CAR_Public/190212.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, February 12, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 31

                            Headlines

ACE & W INVESTMENT: Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot
AIDING HEARTS: Wolcott Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages
ALLIANCE PROPERTY: Heinrich Files Labor Suit in Georgia
AMERICAN AIRLINES: L. Graham's Suit Transferred to N.D. Tex.
AMERICAN HOTEL: Damasco Bid for Class Certification Withdrawn

APPLE INC: Law Firm Mulls Securities Fraud Class Action
AT&T TELEHOLDINGS: Sued over Unsolicited Advertisement Messages
AUTOMATIC DATA: Still Defends Suits over Use of Biometric Info
AXOGEN INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
BEACON ROOFING: Failed to Reimburse Delivery Drivers' Expenses

BOJANGLES' INC: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
BRETT A. OSBORN: McLean Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Cyber Security Breach Suit Still Ongoing
CLEVELAND PUBLIC: Court Dismisses Class Action
CONNECTICUT: Medicaid Recipients Sue DSS Over Transportation

DANSKE BANK: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action
DEJA VU SERVICES: Strip Club Workers' Suit Moved to S.D. Calif.
DELAWARE: Inmate Acquitted in Vaughn Prison Riot to Join Lawsuit
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court Stays L. Fraley's FDCPA Suit
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Simmons Files Suit Under FDCPA in NJ

EXPEDIA GROUP: Hagens Berman Files Class-Action Lawsuit
EXPEDIA GROUP: Krause Seeks Overtime Pay for Travel Consultants
FCI LENDER: Christopher Tabick Seeks to Certify Class
FIAT CHRYSLER: Agrees to Pay $800MM to Settle Ecodiesel Scandal
FITCHBURG GAS: Bellermann Class Action Concluded

FIVE STARS: Quinones Seeks Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay
FLIGHT CLUB: Faces Traynor ADA Suit in S.D. New York
G4S SECURE: Young et al. Seek OT Pay for Security Service Workers
GMA INVESTMENTS: Court Grants Joint Bid to Dismiss Pendleton Suit
GRANGE INSURANCE: Failed to Reimburse Conditional Medicare Payment

HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: More Patients Expected to Join Class Action
HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: Patients Wait for Results Amid Class Action
HOCKEY CANADA: Faces Class-Action Concussion Lawsuit
HOUZZ INC: Underpays Account Coordinators, Merritt Alleges
HUD HOSPITALITY: Leible Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage for Servers

INTEL CORP: Settlement Reached in Suit over McAfee Acquisition
INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE: Inks $65.5MM Proposed Settlement Deal
JACKSON HANDS: Williams Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Challenges Donoff Subpoena Bid
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Seeks to Quash Subpoena in Dolan Suit

JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Sued over Damaging Retirement Savings Plan
KEMET CORP: 4th Payment in Capacitors Antitrust Suit Due May 15
KEMET CORP: Inductors Antitrust Still Ongoing
KICKS USA: Faces Traynor ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LEGACY HEALTH: Former Nurse Sues Over Breaks, Overtime

LEXICON PHARMA: Sued over Misleading Report on Sotagliflozin
LLOYD'S OF LONDON: Hit With Federal Class Action
LOANCARE, LLC: Hamilton Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
LYONDELLBASELL ACETYLS: McDevitt Seeks Overtime Wages
MARRIOTT INT'L: Class Action Powerhouses Sue Over Data Breach

MCKESSON CORP: Plaintiffs Seek to Lead Evanston Police Fund Case
MDL 1566: Suggestion to Remand Suit to JPML Granted
MDL 2323: Ex-Wife Can't Intervene in Concussion Suit
MDL 2848: Court Lifts Conditional Transfer Order Stay for 89 Cases
MEDLEY CAPITAL: Khan & Dicristino Balk at Sierra Income Merger

