEN & CLARKE
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203-1922
          Telephone: (818) 547-5000
          Facsimile: (818) 547-5329
          E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com
                  klm@kpclegal.com
                  mdc@kpclegal.com


FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces Chiofalo Suit Under FDCPA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP. The case is styled as Joseph A Chiofalo, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster & Garbus,
LLP, Ronald Forster and Mark A. Garbus, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00487 (E.D. N.Y., January 24, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



FORTRESS SYSTEMS: Court Denies Bid for Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina, Charlotte Division, issued an Order denying Plaintiff's
Motion for Conditional Certification and Judicial Notice in the
case captioned CATHERINE E. SHARKEY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FORTRESS SYSTEMS
INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/b/a FORTRESS MOBILE, and ZHONG SU
individually also known as Jack Su, Defendants. Docket No.
3:18-cv-00019-FDW-DCK. (W.D.N.C.).

Plaintiff Catherine E. Sharkey seeks conditional certification and
authorization to send Court-supervised notice under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff alleges Defendants Fortress
Systems International, Inc., d/b/a Fortress Mobile and Zhong Su
(Fortress Mobile) violated the FLSA by misclassifying Sharkey and
other current and former contractors (Class Members) as independent
contractors, depriving them of regular pay and overtime premium pay
to which they are entitled under the FLSA.  

The applicable law is well-settled, and for purposes of brevity,
best summarized as follows:

The Supreme Court has held that, in order to expedite the manner in
which collective actions under the FLSA are assembled, district
courts have discretion in appropriate cases to implement Section
216(b), by facilitating notice to potential plaintiffs.

Bearing these principles in mind, the Court finds that conditional
certification, even under a lenient standard, is inappropriate on
this record. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate she is similarly
situated sufficient to warrant conditional certification or a
court-approved notice.

Even if she could, the Court sees no benefit here for conditional
certification at this stage, especially in light of the need for an
individual determination of each potential class member's job
responsibilities and duties, as well as the small number of
potential class members.  

The Court notes the denial of conditional certification does not
mean this action cannot proceed as an FLSA collective action.
Conditional certification only refers to the district court's
exercise of its discretionary power to facility the sending of
notice to potential class members.  

Additional plaintiffs may join the action even if conditional
certification never occurs. Thus, although Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification is denied, the Court, sua sponte, will
extend the time for amendment of the Complaint to March 1, 2019, to
allow a reasonable time for other plaintiffs to join in this
action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 14, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y94n3f38 from Leagle.com.

Catherine E. Sharkey, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by L. Michelle Gessner,
The Law Offices of Michelle Gessner, PLLC.

Fortress Systems International, Inc., doing business as Fortress
Mobile & Zhong Su, individually, Defendants, represented by
Frederick M. Thurman, Jr., Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick.


FREDDIE MAC: Medina Suit Removed to Maryland Dist. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jose Medina and Erika Ventura, on behalf of
themselves and all individuals similarly situated, v. Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 457964-V was removed
from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, to the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland on January 24, 2019,
and assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00225-TDC.

The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) is a
private, government-sponsored enterprise created by congress to
provide lenders with capital to fund future mortgage loans by
purchasing lenders' mortgage loans.

In creating Freddie Mac, Congress also provided for the removal of
lawsuits to which Freddie Mac is party. Freddie Mac thus may
"remove at any time before trial" "any civil or other action, case
or controversy in a court of a State to which Freddie Mac is a
party."[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

     Danielle Y. Conley, Esq.
     Kelly P. Dunbar, Esq.
     Samuel M. Strongin, Esq.
     WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
     1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
     Washington, DC 20006
     Phone: (202) 663-6000
     Fax: (202) 663-6363
     Email: danielle.conley@wilmerhale.com
            kelly.dunbar@wilmerhale.com
            samuel.strongin@wilmerhale.com


GKT FOX CREEK: Nekouee Says Establishments not Wheelchair-friendly
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Nekouee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GKT Fox Creek Village, LLC, Dillon
Companies, LLC and Walgreen Co., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00115,
(D. Colo., December 11, 2019), seeks injunctive relief, attorney's
fees, litigation expenses and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Defendant owns and/or operates retail facilities in Longmont,
Colorado. Nekouee has progressive multiple sclerosis and requires
the use of a wheelchair for mobility. He alleges that these
establishments lack disabled accessible features that would permit
him access. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Vincze, Esq.
      Law Offices of Robert J. Vincze
      PO Box 792
      Andover, KS 67002
      Phone: (303) 204-8207
      Email: vinczelaw@att.net


GREENSKY INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Greensky, Inc. ("Greensky" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GSKY)
and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in United
States District Court, Southern District of New York, and indexed
under 19-cv-00100, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates,
who purchased or otherwise, acquired GreenSky Class A common stock
pursuant or traceable to the Company's false and misleading
registration statement and prospectus, who were damaged thereby,
and who seek to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933
("Securities Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Greensky Class A common
stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's registration statement
and prospectus, you have until January 28, 2019, to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

GreenSky is a financial technology company in Atlanta, Georgia, and
runs an online platform that allows creditors to process loan
applications at the point of sale.  GreenSky's platform is actively
used by over 10,000 businesses. Consumers use GreenSky's mobile app
to make purchases from those listed business by applying for
on-the-spot financing via the app.

GreenSky's two principal sources of revenue are: (i) "transaction
fees" the Company receives upfront when a consumer secures a loan
through the GreenSky platform and makes a purchase; and (ii)
recurring fees generated from banks over the lives of loans it
facilitates. Transaction fees are critical to GreenSky's business.
For example, transaction fees accounted for 87% of the Company's
revenue in 2017. These transaction fees vary per the particular
agreement between GreenSky and a merchant.

On April 27, 2018, GreenSky filed a registration statement. Then,
on May 25, 2018, GreenSky filed a prospectus for its upcoming
initial public offering ("IPO"). GreenSky's registration statement
and prospectus are referred to herein as the "Offering Documents."

On May 29, 2018, GreenSky's IPO closed and the Company sold 43.7
million shares of Class A common stock at $23.00 per share in its
IPO, for gross proceeds of over $1 billion.

The complaint alleges that The Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading, and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation as the
Offering Documents failed to disclose: (i) that GreenSky was
transitioning away from the solar power market in favor of the
elective healthcare market; (ii) foreseeable negative effects on
GreenSky's profits because of significant differences in
transaction fees GreenSky charged to different classes of
merchants; (iii) the primacy of the merchant mix as a driver of
GreenSky's transaction-fee revenue; (iv) the ongoing deterioration
in GreenSky's transaction-fee revenue, while touting GreenSky's
growth and financial performance; (v) the negative impacts of
GreenSky's changing merchant mix on EBITDA; (vi) the markedly lower
transaction fees GreenSky charges to healthcare companies; and
(vii) as a result of the foregoing, GreenSky's Offering Documents
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 7, 2018, GreenSky issued a release announcing its
financial results for the second quarter of 2018. The release
indicated that the Company's transaction-fee rate was approximately
53 basis points below the rate achieved in the second quarter of
2017.  In an earnings call, Defendant Zalik acknowledged that this
rapid reduction was attributable to the transition away from solar
panel merchants and toward elective healthcare companies.

On November 6, 2018, GreenSky lowered its full-year 2018
transaction volume guidance from between $5.1 and $5.3 billion to
between $4.9 and $5.1 billion and lowered its full-year 2018
Adjusted EBITDA guidance from between $192 and $199 million to
between $165 and $175 million.  GreenSky attributed the reduction
to a general labor shortage and unfavorable shifts in its loan mix.


Following these disclosures, GreenSky's stock price closed at $9.28
per share, a decline of $13.72, or approximately 60%, from the IPO
price of $23.00 per share.

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Website: www.pomerantzlaw.com
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


GREYHOUND LINES: Cordova Suit Moved to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A case, ROCIO CORDOVA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GREYHOUND LINES, INC., and
DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. RG18928028, was removed from
the Alameda County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the California Northern District (San Francisco) on Jan. 25, 2019.
The California Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00442-LB to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler.

According to the complaint, on November 8, 2018, the Plaintiff
filed an action against Greyhound alleging violations of the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition
Law, and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiff alleges that
Greyhound has a policy of cooperating with the U.S. Custom and
Border Protection when CBP agents demand to board buses to carry
out immigration inspections. According to Plaintiff, allowing CBP
agents on board constitutes invidious discrimination, which
violates the Unruh Civil Rights Act and runs counter to a
disclosure on Greyhound's website that Greyhound would not
discriminate against its customers.

The Plaintiff alleges that she would have paid less for her
Greyhound ticket or would not have purchased it if she knew of
Greyhound's policy. Further, her claims under the Unruh Act and
Contract Labor Regulation Act would entitle the class to a
substantial award of statutory damages, easily surpassing the
$5,000,000 amount in controversy under Class Action Fairness Act.

Greyhound provides intercity transportation services throughout
North America. Plaintiff's sister purchased Plaintiff a Greyhound
bus ticket for a trip between San Diego and Phoenix in November
2017. At some point along the way, agents from CBP boarded the bus
and carried out an immigration inspection.[BN]

Attorneys for Rocio Cordova:

          Darren Jay Robbins, Esq.
          Aelish Marie Baig, Esq.
          Juan Carlos Sanchez, Esq.
          Rachel Lynn Jensen, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: e_file_sd@rgrdlaw.com
                  AelishB@rgrdlaw.com
                  jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com
                  rachelj@rgrdlaw.com

Attorneys for Greyhound Lines, Inc.:

          Jesse Luke Miller, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          101 Second Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
          Telephone: (415) 543-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 391-8269
          E-mail: jessemiller@reedsmith.com

H&M: Sued Over Violation of Illinois Privacy Law
------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Cook County woman has filed a class action against her former
employer, alleging her privacy was violated when the company
scanned her fingerprint, and those of other employees, for use with
a biometric punch clock.

Kenyetta Slater filed a complaint on Dec. 27 in Cook County Circuit
Court against retailer H&M over alleged violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, Slater was employed by the defendants
from 2012 to 2017 as a business account representative. She alleges
she and other employees were required to use a biometric time clock
system to record their time worked by scanning their fingerprints.

She alleges her biometric information was collected, stored or used
without following the requirements of the BIPA law. She alleges she
was never provided written information about the collection,
retention or use of her fingerprints and the defendant never
obtained her written consent.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment for
liquidated monetary damages, attorney fees, costs and further
relief. She is represented by Douglas M. Werman, Esq. --
dwerman@flsalaw.com -- of Werman Salas PC in Chicago.

Cook County Circuit Court case number 18-CH-16030.[GN]


HELLY HANSEN: Faces Slade ADA Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Helly Hansen (U.S.) Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Helly Hansen (U.S.)
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00709 (S.D. N.Y., January 24,
2019).

Helly Hansen (US) Inc. offers protective and technical sportswear
for men, women, and kids. The company was founded in 1979 and is
based in Sumner, Washington. Helly Hansen (US) Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Helly Hansen Holding AS.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




HIGHLAND HOSPITAL: Violated Labor & Human Rights Laws, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristine Gonzales-Abella, writing for West Virginia Record, reports
that a former employee has filed a class-action lawsuit against
Highland Hospital, citing alleged failure to timely pay wages,
retaliation and wrongful termination.

Brian Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a complaint in Kanawha Circuit Court against
Highland Hospital Foundation Inc. d/b/a Meridian Behavioral Health
Systems, alleging that it violated the West Virginia Wage Payment
and Collection Act and the West Virginia Human Rights Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he suffered
lost wages and benefits, emotional distress, indignity and
embarrassment. He holds Highland Hospital Foundation Inc. d/b/a
Meridian Behavioral Health Systems responsible because it allegedly
required him to do clean-up work and other tasks after being forced
to clock out, terminated his employment for complaining and failed
to pay wages in full by the next scheduled payday or within four
days from his discharge date.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks back pay and front
pay, punitive damages, attorney's fees, costs, interest and such
other legal and equitable relief. He is represented by D. Adrian
Hoosier II, Esq. of Hoosier Law Firm PLLC in Charleston.

Kanawha Circuit Court Case number 18-C-1427.[GN]


HSBC BANK: Antonicic Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher J. Antonicic and Anastasia Antonicic, individually and
as representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons v. HSBC
Bank USA, N.A., Case No. 2018L001443 filed in the 18th Judicial
Circuit Court in Dupage County, Illinois on December 21, 2018, is
brought against the Defendant for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

This case challenges HSBC's practice of assessing and collecting
inspection fees while providing related services to mortgages in
default. HSBC's default-related inspection fees violate the
regulations promulgated pursuant to the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development, and the contractual language of its
assigned mortgage agreements, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are residents of 7673 Sprucewood Avenue, Woodridge,
Illinois 60517.

The Defendant HSBC is a national bank and mortgage company
headquartered in New York and doing business in DuPage County,
Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Arthur C. Czaja, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF ARTHUR C.
      CZAJA AND ASSOC.
      7521 N. Milwaukee Avenue
      Niles, IL 60714
      Tel: (847) 647-2106
      Fax: (847) 647-2057
      E-mail: arthur@czajalawoffices.com


HUNTER WARFIELD: Arpino Suit Alleges FDCPA Breach
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hunter Warfield, Inc.
The case is styled as Eugenia Arpino, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hunter Warfield, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00491 (E.D. N.Y., January 24, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


IMMUNOMEDICS INC.: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), a national
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, is notifying
investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against
Immunomedics, Inc. ("Immunomedics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IMMU)
and other defendants, related to alleged violations of federal
securities laws. If you purchased Immunomedics securities between
August 23, 2018 and December 20, 2018, you are encouraged to
contact a Scott+Scott attorney at (844) 818-6982 for more
information.

Immunomedics is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that
develops monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted
treatment of cancer.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants misled investors by stating in
the Company's SEC filings that, "the FDA generally will issue a
notice on Form 483 if it finds issues with respect to its
inspections," without disclosing to investors the fact that,
between August 6 and August 14, 2018, the FDA cited Immunomedics
for a variety of violations observed at its Morris Plains, New
Jersey, drug substance manufacturing facility.

The truth was partially revealed on December 17, 2018, when
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 stated that the 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."

Following the FDAnews.com story, Immunomedics shares fell from
their previous close price of $18.73 to close at $17.86, a drop of
4.6%.

Then, on December 20, 2018, Favus Institutional Research issued a
report (the "Favus Report") regarding the Immunomedics data
integrity breach.

Following the Favus Report, Immunomedics shares dropped 20%, from
$17.64 at close on December 19 to $14.17 at close on December 20.

What You Can Do

If you purchased Immunomedics securities between August 23, 2018
and December 20, 2018, inclusive, or if you have questions about
this notice or your legal rights, please contact attorney Joe
Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982, or at jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. The
lead plaintiff deadline is February 25, 2019.

         Joe Pettigrew, Esq.
         Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
         230 Park Ave, 17th Floor, NY
         NY 10169
         Telephone: (844) 818-6982
         Email:jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN]


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased
Immunomedics, Inc. ("Immunomedics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IMMU)
securities between August 23, 2018 and December 20, 2018, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Immunomedics investors have until February
25, 2019 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Immunomedics investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On December 17, 2018, FDAnews published an article reporting that
"[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 further reported that the breach
included "manipulated bioburden samples, misrepresentation of an
integrity test procedure in the batch record, and backdating of
batch records, such as dates of analytical results."

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

If you purchased shares of Immunomedics, have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters please;
        
         Howard G. Smith, Esq.
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
         Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
         Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP disclosed that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey against
Immunomedics, Inc. (NASDAQ:  IMMU) ("Immunomedics") on behalf of
purchasers of Immunomedics common stock between August 23, 2018 and
December 20, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Important Deadline:  Investors who purchased Immunomedics
securities during the Class Period may, no later than February 25,
2019, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please visit
www.ktmc.com/immunomedics-securities-class-action

According to the complaint, Immunomedics is a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company developing monoclonal antibody-based
products for the targeted treatment of cancer.

The Class Period commences on August 23, 2018, when Immunomedics
filed its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018.

According to the complaint, on December 17, 2018, FDAnews.com
published an article titled "FDA Hits Immunomedics for Data
Integrity Breach." According to this article, "[t]he FDA cited
Immunomedics for a host of violations - including its handling of a
data integrity breach - observed at its Morris Plains, New Jersey,
drug substance manufacturing facility between August 6 and 14." The
article stated 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."  Following the publication of the FDAnews.com
article, Immunomedics shares fell from an opening price of $18.54
to close at $17.86, a decline of 4%.

Then, on December 20, 2018, Favus Institutional Research issued a
report (the "Favus Report") discussing the data integrity breach.
Following the Favus Report, Immunomedics' stock price fell from
$17.64 at close on December 19, 2018 to $14.17 at close on December
20, 2018, a drop of 20%.

If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or (610) 667-7706, or via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com.

Immunomedics investors may, no later than February 25, 2019, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class
through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class
members in directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed as a
lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's
claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to
share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

         James Maro, Jr., Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Email: abell@ktmc.com
                jmaro@ktmc.com [GN]


INTEGRATED MAIL: Court Orders Unredacted Phone Record Turnover
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin issued an Order directing Plaintiff to Turnover
Unredacted Phone Records in the case captioned JOSEPH ROBERTS,
Individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. INTEGRATED MAIL INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant. Case
No. 18-cv-699-pp. (E.D. Wis.).

The parties contacted the court and indicated that they had a
disagreement about a discovery issue.

The plaintiffs' original complaint in this putative class action
suit alleged illegal rounding, improper deduction of meal breaks
and unpaid interruption of meal breaks, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

During the hearing, defense counsel informed the court that the
defense had made a discovery demand for the named plaintiff's phone
records calls, texts and mobile usage on November 8, 2018.

The named plaintiff had objected unless the parties could hammer
out a limited authorization.

The Plaintiff's counsel told the court that the plaintiff did not
have access to his records. His service provider is Verizon.
Counsel said he was going to have to subpoena the records from
Verizon. Defense counsel questioned this assertion, arguing that
someone he knew had Verizon as a provider, and that that person
could access his mobile records by going to Verizon's web site and
entering his user name and password.  

The Defense counsel interjected that the defendant's records showed
some occasions when the plaintiff had clocked in as early as 5:15
a.m., and times when he'd clocked out as late as 10:00 p.m.

The Plaintiff's counsel responded that that had been in 2016, and
that the plaintiff wasn't seeking damages for that year. Defense
counsel responded that the complaint sought damages back to May of
2016. The court interrupted counsels' argument with each other and
asked plaintiff's counsel to address the issue of why he was asking
to have the documents sent to him first, rather than asking for
simultaneous disclosure.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) allows parties to obtain
discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's
claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,
considering the importance of the issues at stake, the amount in
controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information,
the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in
resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the
proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

The only question is whether the plaintiff should get the records
first and be able to redact them before forwarding them to the
defendant. The plaintiff has provided only one rationale for
departing from the usual simultaneous disclosure practice. The
plaintiff has asserted that he has a privacy right in data usage
that didn't take place during work hours, and that if he was
conducting personal activities on the phone during work hours, he
has a right to keep the nature of that activity private.

This argument ignores the fact that it is the plaintiff who has put
his activities at issue. The plaintiff added these allegations to
the amended complaint. The plaintiff has the right to decide what
claims he wishes to put at issue. Once at issue, however, the
defense has the right to see what the plaintiff sees in determining
whether there are facts to support the plaintiff's claims.