MISSOURI: Court Denies Bid for Counsel Appointment in Postawko
MUNCHERY, INC: Joshua Philips Sues over Mass Layoffs
MUTUAL OF OMAHA: Workers Pursue Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Abdulrahman Asserts Personal Injury Claim
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Ashby Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Booker Files Personal Injury Case in Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Campbell Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Caylor Files Personal Injury Suit in Ind.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Chuinard Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Cooke Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Elliott Asserts Personal Injury Claim
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Fox Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Markham Personal Injury Class Action
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Fahy Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Fontaine Asserts Claim for Personal Injury

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Freeman Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Hurst Suit Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Johnson Files Personal Injury Class Action
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Jones Suit Alleges Personal Injury Claim
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Kidd Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Kuehne Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Lauback Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: MacLellan Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Martin Brings Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: McMonigle Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Merchant Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Montgomery Files PI Suit in Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Moravec Asserts Personal Injury Class Suit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Robert Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sepanski Asserts Claim for Personal Injury

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Smith Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Staten Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Stinyard Suit Alleges Personal Injury Claim
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Udovich Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Watts Brings Personal Injury Suit in Indiana

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Willis Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Wilson Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Young Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
NATIONWIDE BUSINESS: Court Grants Joint Bid to Dismiss Cunningham
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Hill Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages

NCAA: Disregards WNEU Student-Athletes' Safety, Hurd Says
NCAA: McCormick Sues over Johns Hopkins Student-Athletes' Safety
NCAA: Newbern Sues over Safety of Lehigh Student-Athletes
NH STATE EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION: Non-union Members Hit Illegal Fees
NORTHWESTERN MEDICINE: Bars Patients From Bringing Class-Action

NOVA LIFESTYLE: Responds to Research Report, To Defend Lawsuits
OAKWOOD, OH: Plaintiffs to Receive $200K in Checks from Lawsuit
OYSHI TABLE: De Jesus et al. Seek Unpaid Wages and Overtime
P.A.M. TRANSPORT: Bid to Decertify FLSA Collective Action Denied
PORANIA LLC: Robinson Files Class Action in Arizona

PORTAGE COUNTY, WI: Court Won't Strike B. Lieberman's Suit
POST HOLDINGS: Opt-Out Plaintiffs' Antitrust Claims v. Unit Ongoing
PUBLIC STORAGE: Underpays Sales Agents, Arakelian Suit Alleges
REDROCK TRAVEL: Ramos-Rivera Seeks Minimum Wage Compensation
REDROCK TRAVEL: Tibolla Suit Seeks Minimum Wage Compensation

REDROCK TRAVEL: Wilder Seeks Minimum Wage Compensation
RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Settles SEC Fraud Case Amid Class Action
SAFE HAVEN: Martin et al. Seek to Certify Salespeople Class
SAFE HAVEN: Martin et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime Compensation
SAGORA SENIOR: Mickle Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay

SALAS CONCRETE: Denied Break Periods, Wage Statements, Cavazos Says
SARAH JONES: White et al. Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime
SEALIFT HOLDINGS: Faces Baduria Suit in E.D. New York
ST. LOUIS, MO: Class Action Prompts Warrantless Arrest Changes
STADION MONEY: Sued over Underperformance of Retirement Plan

STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Lawsuit Disputes Background Check Practices
TIDAL BASIN: Gonzalez Seeks Unpaid Wages for Workers
TRANSAMERICA CORP: Faces ERISA Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
TRIDENT ASSET: Green Files Case Under FDCPA in New York
TRILLIANT FOOD: Mitchell Seeks OT Pay for Production Employees

TSYS BUSINESS: Court Grants Final Approval of Gardiner Settlement
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers' Class Action Can Go Ahead
UNITED STATES: Can't Pause Suit Over Migrant Teens' Detention
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Workers Oppose Supreme Court Review Bid
VISA INC: Amended Deal with Damages Class Wins Initial Approval

VISTA ACQUISITION: Stell Seeks Unpaid 60 Days' Pay & Benefits
WAYFAIR INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit
WELLS FARGO: Court Approves $1,300,000 Settlement in Fowler Suit
XPO LOGISTICS: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
YIN WALL: Court Grants Final Approval of Ginseng Growers' Deal

YOGAWORKS INC: Mirza Sues over 89% Drop in Share Price
[*] McGuireWoods Attorneys Discuss 2 Class Action Rulings

                            *********

ACE & W INVESTMENT: Class Certification Bid Denied as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned ANGELA PIPES, the Plaintiff,
vs. ACE & W INVESTMENT, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
6:18-cv-01328-PGB-GJK (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Gregory J. Kelly
entered an order on Jan. 25, 2019:

   1. denying as moot Plaintiff's motion for class certification;
      and

   2. directing Parties to file a joint motion for approval of the
      settlement agreement on or before February 15, 2019,
      including all documentation and information the Court needs
      to determine the reasonableness of the agreement and any
      attorney's fees provided.

On January 11, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, and on January 24, the Plaintiff filed a notice of
settlement, stating that the action has been settled, the Court
says.[CC]

AIDING HEARTS: Wolcott Seeks Minimum and Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA WOLCOTT on behalf of herself and other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, vs. AIDING HEARTS LLC;
and LISA HERRGUTH; jointly and severally, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00062 (W.D. Mich., Jan. 25, 2019), seeks to recover minimum
wage and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Michigan Minimum Wage Law of 1964.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
and similarly situated persons, for all hours worked and regularly
paid her less than the amount of wages she earned. During and after
Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff requested
that she be paid for all hours worked. Despite her requests, the
Defendants refused to compensate Plaintiff for all hours worked.
Throughout the time of her employment, the Defendants failed to
maintain proper records of their employees' work time and had a
policy or practice, which applied to all employees, of not
investigating disputed hours and not paying employees' for those
hours. As a result of not paying employees' for all hours worked,
the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated
persons at the federal or state minimum wage rates, the lawsuit
says.

Aiding Hearts provides in-home care that makes a difference in the
lives of seniors and other adults.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          John Philo, Esq.
          Tony Paris, Esq.
          MAURICE & JANE SUGAR LAW CENTER
          FOR ECONOMIC & SOCIAL JUSTICE
          4605 Cass Avenue, Second Floor
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: 313-993-4505
          Facsimile: 313-887-8470
          E-mail: jphilo@sugarlaw.org
                  tparis@sugarlaw.org

ALLIANCE PROPERTY: Heinrich Files Labor Suit in Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alliance Property
Services of Georgia. The case is styled as Michael Heinrich, Jr.,
on his own behalf and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Alliance Property Services of Georgia, a Domestic Profit
Corporation and Matthew J. Meyers, Sr., Individually, Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00022-RWS (N.D. Ga., January 30, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as filed under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Alliance Property Services of Georgia provides nationwide property
maintenance services, with corporate offices located in New Jersey
and Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
   Morgan & Morgan, P. FL  
   600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
   Plantation, FL 33324
   Tel: (954) 318-0268
   Fax: (954) 333-3515


AMERICAN AIRLINES: L. Graham's Suit Transferred to N.D. Tex.
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona issued
an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Transfer Case the case
captioned Lorie Grabham, Plaintiff, v. American Airlines
Incorporated, Defendant. No. CV-17-03741-PHX-DWL. (D. Ariz.) to the
Northern District of Texas.

Initially, the Plaintiff, an Arizona resident, asserted only
individual federal and state-law claims against her employer,
American Airlines, Inc. (American), for gender-based wage
discrimination.  However, in September 2018, the Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint in which she dropped her state-law claim and
asserted federal claims on behalf of a nationwide class of over
8,000 current and former American employees.

Under 1404(a), the district court has discretion to adjudicate
motions for transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case
consideration of convenience and fairness. In making this
determination, the district court may consider a variety of
factors, including: the convenience of the parties, the relative
financial burdens, the convenience of witnesses, the availability
of compulsory process to compel unwilling witness attendance, the
availability of witnesses and their live testimony at trial, the
ease of access to sources of proof, the differences in the costs of
litigation in the two forums, contacts with the chosen forum,
jurisdiction over the parties, the state most familiar with the
governing law, the relevant public policy of the forum state, the
existence of any forum selection clause, and the relative docket
congestion of the court.