The court will not allow the plaintiff to receive and redact the
records prior to providing them to the defense. The defense is
entitled to the records it has requested, and the plaintiff must
turn them over unredacted.

The court orders that the plaintiff shall turn over to the
defendant his telephone records including call information, text
information, mobile usage, cell tower site data and non-data usage
without redaction. The subpoena (or any other mechanism used to
request the data from the service provider) shall call for the
information to be provided to both sides simultaneously. The
plaintiff shall provide the information for the entire period
referenced in the complaint, and for the full range of hours worked
from the earliest clock-in time during the relevant period to the
latest clock-out time.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 14, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yd4858fc from Leagle.com.

Joseph Roberts, Plaintiff, represented by Nathan D. Eisenberg, The
Previant Law Firm SC & Yingtao Ho, The Previant Law Firm SC.

Integrated Mail Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by Aaron A.
DeKosky -- adekosky@padwaylaw.net -- Padway & Padway.


KINDERCARE EDUCATION: Westmoreland Asserts Labor Code Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kindercare Education
LLC. The case is styled as Rochelle Westmoreland, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kindercare
Education LLC, a Delaware Corporation, DOES 1 TO 50 INCLUSIVE,
Defendant, Case No. CGC19573125 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., January 24, 2019).

The lawsuit asserts Labor Code violation.

KinderCare Education is a privately held education services firm,
co-founded by Michael Milken and his brother Lowell Milken in 1996.
The firm is one of Oregon's largest privately held companies and a
large employer in the Portland metropolitan area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Larry W Lee, Esq.
   Diversity Law Group
   515 S Figueroa St Ste 1250
   Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
   Tel: (213) 488-6555
   Fax: (213) 488-6554
   Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com


KITEC PLUMBING: Canadians May Be Eligible for Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a type of plumbing sold between 1995 and 2007
may be a flood waiting to happen in your home, but the good news is
the Kitec products are the subject of a class-action lawsuit that
has been settled for tens of millions of dollars, so homeowners are
eligible for partial compensation to pay for repairs.

"It was very widely used," Halifax plumbing company owner Dimitri
Papoulis said, noting it was popular because it was inexpensive.

Papoulis said Kitec was the "go-to pipe" for most heating companies
in the early 2000s and late 1990s before it was recalled because
both the fittings and pipes were prone to deterioration.

Kitec, billed as a cheaper and easy-to-install alternative to
copper piping, was used across Canada primarily in hot water
baseboard and in-floor heating systems, according to a 2013
brochure published by the Nova Scotia Real Estate Commission. It
says the plumbing consists of "flexible aluminum pipe between an
inner and outer layer of plastic pipe (PEX pipe) with brass
fittings."

            Look for Bright Orange Or Bright Blue

The product may also have other brand names, including PlumbBetter,
IPEX AQUA and WarmRite.

It can be identified by its bright orange (hot water) and bright
blue (cold water) covering. The piping is also labelled with "ASTM
1281."

Papoulis said often, the problem is with the Kitec fittings.

"It mostly happens on well water because of the mineral content,
the acidity of the water," he said. "It chews away the brass
fittings."

                      'It Will Fail'

The other issue is the piping itself. Over time, the plastic pipe
and aluminum expand and contract at different temperatures, and
that can cause them to burst.

"It will fail. It's only a matter of time," Papoulis said.

He said the cost of replacing Kitec depends on a number of factors,
including the size of the home, but it can range from $4,000 to
$15,000.

Kitec was recalled and subsequently the subject of a class-action
lawsuit in Canada and the United States that was settled for $125
million US. The settlement says homeowners are eligible for 50 per
cent of the average cost to repair or replace the piping and
fittings. Even those who have not had an issue with the product can
apply for compensation. Homeowners have until January 2020 to make
a claim.

                  Most Homeowners Unaware

It's not known how many homes in Canada have Kitec, but the
class-action settlement site estimates there are approximately
292,000 installations/properties with the Kitec system in North
America.

Halifax-area real estate agent Jacqui Rostek says Kitec is an issue
that comes up with both buyers and sellers, and that she sees "a
couple of dozen times a year."

"In my experience, sellers that bought their house in 2011 or
before are usually completely oblivious to the fact that there's
potentially an issue with the pipes," she told CBC News.

One easy way homeowners can check whether their home has Kitec is
to look for the bright orange or blue pipes leading from their hot
water heater or their hot water baseboards.

          Insurance Companies Have Varied Response

Papoulis said there is no consistency on how different insurance
companies deal with Kitec in homes.

He said some will pay to replace it, others will insure homes but
at a higher rate and others give homeowners a certain amount of
time to replace it or lose their insurance.

He has also found some homes where Kitec was used long after it was
recalled.

He said it's important to know whether you have the product so you
can decide what, if anything, to do about it. He has seen basements
flooded by broken fittings and pipes, and said everyone should know
how to turn off their water in the event their pipes break.[GN]


LEVY SECURITY: Vaughan Sues over Alleged Illegal Use of Biometrics
------------------------------------------------------------------
REGINALD VAUGHAN, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. LEVY SECURITY
CORPORATION, an Illinois corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
2019CH01035 (Ill., Cook Cty., Jan. 24, 2019), seeks to recover
damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of Defendant in capturing, collecting, storing,
using, and disseminating his biometrics, and those of at least
hundreds of individuals throughout the state of Illinois, without
informing them through a publicly available written policy of how
it was going to store and dispose of this irreplaceable
information, in direct violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

According to the lawsuit, Levy, which provides physical event
security services, captured, collected, stored and used Plaintiffs
and other employees' biometrics without regard to BIPA and the
concrete privacy rights and pecuniary interests that BIPA protects.
The Defendant allegedly collects its employees' biometrics in the
form of fingerprint scans. The Defendant's timekeeping system works
by using multi-factor biometric authentication to verify the
identity of its employees in order to track their work hours. This
system identifies employees based on biometrics taken from their
fingerprint scans and records the time each respective employee
clocks in and clocks out. In doing so, the Defendant captures,
collects, stores, disseminates, and otherwise uses its employees'
fingerprints and related biometric information without complying
with BIPA's requirements.

BIPA's statutory scheme requires specific disclosures prior to
collecting biometrics, which in turn allows individuals the
opportunity to make a truly informed choice prior to providing
private entities with their biometrics. Unlike other statutes that
only create a right of action if there is a qualifying data breach,
BIPA strictly regulates the manner in which entities collect,
store, and use biometrics. In this case, Defendant elected to
implement an invasive biometric time-keeping regime that relied on
the illegal collection of the biometrics of its employees, thereby
invading their substantive privacy rights under BIPA.

The Illinois Legislature has found that "biometrics are unlike
other unique identifiers that are used to access finances or other
sensitive information. For example, even sensitive information like
Social Security numbers can be changed. Biometrics, however,  are
biologically unique to each individual and, once compromised, such
individual has no recourse, is at a heightened risk for identity
theft, and is likely to withdraw from biometric facilitated
transactions." The risk is compounded when a person's biometrics
are also associated with their other personally identifiable
information.

The Defendant failed to honestly inform individuals, including
Plaintiff, of the unlawful nature of the hand scanning system;
failed to maintain a lawful biometric storage program which deletes
biometric information in the proscribed period; failed to provide
the required disclosures at the time of collection; and failed to
provide a retention and destruction schedule. To the extent
Defendant is still retaining Plaintiff's biometrics, such retention
is unlawful and an ongoing infringement of his right to privacy
regarding his biometrics as afforded by BIPA. The Plaintiff would
not have provided his biometrics to Defendant had he known that
Defendant would retain such information for an indefinite period
and subject such information to unauthorized disclosure to unknown
third parties,the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          William P.N. Kingston
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893- 7002
          E-mail: jsheikali@mcgpc.com
                  wkingston@mcgpc.com

LIFE INSURANCE: Court Awards $2.5K Attorney's Fees in Hartle Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, issued an Order granting in part and denying in
part Plantinff's Motion for Attorney's Fees in the case captioned
TY HARTLE, Plaintiff, v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA,
Defendant. Case No. C18-5449 BHS. (W.D. Wash.).

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Ty Hartle's
(Hartle) motion for attorney's fees.  

Hartle began receiving monthly long-term disability payments
pursuant to an insurance plan he had with his employer FedEx.
Defendant Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA), the
entity that services Hartle's insurance benefits, informed Hartle
that the distribution from his pension was an offset to his
insurance benefits and that his insurance benefits would be reduced
accordingly.

Hartle discussed the issue with two lawyers attorney Tony Panagiotu
sent LINA a letter requesting  After LINA refused to remedy the
situation, Hartle was eventually referred to his current attorney
David Copley.  

Hartle filed the instant motion for attorney's fees requesting
$58,198.00 in fees, $551.69 in costs, and $408.94 in prejudgment
interest.  

The Employer Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) provides that
the court in its discretion may allow a reasonable attorney's fee
and costs of action to either party. A fees claimant must show some
degree of success on the merits' before a court may award
attorney's fees under Section 1132(g)(1).

In this case, the Court finds that Hartle has met his burden to
establish that an award of fees is warranted. He achieved complete
success in obtaining a settlement and restoration of his benefits
and an award of past due amounts. LINA was culpable in the sense
that it reduced Hartle's benefits with no investigation and despite
letters from Hartle threatening a lawsuit. LINA appears to be able
to pay any award of fees. An award of fees would most likely deter
insurance servicers from acting without an investigation and
despite communications from the claimant. The fourth Hummell factor
is irrelevant to this simple matter. Finally, LINA conceded that
Hartle was due his requested relief. Therefore, the Court grants
Hartle's motion as to an award of fees.

The Court, however, finds that Hartle's request for $58,198 is
excessive and unwarranted. The two main problems with this request
is the number of hours expended on the complaint and the requested
rates of compensation. There is no doubt that Mr. Copley is an
experienced and highly competent ERISA litigator. As such, the
Court finds that he should be able to quickly and efficiently draft
a complaint or, at the very least, delegate the duty to an
associate with limited oversight for editing. Thus, the Court
reduces the hours spent on the complaint to 8 instead of the
requested 34.8.

Based on the authorities provided by LINA and accounting for some
inflation, the Court finds that $500 per hour is a reasonable rate
considering the facts of this matter. In no way does the Court find
that this is the prevailing rate in this community for this work.
Instead, the Court is resolving a dispute based on the facts
presented wherein an experienced class action attorney agreed to
represent a claimant with a simple reduction of benefits issue.
Therefore, the Court grants in part and denies in part Hartle's
request for reasonable attorney's fees. Based on the Court's
calculation, the Court awards fees for 40.81hours of work at a rate
of $500 per hour for a total of $20,400.

Regarding paralegal work, LINA fails to establish that Hartle's
request are unreasonable.

Therefore, the Court awards $2,525 for 10.1 hours of work at $250
per hour.

Hartle's motion for attorney's fees is granted in part and denied
in part as stated herein.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 14, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y83dmb53 from Leagle.com.

Ty Hartle, Plaintiff, represented by T. David Copley --
dcopley@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK.

Life Insurance Company of North America, Defendant, represented by
Stephania Camp Denton -- dentons@lanepowell.com -- LANE POWELL PC.


LOFT ASSOCIATES: Abante Rooter Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter and Plumbing, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Loft Associates, LLC dba Cheddar
Express, Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-07676 (N.D.
Calif., December 21, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sent text message, and
generic text messages en mass sequentially to lists of phone
numbers using an SMS blasting platform, which qualifies as an
"automatic telephone dialing system".

The Plaintiff Abante Rooter and Plumbing is a corporation of the
State of California with principal place of business in the county
of Alameda.

The Defendant Loft Associates, LLC dba Cheddar Express is a
business financing company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOS ROBLES HOSPITAL: On Verge of Paying $2.95MM in Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Kisken, writing for Ventura County Star, reports that
allegations of shortchanging employees hourly pay and overtime,
preventing people from taking lunch and rest breaks and violating
other labor regulations have placed Los Robles Regional Medical
Center on the verge of a $2.95 million settlement.

The deal has been agreed to by officials of the for-profit Thousand
Oaks hospital and leaders of a class-action lawsuit filed in 2014
by a former Los Robles nurse. Ventura County Superior Court Judge
Kevin DeNoce took the issue under advisement after a hearing on
Jan.4 morning and said he would later issue his final ruling.

Earlier, DeNoce delivered a tentative ruling supporting the
proposed settlement on allegations that have been aired before at
Los Robles. Respiratory therapists made similar claims in a lawsuit
filed in 2015. A federal judge approved a $4.75 million settlement
in 2005 for a lawsuit alleging more than 1,000 employees were owed
money for missed breaks and overtime.

Los Robles is part of an HCA system that is one of the nation's
largest. Hospital officials have defended themselves against
allegations in the current lawsuit.

"Los Robles denied all the allegations," officials said in a
written statement on Jan. 4 afternoon. "Los Robles settled the
matter on a no-fault basis in order to keep its focus on providing
the best quality patient care rather than litigation."

Under the settlement, nearly $1.9 million would go toward making up
lost compensation to 3,046 current and former employees. The
workers would receive an average settlement of $618 with a high
payment of nearly $3,700.

The hospital would pay $973,500 for the fees of the workers'
lawyers. The hospital would pay $10,000 in state labor code
penalties for alleged violations.

In court on Jan. 4, a former Los Robles emergency room nurse
alleged the hospital's labor practices cost her $34,000 over
several years in lost pay. She objected to the proposed settlement,
noting it would bring her only $459.25.

This is less than 2 percent of what is owed to me," Susan Saltmarsh
told the judge. ". . . .  We should get 100 percent of what Los
Robles stole from us."

Alleging that the hospital also refused to provide her employee
records including past pay wage information, Saltmarsh predicted
Los Robles would interpret the settlement as a small price to
continue "your very lucrative business model."

Lawyers representing the hospital and workers said that out of the
more than 3,000 people in the class, Saltmarsh was the only who
offered a formal objection, although she didn't opt out of the
settlement. They noted 74 people did opt out.

Jason Kearnaghan, Esq. -- jkearnaghan@sheppardmullin.com -- a
lawyer representing Los Robles, challenged Saltmarsh's calculations
regarding wages involving meal breaks and characterized the
settlement as fair and reasonable.

DeNoce asked lawyers questions about Saltmarsh's claims and about
the settlement's provision to apply 33 percent of the $2.95 million
to attorney fees. He said he would deliver his final ruling in
writing.

Lawyers from both sides declined to answer a reporter's questions
at the hearing.

The lawsuit was led by Jeanette Munden, of Calabasas, a registered
nurse who worked at the Thousand Oaks hospital for six years
starting in 2009.

She alleged her hourly pay was routinely rounded in a way that
shaved off time worked at the beginning and the end of the shifts.
She said she was discouraged or prevented from taking meal and rest
breaks and was not paid state-required penalties for missed
breaks.

Munden also said in court documents she was shortchanged overtime
pay and wasn't paid required compensation when she was terminated
in November 2015.

"I routinely performed work for which I was not compensated," she
said in a court document. "I was routinely denied meal and rest
breaks and/or received late or short meal periods in violation of
California law."

Because of her efforts as lead plaintiff, Munden would receive
$15,000 in the proposed settlement.

The lawsuit was filed in June 2014. Lawyers alleged the
under-compensation was routine at Los Robles. They presented the
litigation as a class action involving hourly employees who worked
at the hospital from June 2010 to August 2018.

Los Robles lawyers defended the hospital in court documents,
arguing the hospital never forced workers to skip lunch or rest
breaks. They said any missed breaks were the result of workers
choosing not to take meal or rest periods.

Respiratory therapists made similar claims about alleged violations
in a lawsuit against Los Robles filed in March 2015, nearly a year
after the Munden lawsuit. In the 2005 federal court settlement, Los
Robles agreed to pay an average of a little more than $3,000 an
employee.

Nurses negotiating a contract with the hospital in September 2017
argued staffing was so thin they couldn't take breaks for meals or
other needs.

"We even have difficulty using the bathroom," said union steward
Jennifer Hardy in a Ventura County Star story.

A hospital spokesman defended Los Robles' practices at the time,
citing laws regulating staffing levels and noting criticism is used
as a tool during negotiations.

Service Employees International Union Local 121RN and United
Healthcare Workers West represent employees at Los Robles but were
not involved in the lawsuit, officials of the unions said. [GN]


LOXO ONCOLOGY: Witmer Balks at Merger Deal with Eli Lilly
---------------------------------------------------------
COLLEEN WITMER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LOXO ONCOLOGY, INC., JOSHUA H.
BILENKER, STEVE ELMS, KEITH T. FLAHERTY, AVI Z. NAIDER, LORI A.
KUNKEL, ALAN FUHRMAN, TIM MAAYLEBEN, STEVE D. HARR, ELI LILLY AND
COMPANY, and BOWFIN ACQUISITION CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00135-UNA (D. Del. Jan. 24, 2019), stems from a
proposed transaction announced on January 7, 2019, pursuant to
which Loxo Oncology, Inc. will be acquired by Eli Lilly and Company
and Bowfin Acquisition Corporation. On January 5, 2019, Loxo’s
Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement
and plan of merger with Eli Lilly. Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer to acquire
all of Loxo's outstanding common stock for $235.00 per share in
cash. The Tender Offer is set to expire on February 14, 2019.

On January 17, 2019, the Defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Solicitation Statement omits material information
with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the
Solicitation Statement false and misleading, the lawsuit says.

Loxo Oncology, a biopharmaceutical company, develops and sells
medicines for patients with genetically defined cancers in the
United States. Its lead product candidate comprises larotrectinib,
an oral selective inhibitor of tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK),
which is in adult Phase 1 trial, a pediatric Phase 1/2 trial, and
an adult/adolescent Phase 2 trial for the treatment of patients
with tumor types, such as lung, head and neck, melanoma,
colorectal, sarcoma, and breast cancer.[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
          Email: rm@maniskas.com

               - and -

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

MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces Personal Injury Suit in Maryland
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marriott
International, Inc. The case is styled as Shantonu Kundu,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Marriott International, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
8:19-cv-00224-TDC (D. Md., January 24, 2019).

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

Marriott International is an American multinational diversified
hospitality company that manages and franchises a broad portfolio
of hotels and related lodging facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey Andrew Bartos, Esq.
   Guerrieri Clayman Bartos & Parcelli PC
   1900 M Street, NW, Suite 700
   Washington, DC 20036-2243
   Tel: (202) 624-7400
   Fax: (202) 624-7420
   Email: jbartos@geclaw.com


MARRIOTT INT'L: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Marriott International, Inc. ("Marriott" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq: MAR) in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, on behalf of a class consisting
of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of
Marriott between November 9, 2016 and November 29, 2018 (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Marriott's and Starwood's systems storing their customers' personal
data were not secure; (ii) there had been unauthorized access on
Starwood's network since 2014; (iii) consequently, the personal
data of approximately 500 million Starwood guests and sensitive
personal information of approximately 327 million of those guests
may have been exposed to unauthorized parties; and (iv) as a
result, Marriott's public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

On November 30, 2018, Marriott disclosed the discovery of "a data
security incident involving [its] Starwood guest reservation
database" and "that an unauthorized party had copied and encrypted
information and took steps towards removing it."  Marriott stated
that "information on up to approximately 500 million guests" had
been subject to unauthorized access since 2014.  Following this
news, Marriott's stock price fell sharply during intraday trading
on November 30, 2018.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the January 30, 2019
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action please;

         Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
         Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
         Gainey McKenna & Egleston
         Telephone: (212) 983-1300
         Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]


MARRIOTT INT'L: Madolora Sues for Negligence Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Celeste Madolora, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Marriott International, Inc., and
Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, LLC, Case No. 8:18-cv-03961
(D. Md., December 21, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
negligence, negligence per se and violation of the Maryland
Consumer Protection Act.