Location of Relevant Events

Although both parties urge the Court to consider where the relevant
events happened as part of the transfer calculus, they disagree as
to how this factor should be applied. American contends the
relevant events here are American's internal system of compensating
employees and that these decisions primarily took place in Texas.
Plaintiff contends the relevant events were the delivery of
discriminatory paychecks, not where the policies and practices that
are being challenged were developed. Plaintiff also notes that,
during a portion of the proposed class period, American's
predecessor-in-interest (US Airways) was based in Arizona.  

This factor cuts in favor of a transfer to Texas.  

Convenience of Parties

American is headquartered in Texas. In addition, American has
submitted evidence in support of its motion showing that about 80%
of the 8,377 potential class members 6,720 reside closer to Texas
than Arizona and that while over half of the potential class
members 4,591 reside in Texas, only 1,364 reside in Arizona. hese
figures suggest Texas would be a much more convenient forum than
Arizona from American's perspective.

The Plaintiff, in contrast, resides in Arizona, so transferring the
case to Texas will inconvenience her and her California-based
attorney, who may need to associate with local counsel to comply
with the Northern District of Texas's local rules. However, because
this case is a nationwide class action, Plaintiff's initial choice
to file suit in Arizona is entitled to less deference than usual.


The Plaintiff also argues that Arizona wouldn't be a particularly
inconvenient forum for American because it "has multiple commercial
offices in the Phoenix-area, and Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport is
Defendant's sixth-largest hub. This argument is unavailing. Many
companies, including airlines, have operations in an array of
different cities. That doesn't mean that each such city would be an
equally convenient forum for litigation as the city where the
company is headquartered.

Finally, the Plaintiff states that she wishes to avoid a transfer
to Texas because the Fifth Circuit is well known to be a more
employer-friendly circuit when compared to the Ninth Circuit.
Plaintiff does not, however, identify any case law suggesting this
sort of raw tactical consideration may be legitimately considered
as part of the Section 1404(a) transfer analysis.

The Court thus concludes that the convenience-to-parties factor
tips slightly in favor of a transfer to Texas.  

Convenience of Witnesses/Location of Evidence

American has submitted evidence showing that all American employees
who are potential witnesses and whose testimony will be essential
to resolving this litigation are based in Fort Worth.

Multiple employees in the Human Resources Division, Finance
Division, Compensation Department, and Executive Compensation
Department, which are headquartered in Fort Worth, are likely to
have relevant information due to the nature of their positions and
responsibilities, including Chris Ducey (Managing Director,
Compensation and Retirement), Patricia Herrera. Indeed, American's
entire Executive Compensation team is based in Fort Worth. Any of
these witnesses, who all work at American's headquarters in Fort
Worth, would be inconvenienced by having to appear at trial in
Arizona. American further argues that most of the key documents in
this case, including any hard copy notes or records related to
compensation policies, are likely maintained by the Compensation
Department in Fort Worth, a department with responsibility for
administration of the policies.

The Plaintiff responds to these arguments by noting that American's
initial discovery disclosures in this case didn't identify any
Texas-based witnesses or Texas-based documents. She thus argues
that American's belated identification of those witnesses and
documents, after her amended complaint was filed, should be
regarded with suspicion. Plaintiff further contends that, even if
most of the documents are located in Texas, advancements in
electronic discovery and modern trends in litigation" have reduced
the inconvenience associated with out-of-state document production.


The Court concludes this factor weighs in favor of a transfer to
Texas.  

State Most Familiar With Governing Law

In its motion, American argues this factor is neutral because
neither jurisdiction is more familiar with the facts or governing
law of this case. In her response, Plaintiff acknowledges that both
districts are sufficiently familiar with the governing law but
argues this factor still cuts against transfer because Ninth
Circuit law concerning wage discrimination is more developed than
Fifth Circuit law. In its reply, American contends that Plaintiff's
arguments on this point smack of forum shopping, long deemed
impermissible in the federal system.