In this action, the Plaintiffs allege that Marriott allowed a
massive data breach in which the sensitive personal information of
the Plaintiff and millions of other consumers was stolen by unknown
persons (the "Data Breach"). On November 30, 2018, Marriott
admitted that the Starwood computer systems had been breached and
data exfiltration had been ongoing for at least four years.

The Plaintiff Monica Celeste Madolora was a California resident
during the period when the data breach occurred. Plaintiff is a
Starwood member and made a reservation at a Marriott Starwood
property during the period of the data breach.

The Defendant Marriott International, Inc. is a global hospitality
company with over 6,700 properties located throughout the world. In
2017, Marriott reported $22 billion in revenue. Marriott is
headquartered just outside of Washington, DC in Bethesda,
Maryland.

The Defendant Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide was an entity
independent from Marriott until September 2016 when Marriott
completed a $13 billion acquisition of Starwood. The combined
entity created the world's largest hotel chain and includes, among
others, the following major hotel brands: Marriott, JW Marriott,
Courtyard, Ritz-Carleton, Element Hotels, Aloft Hotels, The Luxury
Collection, Tribute Portfolio, Le Meridien Hotels & Resorts, Four
Points by Sheraton and Design Hotels. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Craig M. Silverman, Esq.
      Jay D. Miller, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS, P.C.
      One Charles Center, 22nd Floor
      100 North Charles Street
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Tel: (410) 649-2000
      Fax: (410) 649-2101
      E-mail: Csilverman@lawpga.com
              Jmiller@lawpga.com


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Fisher Sues over Starwood Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEROME FISHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. and
STARWOOD HOTELS AND RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-20354-UU (S.D. Fla., Jan. 25, 2019), sues Defendants
over a Starwood data breach.

According to Marriott's own press releases, the crown jewel in the
Starwood transaction was Starwood's reservation and loyalty system,
called Starwood Preferred Guest. Marriott touted the reservation
and loyalty program as having high-value members who loyally book
many extended stays at Starwood properties.

On November 30, 2018, Marriott admitted that the Starwood computer
systems had been breached and data exfiltration had been ongoing
for at least four years. Marriott negligently left its Starwood
computer systems vulnerable to the breach.

According to the complaint, the massive data breach could have been
prevented and should have been detected and disclosed earlier.
While Marriott admits the intrusion occurred at least as early as
2014, Marriott claims it was first detected on September 8, 2018.
Marriott -- a company with revenues of $22 billion and resources
enough to buy Starwood for $13 billion in 2016 -- thus admits its
systems were compromised for at least four years before it had any
idea it had been hacked. Marriott knew that hackers valued the data
it and Starwood stored as it was often targeted, and often its
systems were compromised -- yet data security was still neglected
and under-- supported by Defendants. As a direct and proximate
result of Defendants' misconduct, Plaintiff and the Florida
Subclass members suffered actual damages and request a
corresponding award of damages against Defendants, as authorized by
such statutes, the lawsuit says.

Marriott International, Inc., is a global hospitality company with
over 6,700 properties located throughout the world. In 2017,
Marriott reported $22 billion in revenue. Marriott is headquartered
in Bethesda, Maryland. Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide was an
entity independent from Marriott until September 2016 when Marriott
completed a $13 billion acquisition of Starwood. The combined
entity created the world's largest hotel chain and includes, among
others, the following major hotel brands: Marriott, JW Marriott,
Courtyard, Ritz-Carlton, Element Hotels, Aloft Hotels, The Luxury
Collection, Tribute Portfolio, Le Méridien Hotels & Resorts,
Sheraton, St. Regis, W and Design Hotels, among others.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          David M. Buckner, Esq.
          Seth Miles, Esq.
          Michael S. Olin, Esq.
          Brett E. von Borke, Esq.
          BUCKNER + MILES
          3350 Mary Street
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: 305.964.8003
          Facsimile: 786.523.0485
          E-mail: david@bucknermiles.com
                  seth@bucknermiles.com
                  molin@bucknermiles.com
                  vonborke@bucknermiles.com

               - and -

          Kendall B. Coffey, Esq.
          COFFEY BURLINGTON, P.L.
          2601 South Bayshore Drive, Penthouse
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: 305 858 2900
          Facsimile: 305 858 5261
          E-mail: kcoffey@coffeyburlington.com
                  service@coffeyburlington.com

MARTINDALE-HUBBELL INC: Faces Aabbott Suit Over TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
NATASCHA AABBOTT, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. MARTINDALE-HUBBELL, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case
No. 1:19-cv-20285-KMW (S.D. Fla., January 21, 2019), accuses the
Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
sending or causing to be sent unsolicited calls to the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system.

Martindale-Hubbell, Inc., is a Delaware corporation whose principal
address is in New Providence, New Jersey.  The Defendant claims to
be an information services company for the legal profession, and
the #1 source for new clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S. Ocean Dr., Suite 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com


MATCO TOOLS: Failed to Pay Overtime Compensation for Distributors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN FLEMING, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MATCO TOOLS CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation; NMTC, Inc. d/b/a MATCO TOOLS, a Delaware corporation;
FORTIVE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-20,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00463 (N.D. Cal., Jan.
25, 2019), alleges that Defendant failed to provide reimbursement
for business expenses, failed to pay overtime compensation, and
failed to authorize and provide meal and rest periods pursuant to
the California Labor Code.

The case is an action for relief from Defendants' misclassification
of their sales and service workers as "independent contractors."
The Defendants and their affiliates manufacture and distribute
mechanics tools and service equipment. Defendants retain and
exercise pervasive control over their tool distribution operations,
including by retaining and exercising control over Plaintiff and
other Distributors, such that they are in fact Defendants'
employees under California law.

By misclassifying Plaintiff and similarly situated Distributors as
independent contractors, Defendants have sought to avoid various
duties and obligations owed to employees under California's Labor
Code and Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders, including: the
duty to indemnify employees for all expenses and losses necessarily
incurred in connection with their employment; the duty to pay
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of eight hours in
a day or 40 hours a week; the duty to provide off-duty meal
periods; the duty to authorize and permit paid rest periods; the
duty to furnish accurate wage statements; the duty to pay an
employees all wages owed upon termination; and unlawful collection
and receipt of earned wages.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Peter Rukin, Esq.
          Jessica Riggin, Esq.
          Valerie Brender, Esq.
          Dylan Cowart, Esq.
          RUKIN HYLAND & RIGGIN LLP
          1939 Harrison Street, Suite 290
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 421-1800
          Facsimile: (415) 421-1700
          E-mail: prukin@rukinhyland.com
                  jriggin@rukinhyland.com
                  vbrender@rukinhyland.com
                  dcowart@rukinhyland.com

MEDLEY CAPITAL: Lax Balks at Merger Deal with Sierra Income
-----------------------------------------------------------
HELENE LAX, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BROOK TAUBE, SETH TAUBE, JEFFREY
TONKEL, ARTHUR S. AINSBERG, KARIN HIRTLER-GARVEY, JOHN E. MACK,
MARK LERDAL, RICHARD T. ALLORTO, JR., MEDLEY CAPITAL CORPORATION,
MEDLEY MANAGEMENT INC., SIERRA INCOME CORPORATION, and SIERRA
MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendants, Index No. 650503/2019 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., N.Y. Cty.), alleges that directors and certain officers of MCC
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with a proposed
transaction whereby MCC will combine with Sierra Income Corporation
and Medley Management Inc. to form a publicly traded, internally
managed Business Development Company ("BDC"). The Plaintiff also
brings an independent claim against Brook Taube and Seth Taube for
breaching the fiduciary duties they owed MCC's remaining
stockholders in their capacities as controlling stockholders of
MCC. The Taubes, in addition to serving as directors and/or
officers of MCC, also controlled 14.6% of MCC's common stock and
acted as MCC's controlling stockholders in connection with the
Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff also asserts a claim against
MCC, MDLY, Sierra, and Sierra Management, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Sierra, for aiding and abetting the Director/Officer
Defendants' and the Taubes' breaches of fiduciary duties.

According to the complaint, on August 9, 2018, the Director/Officer
Defendants and the Taubes caused MCC to enter into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Sierra, pursuant to which MCC will merge with
Sierra, with Sierra continuing as the surviving company, and each
share of MCC common stock will be converted into the right to
receive 0.8050 shares of Sierra common shares. MCC is an affiliate
of Sierra, as the investment managers of both Sierra and MCC are
controlled by MDLY. The closing of the MCC Merger is contingent
upon MDLY merging with and into Merger Sub, with Merger Sub
continuing as the surviving company in the merger. In connection
with the MDLY Merger, unaffiliated MDLY Class A stockholders will
receive 0.3836 shares of Sierra common stock for each Medley Class
A share, as well as $3.44 per share of cash consideration and $0.65
per share of special cash dividends. Furthermore, Medley LLC Units,
primarily held by the Taubes and other members of management, will
be converted into MDLY Class A Common Stock, enabling these
insiders to obtain the same cash and stock consideration as well as
a $0.35 per share special cash dividend (i.e., $3.79 in cash plus
0.3836 shares of Sierra common stock). In other words, while the
Taubes and other members of management are receiving a sizeable
cash payout as a result of the Proposed Transaction, MCC
stockholders are being compensated solely with stock in the
combined entity following the Mergers.

The Merger Consideration being offered to MCC stockholders severely
undervalues their shares. The Proposed Transaction was never
intended to benefit MCC stockholders, but instead was designed to
primarily benefit certain individuals who hold leadership roles at
and exert significant influence over each of MCC, MDLY, and Sierra,
including the Taubes, who collectively control 14.6% of MCC's
shares and are controlling stockholders of MCC. As such, the
Proposed Transaction is subject to exacting entire fairness review,
which requires the Defendants to establish that the Proposed
Transaction was the result of a fair process and provides MCC
stockholders with fair consideration for their shares. The Proposed
Transaction came to fruition after the Taubes and certain other
insiders were unsuccessful in their attempts to find a takeover
partner willing to acquire MDLY. MDLY is a publicly traded asset
management firm, which is controlled by Medley Group LLC, an entity
wholly owned by management, which consists of defendants Brook
Taube, Seth Taube, Jeff Tonkel, and Richard T. Allorto, Jr., as
well as nonparties John D. Fredericks, Samuel Anderson, and
Christopher Taube. The Taubes and Management have done a horrendous
job of managing MDLY and MCC, and between May 2017 and May 2018
they spent significant time trying to sell MDLY, including outreach
to at least 57 potential buyers. Despite their efforts, MDLY did
not receive any serious takeover proposals.

After a prolonged process which failed to result in a sale of MDLY,
Management devised a new plan that would enable them to transform
MDLY while simultaneously allowing them to extract personal
financial benefits for themselves -- that is, they would
orchestrate the Proposed Transaction, whereby MCC's value would be
transferred to Management and MDLY's stockholders, at the expense
of MCC's public stockholders. As explained in greater detail below,
the Taubes asserted their control over MCC in order to capitalize
on MCC's depreciated value -- which was largely due to their own
deficient management -- and, through the Proposed Transaction,
provide MDLY's stakeholders with an outrageous premium and an
infusion of cash. Specifically, by converting an aggregate of
24,839,302 Medley LLC Units held by the members of Management into
shares of MDLY Class A Common Stock, the members of Management,
principally the Taubes, stand to receive approximately $85 million
in cash, which represents approximately 80% of the cash
consideration that will be received by MDLY Class A stockholders.
Meanwhile, MCC stockholders only stand to receive an inadequate
amount of Sierra common stock, without any cash consideration.

The Taubes have also structured the Proposed Transaction to ensure
that they will continue to generate income via MCC Advisors LLC, an
investment adviser controlled by MDLY. The Taubes, along with
Defendants Jeff Tonkel, serve as Managing Partners at MCC Advisors,
and Defendant Richard Allorto Jr. serves as its Chief Financial
Officer. Pursuant to the Merger Agreements, MCC Advisors will serve
as the investment mizing value for MCC stockholders. The
Director/Officer Defendants and Taubes exacerbated their breaches
of fiduciary duty on December 21, 2018, when they authorized the
filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Definitive Proxy
Statement. The Proxy provides materially misleading information and
omits material information related to the Proposed Transaction,
including: (i) the projections for MDLY and the Combined Company;
and (ii) the process leading up to the signing of the merger
agreements. The special meeting of MCC stockholders to vote on the
Proposed Transaction is currently scheduled for February 8, 2019.
As a result of the materially incomplete and misleading Proxy, MCC
stockholders lack material information and will be unable to cast a
fully informed vote regarding the Proposed Transaction, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq.
          Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Ave. 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: Kaufman@whafh.com
                  KCooper@whafh.com


MERCEDES BENZ: Faces Jones Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercedes Benz
Manhattan, Inc.  The case is captioned, TIMOTHY JONES, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
MERCEDES BENZ MANHATTAN, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00472-NRB (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2019). The case is
assigned to Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald.

Mercedes-Benz Manhattan, Inc. operates as a dealer of Mercedes-Benz
vehicles in New York. The company was founded in 1962 and is based
in New York, New York. Mercedes-Benz Manhattan, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anand A. Kapasi, Esq.
          JONES WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          60 E. 42nd St.
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (732) 236-4337
          E-mail: akapasi@legaljones.com

               - and -

          Joseph Karl Jones, Esq.
          JONES WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          555 Fifth Avenue Ste 1700
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 459-7971
          Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


MERCK SHARP: Suit Puts Drugmaker Defense to Supreme Court Test
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alia Paavola, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that
the U.S. Supreme Court will consider a case that examines a legal
strategy drugmakers use to defend themselves against patient
lawsuits, according to STAT.

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Doris Albrecht started as a
class-action lawsuit brought by thousands of patients who used
Fosamax, Merck's osteoporosis drug. Patients claim Merck failed to
properly warn them about certain side effects, particularly that
taking the drug may increase their risk of fracturing their femurs.
In the lawsuit, patients argue that the drugmaker broke state
"failure to warn" laws, which require companies to warn consumers
about any dangers of their products.

Merck argues that it tried to warn patients by updating the drug
label, but the FDA didn't allow it.  Merck claims it's not
responsible for patients who suffered bone fractures because the
FDA blocked the proposed warnings from the label.

The Supreme Court will  decide how companies can use this defense,
commonly used by pharmaceutical companies to quickly resolve cases
and avoid patient lawsuits.

"Regardless of the outcome of the case, this is going to be a very
big deal, because [this defense is] a really important issue with
respect to drug manufacturer liability," Patti Zettler, an
associate professor at Atlanta-based Georgia State University
College of Law who used to work in the FDA's office of chief
counsel, told STAT.

The case will be watched closely by several industries, not just
drugmakers, because it tackles  the question of what happens when
federal law and state law appear to be in conflict.[GN]


METROPOLITAN TRANS: Finnigan Seeks OT Pay for Train Operators
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN FINNIGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
and NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00516 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 1, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and for other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants maintain a time keeping
system known as "Cronos" throughout the NYC subway network which
would allow subway train operators to clock in and out of their
daily shifts; however, the Defendants do not allow subway train
operators to use the Cronos system because the additional 10 to 15
minutes of work performed by train operators at the end of their
shifts would cost them a significant amount in overtime
compensation. Instead, Defendants have made it exceptionally
difficult for their subway train operators to report this time
worked, and when it is reported, the Defendants' supervisors
routinely refuse to process the subway train operators' requests
for overtime payment.

During the course of Plaintiff's employment, the Defendants have
employed thousands of other subway train operators. The Defendants
subjected, and continue to subject, all of the train operators to
the same illegal practices and policies same with that of
Plaintiff. The Defendants managed Plaintiff and the other train
operators' employment, including the amount of overtime worked. The
Defendants dictated, controlled, and ratified the wage and hour and
all related employee compensation policies.

The Defendants were aware of Plaintiff and the other train
operators' work hours but failed to pay them the full amount of
wages to which they were entitled for this work time under the law.
Defendants' failures to pay proper wages in a timely manner were
made and continue to be made without good faith, willfully, and
with a reckless disregard for Plaintiff and other train operators'
rights, and Plaintiff and other train operators have been damaged
by such failures, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Neil H. Greenberg, Esq.
          Keith E. Williams, Esq.
          NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          4242 Merrick Road
          Massapequa, NY 11758
          Telephone: 516.228.5100
          E-mail: keith@nhglaw.com

MICHAEL E. CRIDEN: 4th Cir. Affirms Rejection of Fraud Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court’s judgment rejecting
Defendant’s fraud claim in the case captioned JOSEPH SAVERI LAW
FIRM INC., a California corporation; JOSEPH R. SAVERI,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MICHAEL E. CRIDEN, P.A., d/b/a Criden &
Love, P.A., a Florida corporation, Defendant-Appellant. No.
17-2090. (4th Cir.)

The Defendants-Appelants appeals the court rejection of their fraud
claim, finding the argument that Saveri's failure to strike an
appearance on behalf of Isaac Industries constituted fraud to be
unavailing.

The dispute here is between two firms that represented plaintiffs
in a large antitrust class action. The appellant, Criden & Love,
seeks from the Saveri Law Firm a larger share of the award of
attorneys' fees in the action, asserting contentions sounding in
contract, tort, and unjust enrichment.  

The appellant asserts a number of claims in this case, all of which
ask for the same thing: a referral fee payment from Saveri's law
firm. Whether presented as a contract claim, a claim for equitable
relief, or a fraud claim, there is simply no basis on this record
for finding the appellant entitled to such a payment.

Here there was no acceptance by Saveri. The parties in this case
agree that they had no express contract. Although Criden & Love's
email may be considered an offer to enter into a referral
agreement, Saveri at no point expressly accepted the terms.
Instead, Criden & Love argues that an implied contract was formed
through Saveri's actions. It points specifically to Saveri's move
for co-lead counsel status while representing Isaac Industries as
member of the class. Because, C&L argued, this was after it had
made its offer by phone and email, Saveri's actions constituted
implied acceptance of the offer.

Both parties here are sophisticated actors and repeat players in
the market for antitrust litigation. Both could have done more to
clarify the terms of the relationship between them, and both failed
to do so. It is not the job of the court to do this for them. In
the absence of any sign that Saveri accepted the terms offered by
Criden & Love, the Court must leave the negotiation where we found
it. As such, the Court sees nothing more than an offer that was
never accepted.

Since there are no disputed facts that would lead to a different
conclusion, the district court was correct to resolve this question
as a matter of law.

Criden & Love's equitable theories fare no better. C&L is seeking a
percentage of fees that were awarded to Saveri after he left Lieff
Cabraser. Saveri earned these fees for work on behalf of Breen, a
client with no connection to Lieff Cabraser or to C&L. Id.C&L's
unjust enrichment claim fails, therefore, because it has no right
to the funds that it argues that Saveri received unjustly. In order
to prevail, C&L must show a legal or equitable right to the funds
at issue that is superior to that of Saveri.  

The quantum meruit claim fails for a similar reason. C&L performed
no work for which it was not compensated. C&L received $900,000 for
referring its client to Lieff Cabraser, which was based in part on
work Saveri did while at the latter firm. Equity does not give C&L
a second claim against Saveri's fees.

Criden & Love brings a fraudulent concealment claim. It claims that
Saveri fraudulently concealed an intention not to pay C&L the
referral fee. But of course, Saveri never suggested in any way that
he did intend to pay the fee. And his Notice to Appear on behalf of
Breen could easily be understood as an objective manifestation of
an intent not to pay any referral fee since Breen was not the
client C&L had referred.

A full-text copy of the Fourth Circuit's January 14, 2018 Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8fm2n8j from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Kevin Bruce Love -- klove@cridenlove.com -- CRIDEN & LOVE,
P.A.,South Miami, FL 33143-5339, Florida, for Appellant.

James Patrick Ulwick -- julwick@kg-law.com -- KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Scott H. Phillips -- sphillips@semmes.com -- SEMMES,
BOWEN & SEMMES, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.

Robert H. Bunzel -- rbunzel@bzbm.com -- BARTKO ZANKEL BUNZEL &
MILLER, San Francisco, California, for Appellees.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Gunther Moves to Certify Class of Utah Residents
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled Nichole K. Gunther, On behalf
of plaintiff and class v. Midland Credit Management, Inc, and
Midland Funding, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-00704-CW-PMW (D. Utah), asks
the Court to certify a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure consisting of these persons:

   (a) all individuals in Utah;
   (b) to whom Midland Funding or Midland Credit;
   (c) sent a similar letter seeking to collect a debt;
   (d) which is time barred; and
   (e) which letter was sent within the one (1) year period
       immediately preceding the filing of this complaint.

Midland Credit sent letters concerning a debt claimed to be owed to
Midland Funding, which were sent to several hundred Utah residents
and sought payment on time barred debts, the Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiffs alleges that the inclusion of certain statements in
the letters raise identical issues under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.  The Plaintiff adds that the predominant question is
whether any of the statements are false, misleading or confusing to
the least sophisticated consumer.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tyler B. Ayres, Esq.
          Daniel Baczynski
          AYRES LAW FIRM
          12339 S. 800 E., Suite 101
          Draper, UT 84020
          Telephone: (801) 255-5555
          E-mail: Tyler@AyresLawFirm.com
                  Dbaczyn2@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Cory W. Eichhorn, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          701 Brickell Ave., Suite 3300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 789-7576
          E-mail: Cory.eichhorn@hklaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas D. Leland, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          1801 California St., Suite 5000
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 974-6643
          E-mail: Thomas.leland@hklaw.com


MODERN SPACES: Olsen Files Suit Asserting Disabilities Act Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Modern Spaces Marketing Group, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Modern Spaces Marketing
Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00493 (E.D. N.Y., January
24, 2019).

Modern Spaces Marketing Group, LLC is responsible for marketing
over $3B of real estate in New York City to date.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NAADAM INC: Kiler Files ADA Class Suit New York
-----------------------------------------------
Naadam 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. Naadam Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00521 (E.D. N.Y., January 28, 2019).

Naadam Inc. produces knitwear, such as sweaters, jackets, gloves,
and socks for men and women.[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



NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Briggs Files Class Action for Personal Injury
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Joseph Briggs,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00410-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 27, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Brown Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Jason Brown,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Morehouse
College (Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00382-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: Clement Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Mario Clement,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and The
Catholic University of America, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00393-RLY-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: Clewis Files Personal Injury Case in Ind.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Troy Clewis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00462-TWP-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 28, 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: Dance Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Thomas Dance,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00461-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 28, 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: Davis Brings Personal Injury Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Charles Davis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00468-SEB-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 28, 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: Disregarded Student-Athletes' Health & Safety
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
and Lane College, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00330-SEB-DML (S.D.
Ind., January 26, 2019) seeks to obtain redress for injuries
sustained as a result of Defendants' reckless disregard for the
health and safety of generations of Lane student-athletes.

According to the complaint, despite knowing for decades of a vast
body of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic
brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff experienced,
Defendants failed to implement adequate procedures to protect
Plaintiff and other Lane football players from the long-term
dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for profit.
As a direct result of Defendants' acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former Lane football players suffered and continue to
suffer brain and other neurocognitive injuries, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Joshua Davis is a natural person and resident of the
State of Mississippi.

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

Lane College is a private university located at 545 Lane Avenue,
Jackson, Tennessee 38301.[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: Drake Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Kevin Drake,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00450-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 28, 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: Eischens Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Robert Eischens,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00397-JPH-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: Faces Dovale Personal Injury Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Steven Dovale,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00460-JPH-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 28, 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 Kimble Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Melvin Kimble,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00455-SEB-DLP (S.D. Ind., January 28, 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 Moor Personal Injury Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Sheldon Moor,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00459-JPH-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 28, 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 Taylor PI Class Action in Indiana
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Jay Taylor,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Fisk
University, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00383-JPH-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: Federico Files Personal Injury Case in Ind.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Vincent Federico,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00464-JRS-DLP (S.D. Ind., January 28, 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: Foley Files PI Class Suit in Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Adam Foley,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00313-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: Freeman Files PI Class Action in Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Sean Freeman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00398-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: Garland Files Class Suit Over Personal Injury
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Jamal Garland,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00380-RLY-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: Hawkins Files Personal Injury Suit in Ind.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Riley Hawkins,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Samford
University, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00396-JMS-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: Jarmon Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Ira Jarmon,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00379-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 27, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Kunkle Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Mark Kunkle,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00412-JMS-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: McGregor Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Jeffrey McGregor,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00385-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: Megna Files Personal Injury Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Anthony Megna,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00466-JPH-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 28, 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: Pegross Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Pearce Pegross, Jr.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Baylor
University, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00395-TWP-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: Randolph Files PI Class Suit in Indiana
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Michael Randolph,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00456-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 28, 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: Reedy Brings Personal Injury Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Tyler Reedy,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00463-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 28, 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: Roberts Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Paul Roberts,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00458-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 28, 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: Tabb Class Suit Asserts Personal Injury
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Juan Tabb, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00411-SEB-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: Wagner Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Nick Wagner,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00457-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind., January 28, 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: Webster Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Alan Webster,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00465-JRS-DLP (S.D. Ind., January 28, 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: Williamson Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as James Williamson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Muskingum
University, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00381-JPH-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: Woods Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Brian Woods,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00467-JRS-DLP (S.D. Ind., January 28, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NAVIENT CORP: Kahn Swick Commences Securities Fraud Probe
---------------------------------------------------------
Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq., a
partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"),
announces that KSF has commenced an investigation into Navient
Corporation (NasdaqGS: NAVI).

Throughout 2017 and 2018, Navient was sued in several civil
lawsuits filed by the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
("CFPB") and Attorneys General from Illinois, Pennsylvania,
Washington, California and Mississippi for violations of state and
federal consumer protection laws, based on allegations of
widespread acts of misconduct detrimental to borrowers of the loans
it services. Recently, the federal court presiding over the
Pennsylvania Attorney General's suit against Navient rejected the
Company's attempt to dismiss the case due to the pending CFPB
lawsuit, allowing that case to proceed.

On October 3, 2018, a consumer class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company for misleading borrowers regarding their loan
servicing options in violation of numerous state and federal laws.
The Company has also been sued in a securities class action lawsuit
for failing to disclose material information, violating federal
securities laws, which is ongoing.

The actions of the Company's executives have exposed it to
potential penalties, fines and other financial losses from the
numerous investigations and lawsuits by public officials, consumers
and shareholders.

KSF's investigation is focusing on whether Navient's officers
and/or directors breached their fiduciary duties to Navient's
shareholders or otherwise violated state or federal laws.

If you have information that would assist KSF in its investigation,
or have been a long-term holder of Navient shares and would like to
discuss your legal rights, you may, without obligation or cost to
you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing Partner
Lewis Kahn ( lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com ), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-navi/ to learn more.

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163  
         Telephone: 1-877-515-1850
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]


NCAA: Disregards RHIT Student-Athletes' Safety, Havill Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
RYAN HAVILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and ROSE-HULMAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00337-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind. Jan. 26,
2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology ("RHIT") student-athletes.

According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up
to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why.
Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football
players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football
season, there are entire days of the week that millions of
Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of
thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the
world. Before each game, these players -- often mere teenagers --
are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when
playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going.

But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark
about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During
the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than
1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse
yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20
Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if
you drove your car into a wall at twenty-five miles per hour and
weren't wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield
would be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and
21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car
accidents.

Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred
to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur"
college football.

While in school, RHIT football players were under Defendant's care.
Unfortunately, Defendant did not care about the off-field
consequences that would haunt students, like Plaintiff Geist, for
the rest of their lives. Despite knowing for decades of a vast body
of scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain
injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant
failed to implement adequate procedures to protect Plaintiff and
other RHIT football players from the long-term dangers associated
with them. They did so knowingly and for profit.

As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former RHIT football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such,
Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate
those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit
says.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554 9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589 6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589 6378
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: 415.212.9300
          Facsimile: 415 373 9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com

NESTLE INC: Supreme Court Revives Class-Action Suit Over Maggi
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saumya Tewari and Priyanka Mittal, writing for Livemint, reports
that in a setback to Nestle India Ltd, the Supreme Court on Jan. 3
lifted a stay on the proceedings of a class-action suit filed by
the central government against the maker of Maggi noodles in the
apex consumer court.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) can now
continue proceedings against Nestle India, based on the results of
tests of Maggi noodle samples conducted by the Central Food
Technological Research Institute (CFTRI) in Mysuru. In December
2015, the top court had stayed NCDRC proceedings against Nestle
India and directed the testing of the noodles by CFTRI. In April
next year, Nestle cleared all tests and Maggi was declared safe for
consumption.

The government had approached the consumer court alleging unfair
trade practices, false labelling and misleading advertisements by
Nestle and sought a compensation of ₹640 crore under the
provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The apex court's ruling on Jan. 3 means that Nestle may have to
review its packaging and change the way it advertises the noodles
brand.

Nestle India, in a statement, said that it welcomed the orders
passed by the Supreme Court in the Maggi noodles matter. Senior
advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Nestle, told the
court that the Mysuru-based lab had found the noodles to contain
lead "within permissible limits" and that it could not be
ascertained whether the monosodium glutamate (MSG) in it was
natural or added.

The 2015 Maggi ban was a big blow to the Indian arm of the Swiss
foods company, which took a hit of more than ₹500 crore as it
recalled and destroyed more than 35,000 tonnes of noodles from 3.5
million retail outlets in June 2015.

Maggi was banned by FSSAI on 5 June 2015 for five months for
allegedly containing lead beyond permissible limits, forcing Nestle
India to withdraw the product from the market. This led to not just
losses, but also erosion of consumer trust in the popular brand.

Nestle said that Maggi, which once enjoyed a 75% share of the
market before the ban, clawed back to 60% in 2016. To further the
cause of improving food safety standards in the country, in
September 2017 Nestle partnered with FSSAI to open the first food
safety institute in Manesar.

"Nestle had seen favourable outcomes from international and
national labs for its Maggi samples before it hit the market. I do
not see any major issue hitting the company in this regard," said
Abneesh Roy, senior vice-president at Edelweiss Securities.[GN]


NORTON OUTDOOR: Court Refuses to Strike Class Allegations in Shipp
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, issued a
Report and Recommendation denying Defendant's Motion to Strike
Class Allegations in the case captioned JERRY L. SHIPP, On Behalf
of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. NORTON OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., et al.,
Defendants. Case No. 1:18-cv-444. (S.D. Ohio).

The Plaintiffs own residential property located close to 130 West
Ross Avenue in St. Bernard, Ohio, where two digital outdoor
advertising signs have been erected. The property on which the
signs have been erected is allegedly owned by Defendant LAL
Properties, LLC (LAL) and the signs were erected and are operated
by Defendant Norton Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (NOA). The
Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that the light from the Signs
interferes with their enjoyment of their residential property and
has adversely impacted the value of that property.

Generally, a suit may be brought in federal court only if there is
federal question jurisdiction, meaning that a constitutional
provision or a statute gives the court subject matter jurisdiction
over the claims alleged in the complaint, or if there is diversity
jurisdiction, meaning that the plaintiff and any defendants reside
in different states.  

On the record presented, removal to federal court was proper
because this Court had original jurisdiction over the claims filed
against the Village of St. Bernard under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983,
and supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' closely related
state law claims. However, the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
their federal claims soon after the removal of this case, leaving
only two remaining state law claims. A federal court retains
discretion over whether or not to continue exercising supplemental
jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims have
been dismissed.  

The general rule is that a district court should dismiss
supplemental state law claims if the federal claims have been
dismissed before trial.  

The Sixth Circuit has repeatedly cautioned trial courts about the
limits of their discretion to retain state law claims after all
federal claims have been dismissed.

On the record presented, none of the relevant factors, judicial
economy, convenience, fairness, or comity, favor the retention of
supplemental jurisdiction by this Court. No substantial proceedings
have occurred in this case. Based upon controlling case law,
therefore, this Court should immediately remand to state court.

Alternatively, the Motion to Strike Should be Denied.

Citing Rules 23(B)(2) and (3) of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Plaintiffs seek to pursue their two remaining state law claims
on behalf of the following class:

     All owners, renters, and occupants of property in St. Bernard
who own and/or reside in property located within a Five Hundred
(500) foot radius of the Norton Outdoor Advertising Electronic
Variable Message Billboards located at 130 West Ross Avenue, St.
Bernard.

In the case presented, the Plaintiffs allege that the number of
class members is so numerous that joinder is impracticable, because
of the number of apartment buildings, multi-family homes, and other
non-owner occupied residential dwellings within a 500 foot radius
of the billboards, together with lessees and landowners of
commercial property who also have had their property devalued. The
Plaintiffs further allege that they can satisfy the commonality and
typicality elements required under Rule 23, because common legal
and factual questions predominate over any individual question
affecting Class Members.

In contrast, the Defendants argue that the class allegations should
be stricken because the number of purported class members is too
small to make joinder impracticable, because the allegations seek
to establish an overly broad class, because the purported class
members are not similarly situated and fail to meet the typicality,
adequacy, and commonality requirements, and because a proposed
subclass constitutes an impermissible failsafe class.

If the presiding district judge finds just cause to retain
jurisdiction over the supplemental state law claims, the
undersigned alternatively would recommend that Defendants' motion
to strike the class allegations be denied at this time, without
prejudice to renew. Although the Defendants present serious
questions concerning Plaintiffs' ultimate ability to prove the
viability of their proposed class, the present motion is limited
strictly to an assessment of the allegations made in the complaint.


Accordingly, the Magistrate suggests the remand of the case sua
sponte to state court without ruling on the pending motion. Only in
the alternative, if remand to state court is rejected by the
presiding district judge, does the undersigned recommend that the
Defendants' motion to strike the class allegations be denied,
without prejudice to renew following a brief period of discovery to
determine the propriety of the proposed class.

A full-text copy of the Magistrate's January 14, 2018 Report and
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/yapgmpwv from
Leagle.com.

Jerry L. Shipp, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated & Cynthia A. Shipp, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by John Henry Phillips,
Phillips Law Firm, Anthony Brendan Holman, Phillips Law Firm & Kyle
Edward Hackett, Phillips Law Firm, Inc.

Norton Outdoor Advertising, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael
Alan Galasso, Robbins Kelly Patterson & Tucker.

LAL Properties, LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael Leis Gay,
Cors & Bassett LLC.


NOVA LIFESTYLE: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Nova
Lifestyle, Inc. (Nova Lifestyle or the Company) (NASDAQ: NVFY) for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between December 3,
2015 and December 20, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before February 26, 2019.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall, or Sherin Mahdavian,
of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of
charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
www.schallfirm.com or by email at brian@schallfirm.com

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Nova Lifestyle mischaracterized its
supposed strategic alliance with Shanxi Wangqing, which the Company
claimed had named it lead designer provider of all furnishings for
a $460 million senior center in China. Nova Lifestyle inflated its
reported revenues in 2016 and 2017 in conjunction with Shanxi
Wangqing and Merlino Lewis LLP. Based on these facts, the Companys
public statements were false and materially misleading throughout
the class period. When the market learned the truth about Nova
Lifestyle, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Email: brian@schallfirm.com.
                sherin@schallfirm.com [GN]


NVIDIA CORP: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that
purchasers of Nvidia Corporation (NASDAQGS: NVDA) filed a class
action complaint against the company's officers and directors for
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between
August 10, 2017 and November 15, 2018. Nvidia designs, develops,
and markets graphics processing units ("GPUs") and related
software.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
https://www.robbinsarroyo.com/nvidia-corporation/

        Nvidia Accused of Touting its Revenue Guidance

According to the complaint, demand for Nvidia's GPUs initially
surged as they became widely used in connection with
cryptocurrencies. Nvidia assured investors that the company could
adjust to rapid changes in the cryptocurrency market and that its
executives are "masters at managing our channel, and we understand
the channel very well." Nvidia further assured investors that its
core business was computer gamers who would compensate for any
decline in demand from cryptocurrency users. When analysts upgraded
Nvidia stock based on these representations, insiders sold
significant amounts of personally held shares. In one instance, the
company's CEO sold 110,000 shares for $18 million in proceeds. When
the company cut its revenue guidance on November 15, 2018 –
stating it would decline by over 7% instead of growing by 17% as
previously expected – its stock declined $57.69, or almost 29%,
over two trading sessions, wiping out over $35 billion in
shareholder value.

            Nvidia Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov
at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

         Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
         Robbins Arroyo LLP
         600 B Street, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 525-3990
         Toll Free: (800) 350-6003
         Website: www.robbinsarroyo.com
         Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Court Orders Amendments to Weiner Scheduling Order
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order amending Scheduling Order in the case
captioned DAVID WEINER, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OCWEN
FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Florida corporation and OCWEN LOAN
SERVICING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants.
No. 2:14-cv-02597-MCE-DB. (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff David Weiner and Defendants Ocwen Financial Corporation
(OFC) and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (OLS), file this Joint
Stipulation to Amend the Court's Scheduling Order and Continue Case
Deadlines:

   -- Proposed Fact Discovery Cut-off  February 20, 2019

   -- Expert Disclosures                   March 6, 2019

   -- Initial Expert Depositions          March 27, 2019

   -- Disclosure of Expert Rebuttal
         Reports                          April 15, 2019

   -- Depositions of Experts Concerning      May 3, 2019

   -- Rebuttal Reports Completion of
         Expert Discovery                    May 3, 2019

   -- Filing Date for Dispositive Motions   May 31, 2019

   -- Filing Date for Opposition to
         Dispositive Motions               June 28, 2019

   -- Motions Filing Date for Reply in
         Support of Dispositive Motions    July 26, 2019

   -- Final Pretrial Conference Trial           None Set

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 14, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycp27yc6 from Leagle.com.

David Weiner, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Alberstone --
dalberstone@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C., Roland Karim
Tellis, Baron & Budd, P.C., Evan M. Zucker, Baron & Budd, PC,
Michael Isaac Miller -- isaacm@bsjfirm.com -- Branstetter Stranch &
Jennings, Peter Klausner -- peter.klausner.esq@gmail.com -- Baron &
Budd, P.C., Sterling Lynn Cluff -- scluff@baronbudd.com -- Baron &
Budd PC & Mark Pifko -- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd.