The familiarity-with-governing-law factor is meant to apply in
cases involving state-law claims it reflects a presumption that a
federal court will know more about the substantive law of its home
state (having derived this wisdom from handling diversity suits)
than a federal court located in a different state. Here, the
amended complaint doesn't assert any state-law claims. Thus, the
Court concludes this factor is neutral.  

Other Factors

The Plaintiff argues that Arizona's participation in the Mandatory
Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP) program counsels against a transfer
because the MIDP results in reduced litigation costs and the speedy
resolution of cases.  In its reply, American asserts that
Plaintiff's invocation of the MIDP is a smokescreen of an
irrelevant argument that has no place in the well-established
transfer analysis.

The Court disagrees with American's contention that the MIDP is
irrelevant. One factor that courts may consider under Section
1404(a) is the differences in the costs of litigation in the two
forums. Here, Plaintiff has made a credible argument that Arizona's
participation in the MIDP program may, in general, render it a
less-costly litigation forum than the Northern District of Texas.

Balancing

The location-of-events, convenience-to-parties,
convenience-to-witnesses, and cost-of-litigation factors all
suggest this matter should be transferred to the Northern District
of Texas, while the familiarity-with-law factor is neutral. These
considerations, on balance, lead the Court to conclude that
American's motion to transfer should be granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 24, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y93ntwzf from Leagle.com.

Lorie Grabham, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Eric David Zard --
ezard@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kipela & Carpenter
& Todd David Carpenter -- tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson
Lynch Sweet Kipela & Carpenter LLP.

American Airlines Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Michael A. Cordier -- michael@mcattorneys.com --
Murphy Karber Cordier PLC, Daniel E. Farrington, Farrington Law
Firm LLC, Jeffrey I. Kohn -- kohn@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Lauren G. Goetzl, Farrington Law Firm LLC, Richard B. Murphy --
rich@mcattorneys.com  --  Murphy Karber Cordier PLC & Sloane
Ackerman -- sackerman@omm.com -- OMelveny & Myers LLP.


AMERICAN HOTEL: Damasco Bid for Class Certification Withdrawn
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Gorss Motels, Inc., et al.,
the Plaintiff, vs. American Hotel Register Company, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01011 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Jorge L. Alonso entered an order withdrawing the amended "Damasco"
motion for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on Jan. 25, 2019,
pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation to withdraw first
amended "Damasco" motion for class certification, Plaintiff's first
amended "Damasco" motion for class certification is withdrawn.  The
Motion hearing date set for Jan. 30, 2019 is stricken.[CC]

APPLE INC: Law Firm Mulls Securities Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Mikey Campbell, writing for Apple Insider, reports that Bernstein
Liebhard announced -- and advertised -- the potential class action
in a post to its website shortly after Apple lowered earnings
guidance for its first fiscal quarter of 2019.

In a letter to investors, Apple CEO Tim Cook said the company is
expecting to end the quarter with $84 billion in revenue, a figure
down more than 7 percent from an anticipated $89 billion to $93
billion forecast issued at the end of fiscal 2018. Mr. Cook blamed
the cut on weak iPhone demand in Greater China and "other emerging
markets."

The statement is at odds with an appraisal of Apple's Chinese
business Mr. Cook offered during an investor conference call in
September, Bernstein Liebhard said. Specifically, the law firm
takes umbrage with Cook's characterization of Chinese iPhone demand
over the trailing quarter.

"Our business in China was very strong last quarter. We grew 16
percent, which we're very happy with. iPhone in particular was very
strong, very strong double-digit growth there," Cook said at the
time.

The law firm in its press release claims the statement amounts to
"materially misleading business information" issued by an Apple
executive.

How, exactly, Bernstein Liebhard intends to correlate two
statements taken from two different time periods, and each
pertaining to a respective fiscal quarter, is unclear.