Ocwen Financial Corporation, a Florida Corporation & Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants,
represented by Elizabeth Lemond McKeen -- emckeen@omm.com --
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Melinda L. Haag -- mhaag@orrick.com --
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Randy Scott Luskey --
rluskey@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Ashley
Pavel -- apavel@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Catalina Joos
Vergara -- cvergara@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, Erika Maki Rasch
-- erasch@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, James Abbott Bowman --
jbowman@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Jennifer Christine Lee
-- jclee@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe & Richard A.
Jacobsen, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, pro hac vice.


ONE TECHNOLOGIES: Carlson Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Theresa Carlson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. One Technologies, LLC dba Free Credit Click and Does 1
through 10, Case No. 2:18-cv-03253 (E.D. Calif., December 21,
2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff brings the class action to the Defendant for
negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting Plaintiff on the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the TCPA, thereby
invading the Plaintiff' privacy.

The Plaintiff Theresa Carlson is a natural person residing in
Olivehurst, California.

The Defendant One Technologies, LLC is a lead generation company.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PARKWOOD ENTERTAINMENT: Facing Class-Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Susan Gonzalez, writing for NewsChannel5.com, reports that turns
out some Beyonce Knowles fans aren't "crazy in love" with her
website.

Parkwood Entertainment, Beyonce's company, is being hit with a
class-action lawsuit claiming Beyonce.com violates the Americans
With Disabilities Act.

A New York woman named Mary Conner who has "no vision whatsoever,"
according to the court filing, says the website isn't accessible
for people who are visually impaired.

"Beyonce.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials, and other programs offered by Parkwood.
Yet, Beyonce.com contains thousands of access barriers that make it
difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it
impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a
transaction on the website," states the lawsuit from attorney Dan
Shaked, Esq..

One of the problems with the site, according to the lawsuit, is
that there is not any alt-text (alternative text) accompanying
website elements and images. Alt-text is a word or phrase that can
be added to elements of a website so users can be told the nature
or contents of what they are clicking on. While alt-text has a lot
of uses, one of the most cited reasons for having it is that this
text enables blind or visually impaired individuals to click on an
image or element on a website and what is being displayed can be
described to them. They can then independently navigate a website.

Beyonce.com is an "exclusively visual interface," the lawsuit says,
citing additional problems with "descriptive links" and "resizable
text."

Beyonce nor Parkwood Entertainment has released a public statement
or response to the lawsuit. [GN]


PENNSYLVANIA: Court Won't Allow Fennell Suit to Proceed as Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued an Memorandum granting Plaintiff's Motion to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis in the case captioned JAMARCUS FENNELL,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. WARDEN DAVID PENCHISHEN, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 19-111. (E.D. Pa.).

Inmate Jamarcus Fennell seeks damages and injunctive relief against
the Northampton County prison warden and corrections officers
challenging a prison policy allowing the officers to not return
commissary items when men return to the general prison population
after solitary confinement but return commissary items taken from
women inmates placed in solitary confinement. Mr. Fennell includes
male inmates as plaintiffs but they did not sign the complaint.  

Mr. Fennell may proceed in forma pauperis as it appears he is
incapable of paying the fees to commence this civil action. gations
liberally.

The Court dismiss claims brought on other inmates' behalf.

Mr. Fennell seeks to proceed on behalf of similarly situated
inmates as a purported class action.

They did not sign the complaint but are named in Mr. Fennell's pro
se complaint. They cannot proceed without signing the complaint.
Mr. Fennell lacks standing to pursue claims on the named inmates.
Mr. Fennell, as, will also face a difficult time acting as a class
representative as courts have held a prisoner proceeding pro se is
inadequate to represent the interests of his fellow inmates in a
class action. Mr. Fennell is not licensed to represent them pro se
in federal court.

The Court dismiss Mr. Fennell's civil rights claim based on lost
property.

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege the
violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the
United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was
committed by a person acting under color of state law. Mr. Fennell
fails to state a plausible claim for relief at this time.

The Court allow Mr. Fennell to proceed on his equal protection
claim.

The Court also understand Mr. Fennell to be pursuing an equal
protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment based on the policy
regarding the destruction of commissary items upon issuance of a
misconduct does not exist on the women's side of the Northampton
County Jail. The Equal Protection Clause directs all similarly
situated individuals be treated alike.12 At this time, and subject
to service upon Defendants and their arguments on equal protection,
Mr. Fennell may proceed on his equal protection claim.

The Court grants Mr. Fennell leave to proceed in forma pauperis but
dismiss the other named Plaintiffs and Mr. Fennell's due process
claim regarding the deprivation of his property. Mr. Fennell may
proceed on his equal protection claim based on an allegedly
different policy on returning commissary items to women inmates
after disciplinary solitary confinement in the Northampton County
jail.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 14, 2018
Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/y97kotx8 from
Leagle.com.

JAMARCUS FENNELL, ET. AL., AND ALL THOSE SIMILAR OR ALIKE HE
REPRESENTS, Plaintiff, pro se.


PEP BOYS-MANNY: Fails to Provide Tire Registration Form, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
VICKIE THORNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PEP BOYS-MANNY, MOE & JACK INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00393-JCJ (E.D. Pa., Jan. 16, 2019) alleges that
the Defendant failed to register and provide federally required
tire registration forms to the Plaintiff and the class who
purchased tires from the Defendant.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide the
Plaintiff and the class with a paper tire registration form
containing the Independent Tire Dealer's contact information and
the entire, federally mandated tire identification number of each
tire sold, so that the purchaser can add his or her name and
contact information to the tire registration form and send it to
the manufacturer.

The Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack, together with its subsidiaries,
engages in the automotive aftermarket service and retail business
in the United States and Puerto Rico. The Pep Boys-Manny, Moe &
Jack was founded in 1921 and is headquartered in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack operates as a subsidiary
of Icahn Automotive Group LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexandra Warren, Esq.
          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          Brendan S. Thompson, Esq.
          Yifei Li, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: awarren@cuneolaw.com
                  charles@cuneolaw.com
                  brendant@cuneolaw.com
                  evelyn@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Eric N. Linsk, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINGAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
          E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com
                  rnlinsk@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher C. Kessler, Esq.
          THE KESSLER LAW FIRM PLLC
          PO Box 8064
          Greenville, NC 27835
          Telephone: (252) 321-2535
          E-mail: cck@kesslerlawfirmpllc.com

               - and -

          J. Olin McDougall, II, Esq.
          115 Lady's Island Commons
          Beaufort, SC 29901-1336
          Telephone: (843) 379-7000
          Facsimile: (843) 379-7007
          E-mail: lin@mlf.law

               - and -
          
          Dina E. Micheletti, Esq.
          FAZIO MICHELETTI LLP
          2410 Camino Ramon, Suite 315
          San Ramon, CA 94583
          Telephone: (925) 543-2555
          Facsimile: (925) 369-0344
          E-mail: dem@fazmiclaw.com


PERRIGO COMPANY: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Perrigo Company plc
("Perrigo" or the "Company") (NYSE: PRGO) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Perrigo between November 8, 2018 and December 21, 2018,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/prgo.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that on December 21, 2018, Perrigo issued a
Form 8-K disclosing that it had received an audit finding letter
from the Irish tax authorities on October 30, 2018 stating "that IP
sales transactions. . . .  including the sale of Tysabri®, were
not part of the trade of Elan Pharma and therefore should have been
treated as chargeable gains subject to an effective 33% tax rate,
rather than the 12.5% tax rate applicable to trading income."
Although the Company had revealed to investors on November 8, 2018
that it had received the audit finding letter, it did not disclose
material details. Following the news on December 21, 2018, Perrigo
stock dropped roughly 25%.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/prgo or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Perrigo
you have until March 4, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Telephone: 212-697-6484
         Email:  peretz@bgandg.com [GN]


PURITAN'S PRIDE: Court Narrows Claims in Deceptive Marketing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting in part and denying in part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned DARCEY L.
SHARPE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. PURITAN'S PRIDE, INC., et al., Defendants.
Case No. 16-cv-06717-JD. (N.D. Cal.).

Puritan's Pride moves to dismiss the first amended consolidated
complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 12(b)(6) for
failure to state plausible claims.

In this putative consumer class action, named plaintiffs Darcey
Sharp and seven other individuals allege that defendants Puritan's
Pride, Inc. and its parent entity, The Nature's Bounty Co.
(Puritan's Pride), used misleading buy one/get one free
promotionals and other deceptive marketing pitches to induce sales
of vitamins and health supplements. Plaintiffs are residents of New
York and California, and seek to represent classes within those
states under their consumer protection laws. They also seek to
represent a nationwide class under New York law.

THE CALIFORNIA CLAIMS

The amended complaint plausibly alleges claims for violations of
the CLRA, FAL and UCL. The Plaintiffs have added a number of
factual allegations that satisfy the elements of the California
consumer statutes they invoke.  

Puritan's Pride's contention that the amended complaint fails to
properly allege harm for the California claims is not well taken.
Puritan's Pride says that the plaintiffs are limited under the
consumer laws to restitutionary recovery in the form of a
price/value differential, which the amended complaint did not
allege.  

An express allegation of a price/valuation differential is not the
sine qua non of an actionable CLRA, FAL or UCL claim. The
Plaintiffs allege a perfectly plausible injury in the form of
losing money by being duped into buying products they otherwise
would not have purchased but for the deceptive conduct. Our circuit
has determined that these allegations are enough to state harm
under the CLRA, FAL and UCL. For pleading purposes under FRCP
12(b)(6), they have adequately alleged injury.

THE NEW YORK CLAIM

Puritan's Pride's main argument with respect to the New York claim
is that it is not properly before the Court. The fourth cause of
action is brought under Sections 349 and 350 of the New York
General Business Law (GBL). Section 349(a) prohibits deceptive acts
or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or
in the furnishing of any service in this state. Section 350 states
that false advertising in the conduct of any business, trade or
commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state is
hereby declared unlawful. Plaintiffs allege the GBL claim on behalf
of a putative class of New York residents, and a nationwide class
of consumers whose transaction was processed by Defendants in New
York.

Puritan's Pride argues in effect that the GBL stops at the New York
state border and that purchases made outside the state are beyond
its purview. Consequently, it says that the GBL cannot be applied
to a nationwide class and a national claim under the GBL should be
dismissed. For the named plaintiffs who made purchases in New York,
it argues that the Court lacks specific personal jurisdiction for
the GBL claim.  

On the question of the territorial reach of the GBL, the New York
Court of Appeals has construed the plain words of in this state in
the GBL to mean that the transaction in which the consumer is
deceived must occur in New York.

Under these principles, the Court of Appeals rejected a GBL claim
for a plaintiff who bought an insurance policy in Florida. The
plaintiff alleged that the insurer misrepresented the policy's
potential dividends in a scheme conceived and orchestrated in New
York by a New York company. But even though the plaintiff bought
the policy on the basis of marketing materials disseminated from
New York, he agreed to the transaction in Florida, and so was not
deceived in New York as required to state a GBL claim. By the same
token, the Court of Appeals sustained the GBL claims for the
plaintiffs who had purchased policies within New York.  

The Plaintiffs say their purchases were similarly handled in New
York and so the same conclusion should be reached here, but that
contention is subject to considerable doubt. Consequently,
plaintiffs cannot state a claim under the GBL for purchases made
outside of New York. The GBL claim is limited to individuals who
bought Puritan's Pride products within New York.

The next question is whether such a claim can be litigated in this
Court. Puritan's Pride presents the question under FRCP 12(b)(2)
and appears to contend that there is no basis in personal
jurisdiction for the Court to entertain the GBL claim because it
turns entirely on events and law in New York, with no connection to
California or this district. Puritan's Pride seeks dismissal on
jurisdiction grounds. The parties focus only on specific personal
jurisdiction and not general jurisdiction.  

Puritan's Pride's argument was not entirely precise. It discussed
specific personal jurisdiction in terms of plaintiffs and their
claims. Plaintiffs offer no other argument to establish specific
personal jurisdiction, which was their burden to show. They make no
effort, for example, the demonstrate the propriety of jurisdiction
under the purposeful direction tests applicable to the type of
torts alleged here. Nor do they address the traditional concepts of
minimum contacts and fair play in determining personal
jurisdiction. Because plaintiffs effectively abandoned these
issues, they need not be analyzed here.

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

In light of the GBL conclusions, the Court construes the fifth
cause of action in the amended complaint to be for unjust
enrichment under California law. It is dismissed because unjust
enrichment is a remedy and not a freestanding claim. Plaintiffs are
certainly free to seek the remedy at the appropriate stage of the
case.

The fourth cause of action under the GBL is dismissed without
prejudice. While the plaintiffs may not pursue the GBL claim here,
they are not barred by this order from raising it in a New York or
other appropriate court. The unjust enrichment claim is dismissed.
The motion is denied in all other respects.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 14, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y8ebfog9 from Leagle.com.

Darcey L. Sharpe, Mary Ludolph-Aliaga, Jay D. Werner & Eva Krueger,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Curtis Brooks Cutter --
bcutter@cutterlaw.com -- Cutter Law, P.C., John R. Parker, Jr.,
Cutter Law P.C., Tina Mehr -- tmehr@visionlegalinc.com -- Vision
Legal, Inc. & Adam Tamburelli -- atamburelli@marlinsaltzman.com --
Marlin and Saltzman, LLP.

Puritan's Pride, Inc., a New York Corporation & Nature's Bounty
Co., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, represented by James
Frederic Speyer -- james.speyer@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter
Kaye Scholer LLP, Eskandar Alex Beroukhim --
alex.beroukhim@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
& Ryan W. Light -- ryan.light@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold and Porter
Kaye Scholer LLP.

Meg Larson, Movant, represented by Curtis Brooks Cutter, Cutter
Law, P.C., John R. Parker, Jr., Cutter Law P.C., Stanley Donald
Saltzman, Marlin & Saltzman, Adam Tamburelli, Marlin and Saltzman,
LLP, Cody R. Kennedy, Marlin and Saltzman, William Anthony Baird,
Marlin & Saltzman LLP, & William George Hansult --
hansultlaw@aol.com


QUESTROYAL FINE ART: Violates ADA, Dawson Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
Questroyal Fine Art LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Deshawn Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Questroyal Fine Art LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00720 (S.D. N.Y., January 24, 2019).

Questroyal Fine Art, LLC, is an established American art gallery
specializing in quality American paintings from the nineteenth and
twentieth centurie.[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



R&J SUPERMARKET: Arellano Suit Seeks Damages Over FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
LORENZO ANALCO ARELLANO v. R&J SUPERMARKET CORP. d/b/a LA ROCA
SUPERMARKET, and JOSE NOLASCO, individually, Case No. 2:19-cv-00818
(D.N.J., January 21, 2019), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all other persons similarly situated -- grocery store employees
-- for damages as a result of the Defendants' violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

R&J Supermarket Corp., based in Union City, New Jersey, does
business as La Roca Supermarket.  Jose Nolasco has been an owner,
partner, officer and/or manager of the Defendant La Roca.

The Defendants operate a retail grocery store, buying and selling
products that move through interstate commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
                  JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


RARE BOOKS: Dawson Sues for Breach of ADA
-----------------------------------------
Rare Books, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Deshawn
Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Rare Books, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00721-GHW
(S.D. N.Y., January 24, 2019).

Rare Books, LLC offers rare antique books, antique maps, ephemera,
& out of print books.[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


RED HAT: Bishop Files Suit Over Sale to IBM Corp.
-------------------------------------------------
Christopher Nunn Bishop, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Red Hat, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-02045
(D. Del., December 21, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on October
28, 2018, pursuant to which Red Hat, Inc. will be acquired by
International Business Machines Corporation.

On December 12, 2018, Red Hat filed a Definitive Proxy Statement
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Proxy
Statement scheduled a stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction
for January 16, 2019. However, the Proxy Statement omits material
information concerning the two financial advisory firms engaged by
Red Hat in connection with the Proposed Transaction -- Guggenheim
Securities, LLC and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC.
As a result of omitting this material information, the Proxy
Statement is false and misleading, and violates the 1934 Act,
asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiff Christopher Nunn Bishop is a stockholder of Red Hat
and has owned Red Hat common stock.

The Defendant Red Hat is a provider of open source software
solutions, using a community-powered approach to develop and offer
reliable and high-performing operating system, virtualization,
management, middleware, cloud, mobile and storage technologies. Red
Hat is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
headquarters at 100 East Davie Street, Raleigh, North Carolina
27601. Red Hat's common stock is listed on the New York Stock
Exchange under the ticker symbol "RHT."

The Individual Defendants are members of Red Hat Board of
directors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

      D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
      KASKELA LAW LLC
      201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Tel: (888) 715-1740
      Fax: (484) 258-1585
      E-mail: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com


REHS CONTEMPORARY: Dawson Suit Alleges ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Rehs Contemporary Galleries, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Deshawn Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rehs Contemporary Galleries, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00722 (S.D. N.Y., January 24, 2019).

Rehs Galleries is an art gallery on 57th Street, Manhattan, New
York City. It displays works by 19th century European Barbizon,
Realist, Naturalist and Academic works of art with some
Impressionism and Post-Impressionism.[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


ROGALLERY IMAGE: Dawson Asserts Breach of ADA in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rogallery Image Makers Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Deshawn Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Rogallery Image Makers Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00723 (S.D. N.Y., January 24, 2019).

Ro Gallery Image Makers Inc is in the Art Goods 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



RONALD FELDMAN: Dawson Asserts Violation of Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Feldman Fine Arts, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Deshawn Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ronald Feldman Fine Arts, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00724 (S.D. N.Y., January 24, 2019).

Ronald Feldman Fine Arts Inc. operates as an art gallery. The
Gallery exhibits contemporary painting, sculpture, installations,
drawings, prints and hosts performances. Ronald Feldman Fine Arts
provides an online inventory of selected prints and multiples.[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


RUDD REALTY: Tenants Win Class-Action Status in Rent-Reg Fight
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sydney Pereira, writing for The Villager, reports that an ongoing
lawsuit between residential tenants in a Village building and their
landlord was boosted to class-action status last month after a
judge formally gave the suit class certification.

Back in 2017, the Housing Rights Initiative and the Village
Independent Democrats discovered the landlord of 28 Bedford St. had
taken advantage of a tax break meant to help owners make upgrades
to their below-market-rate properties. The tax benefit, known as
J-51, requires that landlords keep all of the particular building's
units in the rent-regulation program.

But just three out of 32 units were rent-stabilized at 28 Bedford
St., according to the lawsuit filed by the law firm Newman Ferrara
against Rudd Realty and the Creative Industries Corporation.

"[The class certification shows] this is clearly the justice system
recognizing that this is something that went wrong," said Erik
Coler, a board member of H.R.I. and former president of V.I.D.
"This class certification validates that this is a serious case."

Rudd Realty was unable to comment due to the holidays.

Aaron Carr is executive director of the Housing Rights Initiative,
a nonprofit watchdog group. H.R.I. has brought more than 50
class-action lawsuits focused on the J-51 tax benefits program to
date, according to his nonprofit.

Rudd Realty agreed to give tenants rent refunds and return the
units to rent regulation back in 2017, but the official class
certification could help more tenants. H.R.I. estimates the tenants
could be owed a total of between $1 million and $2 million.

In 2009, the court case Roberts v. Tishman Speyer required that all
buildings benefiting from the J-51 tax break be 100 percent
below-market-rate.

"Here we are nine years later and the problem has yet to be
resolved," said Carr.

Carr said H.R.I. has found 1,000 buildings illegally benefiting
from the J-51 tax break.