Following Mr. Cook's letter on Jan. 2, Apple's stock price dipped
nearly $12, or or over 7.5 percent, in after-hours trading. [GN]


AT&T TELEHOLDINGS: Sued over Unsolicited Advertisement Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, VAHE MESSERLIAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. AT&T TELEHOLDINGS, INC.;
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant(s), Case No.
2:19-cv-00645 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 28, 2019), seeks damages and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacting Plaintiff via "telephone facsimile machine" in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
allegedly causing Plaintiff and all others similarly situated to
incur the costs of receiving unsolicited advertisement messages via
"telephone facsimile machines" and invading their privacy.

According to the complaint, beginning on or around November 14,
2018, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on his telephone facsimile
numbers ending in -8480, in an effort to sell or solicit its
services. The Defendant contacted Plaintiff, by sending a facsimile
transmission, between on or around November 14, 2018 in an effort
to solicit its customer's business. The Defendant's messages
constituted "telephone solicitation" as defined by the TCPA, and
"unsolicited advertisement" as defined by the TCPA. The Defendant's
calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes. The
Defendant's calls were placed to telephone facsimile numbers
assigned to a telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge
for incoming messages. The Plaintiff is not a customer of
Defendant's services and has never provided any personal
information, including his telephone facsimile number(s), to
Defendant for any purpose whatsoever. Accordingly, Defendant never
received Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using
a telephone facsimile machine pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section
227(b)(1)C), the lawsuit says.

AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., formerly known as Ameritech Corporation,
is an American telecommunications company that arose out of the
1984 AT&T divestiture. Ameritech was one of the seven Regional Bell
Operating Companies that was created following the breakup of the
Bell System.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

AUTOMATIC DATA: Still Defends Suits over Use of Biometric Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the company
still defends class suits over alleged violations of the Illinois
Biometric Privacy Act.

In June 2018, a potential class action complaint was filed against
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP) in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois. The complaint asserts that ADP violated the
Illinois Biometric Privacy Act, was negligent and unjustly enriched
itself in connection with its collection, use and storage of
biometric data of employees of its clients who are residents of
Illinois in connection with certain services provided by ADP to
clients in Illinois.  

The complaint seeks statutory and other unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees.  

In addition, similar potential class action complaints have been
filed in Illinois state courts against ADP and/or certain of its
clients with respect to the collection, use and storage of
biometric data of the employees of these clients. All of these
claims are still in their earliest stages and the Company is unable
to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or range of loss, with
respect to these matters.  

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.

Automatic Data Processing, Inc. provides business process
outsourcing services worldwide. It operates through two segments,
Employer Services and Professional Employer Organization (PEO)
Services. The company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in
Roseland, New Jersey.


AXOGEN INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against AxoGen, Inc. ("AxoGen" or the
"Company") ( AXGN) and certain of its officers, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired AxoGen securities
pursuant and/or traceable to (1) the Company's registration
statement and prospectus (collectively, the "November 2017
Registration Statement") issued in connection with its November
2017 secondary public offering ("November SPO"); and/or (2) 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) between August 7, 2017 and
December 18, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors
are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/axgn.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) AxoGen aggressively increased prices to mask
lower sales; (2) AxoGen'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) AxoGen'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) consequently,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

On December 18, 2018, Seligman Investments reported 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." The article continued to state 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." Following this news, AxoGen stock dropped $6.17 per share, or
roughly 22%, to close at $21.36 on December 18, 2018.

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/axgn 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 AxoGen
you have until March 11, 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]