Governor Andrew Cuomo's enforcement strategy was a letter from the
state Division of Housing and Community Renewal to landlords,
urging "voluntary compliance." However, thousands of units were not
re-regulated by landlords by the deadline the governor set to do
so, ProPublica reported in 2016.

"That's a weak enforcement policy," Carr said. "That is a hands-off
enforcement approach which got us into this problem in the first
place.

"You can't let the governor off the hook," Carr said, adding that
D.H.C.R. is a state agency. "It's on the governor to ensure that
this is being done," he stressed. "All we've heard from the state
government is crickets."[GN]


SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CA: Jail Suit Granted Class Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------
Crescenzo Vellucci, writing for Vanguard Sacramento Bureau, reports
that just a few days after Christmas, a federal court judge here
confirmed the class action status of a massive lawsuit against
Sacramento County jails, which will go a long way to ending
"dangerous and inhumane" conditions at the facilities, according to
a statement from plaintiffs' lawyers to the Davis Vanguard.

The lawsuit, filed July 31 of 2018, charged the long-troubled jails
with "unconstitutional and illegal treatment" of about 3,800 men
and women. The lawsuit followed a breakdown of a several-year
negotiation with the County of Sacramento.

"It is an important and positive step that the court has found that
the case should proceed as a class action. The dangerous and
inhumane conditions in Sacramento County's jails put every single
person incarcerated there at risk of harm, most of all people with
disabilities, mental health needs, and serious medical needs," said
Aaron J. Fischer, litigation counsel for Disability Rights
California Bay Area Regional Office.

In fact, the decision by the courts came after a mid-December tour
of the county jails with defense and plaintiff lawyers,
representatives of the Board of Supervisors and a federal
magistrate judge.

Every time we tour the jail and meet with our clients, we see
people suffering without the treatment and services they need.
Problems like severe understaffing, reliance on extreme solitary
confinement, and unsafe, inaccessible facilities are not new, and
they have been ignored for far too long. A remedy for these
deficiencies will not be simple or cheap. But the constitutional
rights of prisoners at the jail are being violated every day, and
that cannot be ignored," added Fischer.

There is a status conference between the parties Jan. 17, but
plaintiffs are becoming more impatient. And, in court filings,
Fischer and other co-counsel said conditions are so bad at the jail
that they plan to ask for an injunction to protect prisoners.

"There is considerable urgency to secure relief for Plaintiffs and
putative class and subclass members, who face significant risk of
harm at the Jail due to the serious and longstanding legal and
constitutional violations. Nearly all of the identified
deficiencies at Sacramento County Jail. . . . persist. While
Plaintiffs remain open to a settlement that provides a meaningful
and durable remedy, Plaintiffs cannot simply wait for the outcome
of any future uncertain-at-best negotiations," according to the
filings.

Added Fischer, "We are hopeful that the County will commit to a
timely resolution, and we are also prepared to fight aggressively
in court to vindicate our clients' rights."

Declarations by Sacramento County Jail inmates/plaintiffs -- some
have been incarcerated while awaiting trial for years -- are
detailed and horrific, including declarations stating that wounds
not treated and allowed to rot, blindness caused by a failure of
treatment,  no exposure to sunlight for months and even years,
total isolation with no access to human contact, inhumane
conditions and inhumane treatment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The lawsuit alleges, in part: "Defendant regularly subjects people
in its custody -- the majority of whom have not been convicted of
any crime -- to harsh, prolonged, and undue isolation.  Every day,
Defendant locks up hundreds of people in solitary confinement in
dark, cramped, filthy cells for 23 ½ hours or more per day.  While
these individuals are held in isolation, Defendant deprives them of
human contact, programming, fresh air, and sunlight.  Many people
do not get outside to see the sun for weeks or months at a time.
The extreme isolation and deprivation place people at serious risk
of profound physical and psychological harm."

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


SEIU: Hearing Requested on Forced Union Dues Refunds
----------------------------------------------------
Cole Lauterbach, writing for Alton Daily News, reports that home
health-care workers in Illinois seeking reimbursement of union dues
taken from them in recent years without their permission are asking
a court to reconsider their case, opening up the union to
potentially tens of millions of dollars in refunds.

Local home health-care workers who were members of the Service
Employees International Union were allowed to decline having union
dues taken from them in 2014 regardless of their status with the
union after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in Harris v. Quinn. Since
then, a number of the workers have been trying to recoup the dues
from years before the decision but the courts have denied them a
class action lawsuit that they estimate could cost the union up to
$32 million.

As of Dec. 20, the National Right-to-Work Foundation,  a nonprofit
legal foundation that represents the workers, is pressing for the
appellate court to reconsider its denial for class action
certification after the Supreme Court said last month that Janus v.
AFSCME ruled workers have to opt in -- not opt out -- to having
dues taken from them, or it's a free-speech violation.

National Right to Work Vice President Patrick Semmens said the
Supreme Court case means class action is appropriate.

"The Constitutional violation takes place any time money is taken
without someone's consent," he said.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals could decide to rehear the
case this month. If the workers get their money back, Semmens said
it could start a chain of lawsuits against forced union dues across
the country. The proposed class consists of more than 80,000
workers.

Lawsuits seeking back dues are pending in several other states.  

"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that SEIU had illegally confiscated
union dues from thousands of Illinois homecare providers, but the
ruling challenged by this petition denies those same caregivers the
opportunity to reclaim the money that never should have been taken
from them by SEIU in the first place," Mark Mix, president of the
National Right to Work Foundation, said.

Representatives from SEIU could not be reached for comment.

The statute of limitations on how far back the plaintiffs may be
able to recoup dues paid into the unions varies by state, but
Semmens said tort law generally allows for at least two years of
damages to be awarded. [GN]


SERVE U BRANDS: Dismissal Bid Converted to Summary Judgment Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of New
York issued a Decision and Order converting Motion to Dismiss to
Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned SKYLER LUSK, TIA
COUNCIL, VIKTORIA O'BRIEN, and JUSTIN BYROAD, on behalf of
themselves and all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. SERVE U BRANDS, INC., INSOMNIA COOKIES, LLC, and SETH BERKOWITZ,
Defendants. No. 6:17-cv-06451-MAT (W.D.N.Y.).

The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Claims of Putative
Opt-In Plaintiffs Subject to Individual Dispute Resolution
Agreements.

Skyler Lusk, Tia Council, Viktoria O'Brien, and Justin Byroad,
former delivery drivers for Insomnia Cookies, LLC (Insomnia),
commenced the instant action against Serve U Brands, Inc.,
Insomnia, and Seth Berkowitz, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), as well as violations of the state laws of
New York, Michigan, and Indiana.  

The Defendants argue in their Motion to Dismiss, inter alia, that
(1) an employee's right to litigate on a collective basis is a
waivable procedural right, and the DRA Opt-In Plaintiffs waived
that right in the Mediation Agreement to resolve employment
disputes with Insomnia (2) contractual collective action waivers,
like those in the Mediation Agreement, are enforceable (3) the
claims asserted by the DRA Opt-In Plaintiffs here fall within the
scope of the Mediation Agreement and must be resolved pursuant to
the terms of the Mediation Agreement and (4) the Court should
address the Mediation Agreement's enforceability prior to a
decision on conditional class certification is rendered.  

The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss must be converted to a motion for
summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Standard for Deciding Rule 12(c) Motions

In deciding a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings,
courts employ the same standard applicable to dismissals pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive a Rule 12(c) motion, the
plaintiff's complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.

The Rule 12(b)(6) Conversion Requirement

For purposes of deciding motions under Rule 12(b)(6), and by
extension, Rule 12(c), the complaint is deemed to include any
written instrument attached to it as an exhibit or any statements
or documents incorporated in it by reference. When determining
whether materials were integral to a plaintiff's complaint, a
necessary prerequisite for that exception is that the plaintiff
rely on the terms and effect of the document in drafting the
complaint mere notice or possession is not enough.

Conversion Is Required in This Case

The Defendants' motion relies heavily on the Mediation Agreements
signed by the DRA Opt-In Plaintiffs. The Defendants have assumed
that the Mediation Agreements are properly considered in connection
with this Rule 12(c) motion to dismiss. However, the Mediation
Agreements were not attached to Plaintiffs' Complaint as exhibits;
nor were they incorporated into the Complaint by reference.

Indeed, the Defendants, in their recitation of the events leading
up to their motion to dismiss, state that they provided copies of
the Mediation Agreements to opposing counsel under cover of letter
dated June 22, 2018.

The Mediation Agreements were presented to the Court as exhibits in
support of their Motion to Dismiss. However, the Second Circuit has
held that a district court errs when it considers affidavits and
exhibits submitted by' defendants. Under these circumstances, the
Court concludes that Defendants' motion for judgment on the
pleadings is requesting it to consider matters outside the
pleadings, which it is not permitted to do.  

Additional Briefing Is Required on the Choice of Law Issue

The Defendants appear to rely on the Federal Arbitration Act, and
they also cite state law cases from a multitude of jurisdictions.
The Plaintiffs, for their part, insist that determining
enforceability of the Mediation Agreements is premature. Thus, the
parties have not provided the Court with any basis for inferring
that the law of the forum state, New York controls. The parties
therefore will be directed to provide briefing on what law applies
to the interpretation of the Mediation Agreements here at issue.

The Court, accordingly, converts the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
to a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment. The Defendants are
ordered to submit a memorandum of law addressing the choice-of-law
issue and any other issues they believe are pertinent to
establishing their entitlement to summary judgment under Rule 56.


A full-text copy of the District Court's January 14, 2018 Decision
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9b2mdua from
Leagle.com.

Skyler Lusk, Tia Council, Viktoria O'Brien, Justin Byroad, on
behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly situated,
Christian Augustine, Darel Bailey, Brian Bonilla, Michael Bradett,
Avery Buggs, Dylan Burgett, Gabrielle Bustillos, Maria Cagigal,
Christopher Caldwell, Jordan Cavataio, John Clements III, Kelsey
Colley, Kamara Craig, Michael Crespo, Alexa Decatur, Lauren Dudley,
Papa Duncan, Eric Dunlap Jr., Darrian Eason, Noah Egan, Rudolph
Elmore Jr., Nathaniel Encarnacion, Christopher Erdman, Luayy Ziad
Fadel, Adam Friedman, David Given, Raeven Godette, Shane Golden,
Mirna Gonzalez, Morgan Hall, Lorenzo Hammond, Neal Harris, Tristan
Hendrix, Kyle Hodson, Hakeem Holmes, Joel Hopkins, Jake Hurley,
William Johannesen, Lauren Jonelis, Kit Keegan, Rezan Kflu, Ashlee
Kohler, Cory Lambrecht, Alesha Lee, Michael Lewis, Juwan Lockett,
Tevin Lucas, Nicolas Meyer, Cheyenne Miller, Marlon Morisset, Luke
Morse, Bradley Musabika, Shannon Obbagy, William Oliver, David
Page, Destiny Peden, Jerry Pierce III, Bryann Polttila, Ryan
Pomper, Conor Pounds, Imani Reed, Roberto Renfrew-Marquez, Bonnie
Robinson, Perry Rodriguez, Lydia Ruffner, Sean Ruona, Channen
Sarmiento, Mikai Sawyer, Ben Sehnert, Jory Shinpaugh, Donte
Singleton, Michelle Smith-Nobles, Hannah Stanger, Lucas Stromer,
Michael Stuckey Jr., Kendall Talbot, Andre Taylor, Ian Thrush,
Lacey Trull, Jeffrey Vannoy, Steven Villegas, Kathryn Watkins,
Dakota White, Ronada Wright, Brian Yarmak, Mary Zottoli & Matthew
Zuleger, Plaintiffs, represented by J. Nelson Thomas, Thomas &
Solomon LLP, Michael J. Lingle, Thomas & Solomon LLP & Jessica
Lynne Lukasiewicz, Thomas & Solomon LLP.

Serve U Brands, Inc. & Insomnia Cookies, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Douglas J. Klein -- Douglas.Klein@jacksonlewis.com
-- Jackson Lewis LLP, Noel P. Tripp -- trippn@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis LLP, Stephanie L. Goutos --
Stephanie.Goutos@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis LLP & William J.
Anthony -- William.Anthony@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis LLP.

Seth Berkowitz, Defendant, represented by Douglas J. Klein ,
Jackson Lewis LLP, Noel P. Tripp , Jackson Lewis LLP & William J.
Anthony , Jackson Lewis LLP.


SMILEDIRECTCLUB: Olsen Alleges Breach of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------
SmileDirectClub, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SmileDirectClub, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00726 (S.D. N.Y., January 24, 2019).

SmileDirectClub is a teledentistry company. The company was
co-founded in 2014 by Jordan Katzman and Alex Fenkell and is based
out of Nashville, Tennessee. SmileDirectClub produces 3D-printed
clear aligners.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10017-6705
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


STATE FARM: $6.7MM Long Class Settlement Has Final Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia, Macon Division, issued an Order granting Parties' Joint
Motion for Final Settlement Approval in the cases captioned JOHN
THOMPSON and LEIGH ANN THOMPSON, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND
CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant; and TONYA LONG and JASON LONG,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY Defendant. C.A.
Nos. 5:14-cv-00032 (MTT), 5:17-cv-0028 (MTT) (M.D. Ga.).

Plaintiffs John and Leigh Ann Thompson, on behalf of themselves and
a settlement class of similarly-situated persons; and Tonya and
Jason Long, on behalf of themselves and a settlement class of
similarly-situated persons, and Defendant State Farm Fire and
Casualty Company entered into a Settlement Agreement.
  
Here, the Settlement Agreement provides complete, valuable relief
to the Class Members with respect to their breach-of-contract
claims and is therefore fair, reasonable, and adequate compared
against the possible range of recovery. State Farm has agreed to
pay for the assessments.

These assessments are complete relief for the Class Members'
duty-to-assess claims and provide them valuable information about
whether their properties have suffered diminished value. In
addition, Class Members determined to have suffered diminished
value of their properties will receive full payment for the
diminished value, which is complete relief for their duty-to-pay
claims.

The Court finds that an award of attorneys' fees and costs for
Class Counsel in the amount of $6.7 million is fair, reasonable and
appropriate, and directs State Farm to pay such amount to Class
Counsel pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Pursuant
to the Settlement Agreement, the payment of attorneys' fees and
costs is in addition to the benefits to the Settlement Classes and
will not reduce the benefits obtained by, or any Diminished Value
damage payments made to, the Settlement Class under the terms of
the Settlement.

Here, Class Counsel prosecuted this matter on a purely contingent
basis, agreeing to advance all necessary expenses and agreeing they
would only receive a fee if there was a recovery. Class Counsel
assumed considerable risk in pursuing this litigation. Class
Counsel received no compensation during the course of this
litigation, incurring over $5,487,332.50 in unpaid fees using the
lodestar method and $656,767.24 in unreimbursed expenses. Moreover,
Class Counsel expended these resources despite the risk that they
may never be compensated at all. The risks borne by Class Counsel
support the award of the requested fee.

Here, Class Counsel seeks reimbursement of expenses incurred in the
prosecution and settlement of this action in the total amount of
$656,767.24. The Court finds that these expenses were reasonable
and necessary to prosecute the case and obtain the Settlement.

The Court finds that incentive awards in the amounts of $10,000 for
the Thompsons ($5,000 each) and $5,000 for the Longs ($2,500 each)
are fair, reasonable and appropriate, and directs that State Farm
pay such amounts to the Plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the
Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the
payment of such incentive awards is in addition to the benefits to
the Settlement Classes and will not reduce the benefits obtained
by, or any Diminished Value damage payments made to, the Settlement
Classes under the terms of the Settlement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 14, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yaeq9h8d from Leagle.com.

JOHN THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & LEIGH ANN THOMPSON, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by ADAM P.
PRINCENTHAL -- adam@princemay.com -- C. COOPER KNOWLES, CLINTON W.
SITTON, JAMES C. BRADLEY -- jbradley@rpwb.com -- KIMBERLY KEEVERS
PALMER -- kkeevers@rpwb.com -- MATTHEW A. NICKLES --
mnickles@rpwb.com -- MICHAEL J. BRICKMAN -- mbrickman@rpwb.com --
NINA FIELDS BRITT -- nfields@rpwb.com -- RICHARD KOPELMAN.

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, represented by
Thomas W. Curvin -- tomcurvin@eversheds-sutherland.com -- Eversheds
Sutherland (US) LLP, Tracey K. Ledbetter --
traceyledbetter@eversheds-sutherland.com -- Eversheds Sutherland
(US) LLP, Valerie S. Sanders --
valeriesanders@eversheds-sutherland.com -- Eversheds Sutherland
(US) LLP & Stacey M. Mohr -- staceymohr@eversheds-sutherland.com --
Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP.

HAROLD A. WESTON, Movant, pro se.


STATEWIDE CREDIT: Houck Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Statewide Credit
Association Inc. The case is styled as Robert Houck, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Statewide Credit Association Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00234-TWP-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 24, 2019).

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

Statewide Credit Association Inc. provides accounts receivable
management and collection services. Its products and services
include collections, pre-collect, contingency collections,
litigation services, skip-tracing, credit reporting, and training
programs. The company also offers client access Web, which enables
users to run standard reports; create custom reports; post
payments; place bad debts; obtain recovery statistics; view recent
placements; and use messaging capabilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
   ATLAS CONSUMER LAW
   2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
   Lombard, IL 60148
   Tel: (630) 581-5450
   Fax: (630) 575-8188
   Email: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com


SWISSPORT INT'L: Sued over Alleged Illegal Use of Biometrics
------------------------------------------------------------
RASHIDAH WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SWISSPORT INTERNATIONAL,
LTD. AND SWISSPORT USA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2019CH00973
(Ill. Cir., Ct., Cook Cty., Jan. 24, 2019), seeks to stop
Defendants' capture, collection, use and storage of individuals'
biometric identifiers and/or biometric information in violation of
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, and to obtain
redress for all persons injured by Defendants' conduct.

The case concerns Defendants' conduct of capturing, collecting,
storing, and using Plaintiffs and other workers' biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information without regard to BIPA and
the concrete privacy rights and pecuniary interests Illinois' BIPA
protects. The Defendants do this in the form of finger scans, which
capture a person's fingerprint, and then Defendants use that
fingerprint to identify that same person in the future. Following
the 2007 bankruptcy of a company specializing in the collection and
use of biometric information, which risked the sale or transfer of
millions of fingerprint records to the highest bidder, the Illinois
Legislature passed detailed regulations addressing the collection,
use and retention of biometric information by private entities,
such as Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have implemented an
invasive program that relies on the capture, collection, storage
and use of their workers' fingerprints, while disregarding the
applicable Illinois statute and the privacy interests it protects.
The Defendants' employees in Illinois have been required to clock
"in" and "out" of their work shifts by scanning their fingerprints.
When clocking in and out using the fingerprint scans, Defendants'
biometric computer systems then verify the employee and clock the
employee "in" or "out." Unlike traditional time clock punch cards
which can be changed or replaced if lost or compromised,
fingerprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers associated
with each BIPA defines a "biometric identifier" as "a retina or
iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face
geometry."

The Defendants fingerprinted employees like Plaintiff, at their
facilities, without properly obtaining written executed release in
violation of Section l 5(b )(3) of BIPA, and without making the
required disclosures concerning the collection, storage and use or
destruction of biometric identifiers or information in violation of
Section 15 of BIPA. The workers' fingerprints are unique to each
such worker, and Defendants' capture, collection, and use of those
biometric identifiers and information violates each worker's
substantive privacy rights protected under BIPA and exposes workers
to serious and irreversible privacy risks -- risks that BIPA was
designed to avoid -- including the ever-present risk of a data
breach of Defendants' systems exposing their employees' biometrics
to hackers and other wrongdoers worldwide.

Swissport International Ltd. is a Swiss aviation services company
providing airport ground and cargo handling services, headquartered
in Opfikon, Switzerland. It handles around 265 million passengers
and 4.7 million tonnes of cargo annually, on behalf of some 850
client-companies in the aviation sector.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          James X. Bormes, Esq.
          Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
          8 South Michigan A venue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 201-0575
          Facsimile: (312) 332-0600
          E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
                  cpsons@bormeslaw.com

               - and -

          Frank Castiglione, Esq.
          Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
          THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC
          70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 356-3200
          Facsimile: (312) 386-5800
          E-mail: fcastiglione@khowajalaw.com
                  kasif@khowajalaw.com

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Lowenbien Asserts Claim Under ADA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems,
Inc. The case is styled as Yosef Lowenbien, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Transworld
Systems, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00492 (E.D. N.Y.,
January 24, 2019).

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

Transworld Systems Inc. provides accounts receivable, debt
recovery, and past due accounts services for businesses, medical
companies, dental companies, education facilities, Fortune 500
companies, and small businesses in the United States and
internationally. It offers accelerator, profit recovery, messenger,
dental collection, demand/direct deposit account recovery plus,
outsourcing, medical collection, education collection, and
commercial/business-to-business collections services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
   Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
   735 Central Avenue
   Woodmere, NY 11598
   Tel: (516) 668-6945
   Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


TREPCO IMPORTS: Beirne Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Daniel Beirne, individually, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Trepco Imports and
Distribution Ltd., a Michigan Corporation and Does 1 through 250,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.: CIVDS1829494, was removed from
the San Bernardino Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Eastern Division – Riverside)
on Jan. 25, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00170-CAS-KK to the proceeding. The suit
alleges labor-related violation. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Christina A. Snyder.

Trepco is a wholesale distribution company servicing retail
convenience and liquor stores, gas stations, independent markets,
and smoke shops.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Heather Kathleen Cox, Esq.
          Brent S Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Gary R Carlin, Esq.
          Laurel N Haag, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN AND BUCHSBAUM LLP
          301 East Ocean Boulevard Suite 1550
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 432-8933
          Facsimile: (562) 435-1656
          E-mail: heather@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com

Attorneys for Trepco Imports and Distribution Ltd.:

          Jennifer A Kearns, Esq.
          Aaron Thomas Winn, Esq.
          Meredith P Grant, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS, LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 744-2242
          E-mail: jkearns@duanemorris.com
                  atwinn@duanemorris.com
                  mpgrant@duanemorris.com

TREPCO IMPORTS: Beirne Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Daniel Beirne, individually, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Trepco Imports and
Distribution Ltd., a Michigan Corporation , and Does 1 through 250,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1829494, was removed from
the San Bernardino Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles)
on Jan. 25, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00610 to the proceeding. The suit alleges
labor-related violation.

Trepco is a wholesale distribution company servicing retail
convenience and liquor stores, gas stations, independent markets,
and smoke shops.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Heather Kathleen Cox, Esq.
          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
          Laurel N Haag, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN AND BUCHSBAUM LLP
          301 East Ocean Boulevard Suite 1550
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 432-8933
          Facsimile: (562) 435-1656
          E-mail: heather@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com

Attorneys for Trepco Imports and Distribution Ltd.:

          Jennifer A Kearns, Esq.
          Meredith P Grant, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS, LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 744-2242
          E-mail: jkearns@duanemorris.com
                  mpgrant@duanemorris.com

UBER: Loses Ontario Court Battle Over Arbitration Clause
--------------------------------------------------------
Emily Jackson, writing for Financial Post, reports that Ontario's
top court has ruled that Uber drivers can turn to Canadian courts
to try to resolve disputes with the ride-hailing service, paving
the way for those drivers to move forward with a class-action
lawsuit seeking to classify themselves as employees.

In a ruling released on Jan. 2, the Court of Appeal for Ontario
concluded that an arbitration clause in Uber Technologies Inc.'s
driver services agreement that forced drivers to resolve conflict
overseas was "unconscionable" and "invalid."

The clause required drivers to resolve any disputes with Uber via
mediation or arbitration in the Netherlands, a process with an
upfront cost for drivers of US$14,500.

"I believe that it can be safely concluded that Uber chose this
arbitration clause in order to favour itself and thus take
advantage of its drivers, who are clearly vulnerable to the market
strength of Uber," Justice Ian Nordheimer wrote.

The proposed class-action lawsuit is seeking a declaration that
drivers are employees, not independent contractors, and are
therefore entitled to minimum wage, overtime and vacation pay. It
claims damages of $400 million.

Uber argued the class-action lawsuit couldn't proceed in Canada due
to the arbitration clause. A lower court agreed, stalling the
certification process, but the panel of three appeal court judges
reversed the decision.

The appeal court found the clause amounted to an illegal
contracting out of an employment standard under the Employment
Standards Act, if drivers are found to be employees. In addition,
it concluded the clause was unconscionable given the inequality of
bargaining power between Uber and its drivers, which must agree to
the terms in order to sign up for the service.

This ruling allows the Uber drivers to move forward with their
attempt to certify the class-action lawsuit, said Lior Samfiru,
Esq. -- lior@stlawyers.ca -- the lawyer who represents the proposed
class-action plaintiffs and a partner at Samfiru Tumarkin LLP. The
lead plaintiff is 35-year-old David Heller, an UberEATS driver who
earns between $400 and $600 per week.

Uber knew, or should have known, that drivers wouldn't likely be
able to pursue legal action in the Netherlands, Samfiru said.
Regardless of whether Uber drivers are ultimately found to be
employees or contractors, the appeal court's ruling sends a message
that foreign companies operating in Canada cannot simply contract
out of rules that give workers an ability to seek recourse, he
said.

"I think the message here is for companies . . . . if you're going
to operate in Ontario, if you're going to operate in Canada, you
have to abide by our laws," Samfiru said. "You have to play by the
same rules as everyone else."

In statement, Uber Canada said it is reviewing the decision.

"We are proud to offer a flexible earning opportunity to tens of
thousands of drivers throughout Ontario," it stated.

In other jurisdictions, Uber has successfully argued that its
drivers are independent contractors that enjoy far more flexibility
than a regular employee. In September, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Uber's arbitration clause
prohibited class actions against the company.[GN]


UBER: To Pay $1.3MM in Misclassification Case
---------------------------------------------
Staffing Industry Analysts reports that Human cloud, ride-sharing
firm Uber will pay $1.3 million to settle a lawsuit in federal
court in North Carolina that it misclassified drivers as
independent contractors. Separately, a court in Ontario invalidated
an arbitration agreement between Uber and its drivers in another
misclassification lawsuit.

The class-action lawsuit in North Carolina includes all US drivers
who opted out of arbitration agreements with Uber, which involves
5,200 drivers, according to court records.

Drivers in the case would receive an average of $140, and drivers
who have not driven with Uber for a period of time must agree not
to seek reactivation of their accounts. Also, $434,750 of the
settlement will go toward attorney's fees. The settlement was
signed on Jan 3 by Judge Catherine Eagles. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Unpaid Air Traffic Controllers Hit Gov't Shutdown
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Air Traffic Contollers Association (NATCA), AFL-CIO,
Amanda Fuchs, Kevin Bianchi, Jonathan Barnett and John Garner, on
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
The United States, Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as
President of the United States, Daniel K. Elwell, in his official
capacity as the Acting Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration, Margaret
Weichert, in her official capacity as Acting Director of the Office
of Personnel Management and Deputy Director for Management at the
Office of Management and Budget, and the Office Of Personnel
Management, Mick Mulvaney, in his official capacity as the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget and the Office Of Management
and Budget, David Bernhardt, in his official capacity as the Acting
Secretary of the Department of the Interior and the Department of
the Interior, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00062, (D.C., January 11,
2019), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of
the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution resulting
from denied compensation without the requisite due process and
damages for failure to pay the minimum wage and overtime provisions
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

On December 20, 2018, Trump refused to sign the bill necessary to
continue paying the aviation safety professionals of the FAA.
Budget appropriation lapsed on December 22, 2018, beginning a
partial government shutdown that continues through the present.

NATCA is a National Labor Union representing bargaining unit
employees employed by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration,
including air traffic controllers assigned to terminal and en route
air traffic control facilities. Fuchs, Bianchi, Barnett and Garner
are employed as Air Traffic Controllers. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
      Molly A. Elkin, Esq.
      Sarah M. Block, Esq.
      John W. Stewart, Esq.
      WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP
      1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20005
      Phone: (202) 833-8855
      Email: gkm@wmlaborlaw.com
             mae@wmlaborlaw.com
             smb@wmlaborlaw.com
             jws@wmlaborlaw.com


UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI: O'Reilly Sues for Racial Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina F. O'Reilly, Plaintiff, v. University of Mississippi
Medical Center and its School of Dentistry; David A. Felton,
individually and in his official capacity; and John Does 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00065-TSL-RHW (S.D. Miss., January 24,
2019) is a civil action for equitable relief and for damages for
discrimination on the basis of race, age, gender, and for
retaliation in violation of Plaintiff's rights secured by the
United States Constitution as enforced by Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.

Dr. Wilhelmina F. O'Reilly, is an adult African-American female
citizen of the United States. She was a female pediatric dentist at
UMMC. At the time of her constructive discharge with an effective
date of February 18, 2018, she was the only full-time
African-American professor at UMMC's School of Dentistry. She had
to forcibly resign due to the harassment and hostile work
environment created by her superiors.

The complaint asserts that Dr. O'Reilly was treated differently
than that of Caucasian male employees. The Defendants' termination
and treatment of Dr. O'Reilly was on an illegal and improper basis
despite her qualifications and performance and in deliberate
indifference to her rights. The Defendants had no legitimate
nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Dr. O'Reilly as Assistant
Dean nor for creating the environment resulting in her constructive
discharge from UMMC, says the complaint.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, and equitable monetary
relief from these practices; compensatory and punitive damages; and
an award of costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees; all for herself,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated and/or
affected.

University of Mississippi Medical Center and its School of
Dentistry is a state agency.

David A. Felton, at the time of the allegations contained within
this Complaint, was employed by UMMC as the Dean of the School of
Dentistry.

John Does 1-10, are individuals and/or entities whose identities
are unknown to the Plaintiff as this time.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lilli Evans Bass, Esq.
     LaToya T. Jeter, Esq.
     BROWN BASS & JETER, PLLC
     Post Office Box 22969
     Jackson, MS 39225
     Phone: (601) 487-8448
     Facsimile: (601) 510-9934
     Email: bass@bbjlawyers.com


VAN RU CREDIT: Wis. Court Narrows Claims in D. Al's FDCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Eastern District of Wisconsin
issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Parties'
Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned DEBORAH AL,
Plaintiff, v. VAN RU CREDIT CORPORATION, Defendant. Case No.
17-CV-1738-JPS. (E.D. Wis.).

The Plaintiff sues the Defendant for sending her, and members of
the putative class, allegedly misleading debt collection letters.
The Plaintiff brings claims under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA). Each
party has filed a motion for summary judgment while the Plaintiff
requests judgment as to liability only, leaving the issue of
damages for trial.

The Plaintiff states her claims against the Defendant in four
counts. Counts One through Three are FDCPA claims.

In Count One, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's failure to
define promptly is misleading, as it does not clearly define when
the settlement offer expires. A consumer might mail in the
settlement payment only to be told that the settlement offer had
already expired.

Count Two contends that the Letter falsely implies that its
settlement offer is made for a limited time, and thus the consumer
must hurry to accept it.  Plaintiff says this is false; Defendant
could accept a settlement payment at any time.  

In the same vein, Count Three asserts that the threat to revoke the
offer is false, in that neither Defendant nor the creditor ever
intended to revoke it. Count Four is brought pursuant to the WCA.
Plaintiff alleges that because Defendant is a Wisconsin-licensed
collection agency, its FDCPA-violative conduct also gives rise to
WCA liability.  

To prove a claim that language in a collection letter is misleading
or deceptive, the Court of Appeals has established three categories
of cases:

The first category includes cases in which the challenged language
is plainly and clearly not misleading. No extrinsic evidence is
needed to show that the debt collector ought to prevail in such
cases. Lox, 689 F.3d at 822.

The second Lox category includes debt collection language that is
not misleading or confusing on its face, but has the potential to
be misleading to the unsophisticated consumer.

The third category is cases in which the challenged language is
plainly deceptive or misleading, such that no extrinsic evidence is
required for the plaintiff to prevail.  

First, the Defendant claims that the alleged misrepresentation of a
settlement deadline was immaterial. The Seventh Circuit holds that
a false or misleading statement is only actionable under the FDCPA
if it is material, meaning that it has the ability to influence a
consumer's decision. This standard is easily met. The Letter is
potentially deceiving as to the most basic element of the parties'
relationship the terms of payment for the debt, namely the time in
which to pay. Indeed, the very purpose of requesting prompt payment
was to influence Plaintiff's decision to pay.

Second, Counts One and Three are presented pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692e, which prohibits misleading communications by debt
collectors, and 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f, which proscribes unfair
collection activity.  First, this is a legal distinction, and the
import of the above cited cases is the factual similarity of
Section 1692e and f claims; Plaintiff does not dispute that the
claims cover the same factual territory. Second, Plaintiff's
observation weighs in favor of disallowing the Section 1692f claim.
It would be odd indeed for the Seventh Circuit to develop such a
robust rubric for analyzing letter-based FDCPA claims, only to have
it be easily sidestepped by lodging a claim under the near
limitless purview of Section 1692f.

The Section 1692f allegations of Counts One and Three will be
dismissed.

Third, the WCA prohibits, inter alia, communicating with a consumer
with such frequency or at such unusual hours or in such a manner as
can reasonably be expected to threaten or harass and engaging in
other conduct which can reasonably be expected to threaten or
harass.  Defendant asserts that for the same reasons the FDCPA
claims must be dismissed, the Letter cannot be interpreted as
threatening or harassing.  The Court concludes that because there
are triable issues on the FDCPA claims, and Defendant has not shown
that the WCA claim should be treated in a different fashion, the
WCA claim will also survive to trial.
  
The final issue is the Plaintiff's request for dismissal of the
Defendant's bona fide error defense. The only way to avoid
liability on an intent basis is for a collector to show that the
violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error
notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to
avoid any such error. This defense protects only against mistakes
of fact, such as accidentally sending a letter with an incorrect
debt balance or to the wrong consumer. It does not apply to
mistakes of law. The Defendant has not claimed that it
unintentionally sent the Letter to Plaintiff, or that inclusion of
the word promptly was a typographical error. Rather, it simply
asserts that it did not mean to violate the FDCPA.  This use of the
bona fide error defense is precisely what Oliva forbids. The
defense will stand dismissed.

Accordingly, the parties' motions for summary judgment be and the
same are granted in part and denied in part in accordance with the
terms of this Order.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 14, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y78ydo39 from Leagle.com.

Deborah Al, Plaintiff, represented by Ben J. Slatky --
bslatky@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Jesse Fruchter --
jfruchter@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, John D. Blythin --
jblythin@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP & Mark A. Eldridge --
meldridge@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP.

Van Ru Credit Corporation, Defendant, represented by Nicole M.
Strickler -- nstrickler@messerstrickler.com -- Messer Strickler Ltd
& Stephanie A. Strickler -- sstrickler@messerstrickler.com --
Messer Strickler Ltd.


VERIFICIENT TECH: Exam Proctoring Biz Scanned Exam Takers' Faces
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
woman has brought a class action against a digital exam proctoring
company, alleging its software scanned her face and knuckle
geometry without the company informing her in writing the
information was being collected.

Shannon Gray, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, filed a complaint on Dec. 28 in Cook County
Circuit Court against Verificient Technologies Inc. over alleged
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the defendant's Proctortrack software
connects to cameras on computers and is used to capture, collect
and store biometric facial and knuckle geometry. The plaintiff
alleges the defendant captured this information using the webcam on
her laptop.

The plaintiff alleges the defendant did not inform users in writing
that their biometrics were being collected, stored, used or
disseminated. She also alleges it failed to disclose the identities
of third parties to which her biometrics would be transferred.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks injunctive and
equitable relief, statutory and monetary damages, attorney fees,
costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and such further and other
relief as the court deems just and equitable. She is represented by
Myles McGuire, Esq. Jad Sheikali, Esq. and David L. Gerbie, Esq. of
McGuire Law PC in Chicago.

Cook County Circuit Court case number 18-CH-16054. [GN]


VERTICAL FITNESS: Class Certification Sought in Wesolowski Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Wesolowski moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit captioned PAUL WESOLOWSKI,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
VERTICAL FITNESS GROUP, LLC, d/b/a XPERIENCE FITNESS, d/b/a CLUB
7776, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 2:19-cv-00120-LA (E.D. Wisc.),
and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief
from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and
requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VIATOR INC: Slade Files Suit for Disabilities Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Viator, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Linda Slade,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. Viator, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00710-VEC (S.D. N.Y., January 24, 2019).

Viator, Inc. provides an online resource for researching, finding,
and booking tours and travel experiences worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WALMART INC: Famuliner et al. Suit Moved to W.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------
A case, Arthur Famuliner and Russ Mapes, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Walmart Inc. and
Warren Distribution, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 18CA-CC00930,
was removed from the Circuit Court of Cass County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City)
on Jan. 25, 2019. The Western District of Missouri Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-00060-ODS to the proceeding. The suit
alleges personal property damages. The case is assigned to the Hon.
District Judge Ortrie D. Smith.

Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores. Headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas, the company
was founded by Sam Walton in 1962 and incorporated on October 31,
1969.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Bryan White, Esq.
          Gene P. Graham, Jr., Esq.
          WHITE GRAHAM BUCKLEY & CARR, LLC
          19049 East Valley View Parkway, Suite C
          Independence, MO 64055
          Telephone: (816) 373-9080
          Facsimile: (816) 373-9319
          E-mail: bwhite@wagblaw.com
                  ggraham@wagblaw.com

               - and -

          Dirk L. Hubbard, Esq.
          Thomas V Bender, Esq.
          HORN, AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 421-0700
          Facsimile: (816) 421-0899
          E-mail: dhubbard@hab-law.com
                  tbender@hab-law.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          G. Keith Phoenix, Esq.
          Anthony L. Martin, Esq.
          SANDBERG, PHOENIX & VON GONTARD, PC
          Washington Ave, St. Louis
          600 Washington Ave., 15th Floor
          St. Louis, MO 63101-1313
          Telephone: (314) 231-3332
          Facsimile: (314) 241-7604
          E-mail: kphoenix@sandbergphoenix.com
                  amartin@sandbergphoenix.com

WELBILT INC: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased
Welbilt, Inc. ("Welbilt" or the "Company") (NYSE: WBT ) securities
between February 24, 2017 and November 2, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Welbilt investors have until February 11, 2019 to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Welbilt investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com

On November 5, 2018, Welbilt disclosed that the Company's financial
statements for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 should no longer be
relied upon due to "errors primarily relate to the computation of
income taxes." The Company also disclosed that "certain
intercompany transactions were not recorded on a timely basis."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $5.06 to close at
$14.26 per share on November 5, 2018, thereby injuring investors.

The Complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
company lacked effective internal control over financial reporting;
(2) the company was incorrectly recording the tax basis of foreign
subsidiaries and the amortization of their intangible assets; and
(3) consequently, defendants' statements about Welbilt's business,
operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

If you purchased shares of Welbilt, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters please;

         Howard G. Smith, Esq.
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
         Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
         Telephone: 215-638-4847
         Toll free: 888-638-4847
         Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Federal Judge OKs Class Action Brought by Ex-Advisors
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Padalka, writing for Financial Advisor IQ, reports that a
federal judge in New York ruled in favor of class action status for
a suit brought by three former Wells Fargo financial advisors
claiming the wirehouse failed to pay them overtime, according to
news report.

Judge Paul Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York rejected Wells Fargo's argument that
arbitrator Edith Dineen had disregarded the law when she ruled last
year that class treatment of the claim should be permitted, Reuters
writes.

The arbitrator had said that even though Wells Fargo's arbitration
agreement didn't explicitly say class arbitration was appropriate,
it still allowed for it, according to Bloomberg.

Engelmayer ruled that the agreement failed to limit arbitration to
non-class cases, the news service writes.

The three advisors had claimed that Wells Fargo failed to pay their
overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
state law, according to Bloomberg.

Their case, and many others, may still be affected by the outcome
of a case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, however, the news
service writes.

In October, the court heard oral argument on whether arbitration
agreements need to have "magic words" signaling to arbitrators
whether class action proceedings have a contractual basis,
according to Bloomberg.

"The arbitrator endeavored to apply the appropriate precedents to
the agreement at hand, mindful that the lack of definitive Supreme
Court guidance inevitably meant a decision in either direction
would be subject to some uncertainty," the court said, according to
the news service. [GN]


WESTERN CAB: Court Narrows Claims in M. Reno's FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order granting in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case
captioned MICHAEL RENO and ERIC KIEFABER, Plaintiffs, v. WESTERN
CAB COMPANY, HELEN TOBMAN MARTIN, MARILYN TOBMAN MORAN, JANIE
TOBMAN MOORE, MARTHA SARVER, and JASON AWAD, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-00840-APG-NJK. (D. Nev.).

Plaintiffs Michael Reno and Eric Kiefaber are taxi drivers formerly
employed by Western Cab Company (WCC). They have sued WCC, Helen
Tobman Martin, Marilyn Tobman Moran, Janie Tobman Moore, Martha
Sarver, and Jason Awad for failure to pay minimum wage in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Minimum Wage
Amendment to the Constitution of the State of Nevada, Article 15,
Section 16.  The plaintiffs have also sued for additional
compensation under Nevada Revised Statutes for failure to provide
unpaid wages after they were discharged or quit employment with
WCC. The plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a
putative class of other WCC taxi drivers.

All the defendants move to dismiss the FLSA claim, arguing that (1)
neither of the named plaintiffs was a WCC employee after the May
2018 amendment to FLSA Section 203(m)(2)(B), and (2) many of the
putative class members have signed arbitration agreements
preventing them from participating in this case. Defendants WCC,
Martin, Moran, Moore, and Sarver move to dismiss, arguing that (3)
the FLSA's two-year limitation period has run on Kiefaber's FLSA
claim (4) the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has already determined
that the defendants do not owe any back wages for minimum wages
under the FLSA (5) Reno has acknowledged that he has already been
given an accurate amount of back pay for minimum wages owed to him
through June 15, 2017 and (6) the FLSA claim is not sufficiently
context specific because it does not allege precise weeks in which
the defendants failed to pay the plaintiffs the minimum wage. WCC
separately moves to dismiss the FLSA claims, arguing that (7) the
plaintiffs cannot bring a complaint without the participation of
their labor union. Awad separately moves to dismiss the FLSA claims
against him, arguing that (8) the amended complaint does not
sufficiently allege that he is an employer under the FLSA.
Section 203(m)(2)(B) Violation

All of the defendants argue that the plaintiffs cannot maintain a
claim under 29 U.S.C. Section 203(m)(2)(B) because neither of the
plaintiffs was employed by WCC after Congress amended the FLSA in
March 2018 to include that provision.  

Section Section 203(m)(2)(B) states that, an employer may not keep
tips received by its employees for any purposes, including allowing
managers or supervisors to keep any portion of employees' tips,
regardless of whether or not the employer takes a tip credit. This
provision was added to the FLSA by a March 2018 amendment, so a
plausible claim for a violation of it necessarily requires that the
plaintiffs be employed in or after March 2018. The plaintiffs do
not provide sufficient factual support that they were employed by
WCC on or after that date. The Court therefore grant the motions to
dismiss the FLSA claims that are based on alleged violations of 29
U.S.C. Section 203(m)(2)(B).

Arbitration Agreements

The defendants argue that the plaintiffs cannot represent any of
WCC's drivers in a collective action because WCC's current drivers
have signed arbitration agreements. The defendants do not allege,
and it does not appear, that either of the named plaintiffs signed
those arbitration agreements; both Reno and Kiefaber were
terminated before the agreements were disseminated by WCC to their
employees. Thus, the existence and legitimacy of those agreements
do not affect the viability of the named plaintiffs' individual
claims. The Court therefore do not address them in this order.

Statute of Limitations

WCC, Martin, Moran, Moore, and Sarver argue that Kiefaber's FLSA
claims against them are barred by the limitation period set forth
in 29 U.S.C. Section 255(a). That statute provides a three-year
limitation period for willful violations, but a two-year period
otherwise. The defendants contend the alleged violation was not
willful and thus is subject to the two-year limitation period)
because WCC acted in accordance with a DOL evaluation that WCC was
entitled to use a tip credit.

The plaintiffs respond that whether the purported violation was
willful is a question of fact for trial, and that even if  the
Court were to evaluate willfulness at this time, compliance with
the DOL evaluation is not dispositive.  

The amended complaint alleges WCC terminated Kiefaber on October 6,
2015, and he consented to join this suit on May 17, 2018.
Therefore, if the alleged violation was not willful, his FLSA
claims are barred. If the alleged violations were willful, he may
sue for FLSA minimum wage violations that occurred from May 17,
2015 until was fired in October 2015.

It is not clear from the face of the amended complaint that
Kiefaber's claims are time-barred.  The Court therefore deny the
defendants' motion to dismiss Kiefaber's FLSA claims on the basis
of the statute of limitations.

Bar to FLSA claim under 29 U.S.C. Section 259

WCC, Martin, Moran, Moore, and Sarver assert that in 2013 the DOL
reviewed WCC's compensation policy and determined that WCC did not
owe back wages for minimum wage violations. Thus, they argue, the
plaintiffs' FLSA claims are barred by the safe harbor provision in
29 U.S.C. Section 259.  

Section 259 does not provide an automatic bar against claims at the
pleading stage of a case.

Under Ssection 259, an FLSA claim is barred if the defendant pleads
and proves that the act or omission complained of was in good faith
in conformity with and in reliance on any written administrative
regulation order, ruling, approval, or interpretation of the the
Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of
Labor. The defendants have not yet proven good faith, although this
may be a viable defense later in the case. Nor have they
established that the DOL report of which they provide only short
excerpts will support a good faith defense under Section 259.  

Even if the DOL report established that the plaintiffs could not
base their FLSA claim on an invalid tip credit, it does not address
the plaintiffs' claims that for some weeks, the amount they spent
on gas was so high that the base hourly wage plus remaining tips
did not reach the amount mandated by Ssection 206. The Court thus
deny the defendants' motion to dismiss the FLSA claims based on a
bar under Section 259.

Release of Minimum Wage Rights

WCC, Martin, Moran, Moore, and Sarver argue that Reno's FLSA claims
should be dismissed because Reno has acknowledged that WCC no
longer owes him any back pay for minimum wage. The defendants
provide a signed release in which Reno states that he has received
$473.28, which is the accurate amount of back pay for minimum wage
owed to me by Western Cab Company from September 23, 2012 to the
present.

The plaintiffs respond that the minimum wage release is void ab
initio because it was obtained without judicial approval while Reno
was not represented by legal counsel.  

The release form is not alleged in or attached to the amended
complaint. Nor have the plaintiffs acknowledged that it is
authentic or that it is integral to their claims. Thus, the Court
cannot consider it when ruling on the motions to dismiss.

Lack of Specificity

WCC, Martin, Moran, Moore, and Sarver argue that the plaintiffs'
FLSA claims should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a)(2) because the plaintiffs failed to identify
specific weeks in which the minimum-wage violations occurred.  

To plausibly state a claim for relief, the pleading must offer more
than mere labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action. When claiming a FLSA violation,
detailed factual allegations are not required to state a plausible
claim, but the plaintiffs must plausibly allege that there was a
given week in which [they were] entitled to but denied minimum
wages or overtime wages.

In the present case, the plaintiffs have plausibly alleged minimum
wage violations under the FLSA.

They have not alleged a specific week or weeks in which they earned
below the required weekly wage, but they have identified a set of
common circumstances slow periods of business for the Las Vegas
taxi industry that likely lead to wage violations, and they
specifically allege that those violations occurred during one or
more weeks in the month of December during the three years
preceding the filing of this complaint. The Court therefore deny
the defendants' motion to dismiss the FLSA claims based on a lack
of specificity.

Union Involvement

WCC individually moves to dismiss the FLSA claims against it
because the union is a necessary party but has not been joined in
the suit. WCC alleges the plaintiffs' labor union agreed with WCC's
policy requiring drivers to return their vehicles with a full tank
of fuel and the union is the plaintiffs' sole bargaining
representative.  

The plaintiffs respond that the union's participation in the
creation of the policy or its involvement in this case does not
absolve the defendants of their obligations under the FLSA. They
also argue that the labor union cannot modify or limit the
plaintiffs' rights to pursue actions against the defendants absent
a collective bargaining agreement with an explicit term doing so.


The FLSA provides individual employees with a nonwaivable right to
a minimum wage that cannot be abridged by contract or otherwise
waived. Any custom or contract falling short of that basic policy,
like an agreement to pay less than the minimum wage requirements,
cannot be utilized to deprive employees of their statutory rights.

Consequentially, union approval of a policy does not automatically
render that policy compliant with the FLSA. Nor does the fact that
union approval may be required to change a policy absolve employers
from liability for FLSA violations. The Court therefore deny the
portion of WCC's motion to dismiss the FLSA claims arguing that
WCC's policy has been approved by the plaintiffs' labor union.

Awad as Employer

Awad argues that the plaintiff's amended complaint lacks sufficient
facts to support his status as an employer under the FLSA because
the plaintiffs use the same collective language in reference to all
the defendants and because the details that are included in the
allegation do not meet the economic realities test.  

The plaintiffs respond that while they collectively refer to the
defendants when establishing Awad as an employer in the amended
complaint, they do not merely rely on Awad's status within the
company to support their claims. They specify that each of the
defendants has acted as an employer by willfully, intentionally,
knowingly or otherwise creating the compensation policies alleged
herein that violate the FLSA and each defendant continued, created,
or allowed such policies to flourish and remain in existence.

In determining whether an individual meets the definition of
employer under the FLSA, the Court use the economic reality test,
which considers four factors: whether the alleged employer [1] has
the power to hire and fire the employees [2] supervises and
controls employee work schedules or conditions of employment [3]
determines the rate and method of payment and [4] maintains
employment records.

Taking these allegations as true, they support the conditions of
employment and method of payment considerations in the economic
reality test. The plaintiffs do not explicitly allege that Awad had
the authority to fire WCC employees or that he maintains employment
records. However, the test does not require the plaintiff to allege
all four factors. The amended complaint sufficiently establishes a
plausible entitlement to relief against Award. The Court therefore
deny Award's motion to dismiss the FLSA claims against him.

Accordingly, the defendants' motions to dismiss are granted in
part.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 14, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7rj898j from Leagle.com.

Michael Reno & Eric Kiefaber, Plaintiffs, represented by Dana
Sniegocki -- dana@overtimelaw.com -- Leon Greenberg & Leon Marc
Greenberg -- leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com -- Leon Greenberg
Professional Corporation.

Jason Harris, Dennis Rhoades & Premier Tamayo, Plaintiffs,
represented by Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon Greenberg Professional
Corporation.

Western Cab Company, Helen Tobman Martin, Marilyn Tobman Moran,
Janie Tobman Moore, Martha Sarver & Jason A. Awad, Defendants,
represented by Mario P. Lovato -- mpl@lovatolaw.com -- Lovato Law
Firm, P.C..


WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL: Courts Order Case Dismissal With Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Eastern District of California
issued an Order dismissing the action with prejudice in the case
captioned VERINA FREEMAN and VALECEA DIGGS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs. v. WILSHIRE
COMMERCIAL CAPITAL L.L.C., a California limited liability company,
dba WILSHIRE CONSUMER CREDIT, Defendant. Case No.
2:15-cv-01428-WBS-AC. (E.D. Cal.).

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 14, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7benfj8 from Leagle.com.

Verina Freeman & Valecea Diggs, Plaintiffs, represented by Bryan
Kemnitzer -- bryan@kbklegal.com -- Kemnitzer Barron & Krieg, PC,
Scott D. Owens -- scott@scottdowens.com -- Scott D. Owens, P.A.,
pro hac vice & Elliot Jason Conn -- elliot@kbklegal.com --
Kemnitzer Anderson Barron and Ogilvie LLP.

Wilshire Commercial Capital L.L.C., a California Limited Liability
Company, Defendant, represented by Anthony Angelo Molino --
molino@molinolawfirm.com -- Molino and Berardino, APLC, Benjamin
John Carter -- bcarter@molinolawfirm.com -- Molino & Berardino,
APLC, Steven Reed Berardino -- sberardino@molinolawfirm.com --
Molino & Berardino, APLC & Michelle Cooper --
mcooper@molinolawfirm.com -- Molino & Berardino, APLC.


WS OCEAN: Borozny Files ADA Class Action in Florida
---------------------------------------------------
WS Ocean Sands Hospitality, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Austin Borozny, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WS Ocean Sands Hospitality, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00110-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla., January 24, 2019).

Ws Ocean Sands Hospitality, LLC is in the Hotels and Motels
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
   The Advocacy Group, LLC
   200 SE 6th St Ste 504
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3424
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: jkerr@advocacypa.com


YANGTZE RIVER: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Yangtze River Port and Logistics Limited
(NASDAQ: YRIV) securities between February 2, 2016 and December 5,
2018 (the "Class Period").  Investors have until March 4, 2019 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Yangtze's purported lease of the Wuhan Yangtze River
Newport Logistics Center, the company's main asset, was a
fabrication; (2) Yangtze's only operating subsidiary, Wuhan Yangtze
River Newport Logistics Co., Ltd., was declared insolvent in China
due to a number of default judgments against it; and (3) as a
result, defendant's statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased Yangtze securities during the Class Period or
continue to hold shares purchased before the Class Period, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters please;

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


YANGTZE RIVER: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of those who acquired Yangtze River
Port & Logistics Limited ("Yangtze" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:YRIV)
securities during the period from February 2, 2016 through December
5, 2018 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until March 4, 2019 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that Yangtze and certain senior executives made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Yangtze's purported lease of the Wuhan Yangtze River Newport
Logistics Center, the company's main asset, was a fabrication; and
(2) Yangtze's only operating subsidiary, Wuhan Yangtze River
Newport Logistics Co., Ltd., was declared insolvent in China due to
a number of default judgments against it.

Following the publication of a report by Hindenburg Research on
December 6, 2018, the price of Yangtze shares fell by $3.34, or
28.74%, over the following two trading sessions, closing at $8.28
on December 7, 2018.

If you acquired Yangtze securities during the Class Period, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims please;


         Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
         Kirby McInerney LLP
         Email: investigations@kmllp.com
                telrod@kmllp.com [GN]


YRC WORLDWIDE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities
of YRC Worldwide Inc. ("YRC" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: YRCW)
between March 10, 2014 and December 14, 2018, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover YRC
shareholders' investment losses.

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

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) from 2005 to at least 2013, YRC's units systematically
overcharged the federal government for freight carrier services;
(2) this alleged misconduct caused the Department of Defense to
overpay by millions of dollars for shipments that were lighter, and
thus cheaper, than the weights for which the government was
charged; (3) consequently, this alleged misconduct would subject
YRC to enhanced government scrutiny and liabilities, including
potentially owing treble damages under the False Claims Act; and
(4) as a result, YRC's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

On December 14, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") issued
a press release stating that it had filed a complaint against YRC
entities for "systematically overcharg[ing] the government for
freight carrier services and ma[king] false statements to the
government that hid their misconduct." That same day, The Wall
Street Journal reported on the DOJ's lawsuit against YRC's units
over military shipments from 2005 to at least 2013.

On this news, YRC stock fell $1.26 per share, or over 28%, from its
previous closing price to close at $3.17 per share on December 14,
2018, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 4, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased YRC securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options, please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/yrc-worldwide-inc-yrcw-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-105/
or contact Daniel Sadeh toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
dsadeh@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

         Daniel Sadeh,Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         10 East 40th Street, New York
         New York 10016
         Telephone: (877) 779-1414
         E-mail: dsadeh@bernlieb.com [GN]


YRC WORLDWIDE: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired YRC Worldwide Inc. (NASDAQ: YRCW) securities
between March 10, 2014 and December 14, 2018 (the "Class Period").
Investors have until March 4, 2019 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) from 2005 to at least 2013, YRC Worldwide's units
systematically overcharged the federal government for freight
carrier services; (2) this alleged misconduct caused the Department
of Defense to overpay by millions of dollars for shipments that
were lighter, and thus cheaper, than the weights for which the
government was charged; (3) consequently, this alleged misconduct
would subject YRC Worldwide to enhanced government scrutiny and
liabilities, including potentially owing treble damages under the
False Claims Act; and (4) as a result, YRC Worldwide's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you purchased YRC Worldwide securities during the Class Period
or continue to hold shares purchased before the Class Period, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters please;

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


ZIPPY'S: Settles Class-Action Suit Over Massive Hack
----------------------------------------------------
Hawaii News Now reports that Zippy's has settled a class-action
lawsuit with customers affected by a massive data security breach
discovered in March.

The company said that customers impacted by the breach can file a
claim with a third-party administrator at zippyssettlement.com.

Claims can be submitted through June 2.

Last year, Zippy's announced details of the security breach, saying
anyone who used a credit or debit card at a Zippy's, Napoleon's
Bakery, Kahala Sushi or Pearl City Sushi from Nov. 23, 2017 to
March 29, 2018, could have been affected.

On Jan. 4 Zippy's said an investigation traced the hack back to
FIN7, an "international criminal group" responsible for a number of
security breaches involving eateries and national companies.

Zippy's said it also took steps in the wake of the incident to beef
up its security.

"Zippy's is committed to making things right for our customers
impacted by this incident," said Paul Yokota, president of FCH
Enterprises, parent company of Zippy's, in a news release.

"While we're grateful that no personal information was exposed in
the attack, we continue to recommend that customers closely monitor
their credit or debit card statements, and immediately contact
their bank or financial institution if they identify any suspicious
activity."

The settlement says payments will be made to customers who were
"potentially affected" by the security breach.

The amount paid depends on whether a customer had a unauthorized
charge on a debit or credit card and on how many people submit
valid claims. [GN]



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***