BEACON ROOFING: Failed to Reimburse Delivery Drivers' Expenses
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, ALAN MORENO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
15 situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BEACON ROOFING SUPPLY, INC., a
Virginia Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00185-GPC-LL
(S.D. Cal., Jan. 28, 2019), alleges that the Defendant failed to
reimburse business expenses under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
Delivery Drivers employed by the Defendant during the Class Period
are delivery drivers who paid out-of-pocket business expenses
reasonably necessary for the performance of their jobs, for which
they were not reimbursed. These deliveries required Class Members
to use their personal cell phones for among, other things calling
the Defendant's clients, using navigation, and using the smart
phone application to record their time. The Plaintiff and similarly
situated Delivery Drivers are expected by the Defendant to pay, and
have personally paid, expenses incurred using their personal cell
phones.  The Defendant has willfully failed and refused to timely
and fully reimburse Plaintiff and other present and former Delivery
Drivers for these business expenses that were incurred in the
regular course of their duties as the Defendant's Delivery Drivers,
as required by Labor Code section 2802, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Alisa A. Martin, Esq.
          AMARTIN LAW
          600 West Broadway, Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 308-6880
          Facsimile: (619) 308-6881

               - and -

          Lindsay David, Esq.
          BRENNAN & DAVID LAW GROUP
          2888 Loker Avenue East, Suite 302
          Carlsbad, CA 92010
          Telephone: (760) 730-9408
          Facsimile: (760) 888-3575

BOJANGLES' INC: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC on Jan. 2 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:18-cv-11649-VM on behalf
of public common shareholders Bojangles' Inc. ("Bojangles" or the
"Company") (NasdaqGS: BOJA) who held Bojangles securities on the
record date December 6, 2018 (the "Class Period"), and have been
harmed by Bojangles and its board of directors' (the "Board")
alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the
sale of the Company to Durational Capital Management LP and The
Jordan Company, L.P (the "Proposed Merger").

Under the terms of the Proposed Merger, Bojangles shareholders are
only anticipated to receive $16.10 in cash for each share of
Bojangles common stock they own (the "Merger Consideration"). The
complaint alleges that the Merger Consideration is inadequate and
that the proxy statement regarding the Proposed Merger (the
"Proxy") provides shareholders with materially incomplete and
misleading information regarding the Proposed Merger, in violation
of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the
Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning: (i) the valuation analyses performed by the Company's
financial advisors, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated and Houlihan Lokey Capital, Inc., in support of their
fairness opinions; and (ii) the background of the Proposed Merger.
The special meeting of Bojangles shareholders to vote on the
Proposed Merger is currently scheduled for January 10, 2019.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 4, 2019. Any member of the putative class may move
the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/bojangles-inc.It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

Monteverde & Associates PC -- http://www.monteverdelaw.com-- is a
national class action securities and consumer litigation law firm
committed that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed
to protecting shareholders and consumers from corporate wrongdoing.
Monteverde & Associates PC lawyers have significant experience
litigating mergers & acquisitions and securities class actions,
whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying
corporate misconduct. Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at
the firm, has been recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in
Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017, and 2018, an award given to
less than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field.  He has also
been selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017 and 2018 Top Rated
Lawyer. [GN]


BRETT A. OSBORN: McLean Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned MARY MCLEAN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
BRETT A. OSBORN, D.O., PLLC, a professional limited liability
company, the Defendant, Case No. 9:18-cv-81222-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order on Jan. 25, 2019:

   1. granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification pursuant
      to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act;

   2. certifying putative Class;

      "all persons within the United States who, within the four
      years prior to the filing of this Complaint, were sent a
      text message using the ActiveCampaign platform by Jupiter
      SEO Experts on behalf of Defendant, to said person's
      cellular telephone number, advertising Defendant’s services

      and/or discounts"

      Excluded from the Class are the Judge presiding over this
      case and his staff; Brett A. Osborn, individually, and his
      immediate family members; the staff at Brett A. Osborn, D.O.

      PLLC, and their immediate family members; and the legal
      representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-
      interests, and assignees of any such excluded person.

   3. appointing Plaintiff as representative of the Class;

   4. appointing Edelsberg Law, P.A., Hiraldo P.A., and Shamis &
      Gentile, P.A. as Class counsel;

   5. establishing a deadline for submission of the proposed Class

      notice and notice plan.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Jordan D. Utanski, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          19495 Biscayne Blvd., #607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Tel: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: utanski@edelsberglaw.com
                  scott@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 N.E. 1st Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Cyber Security Breach Suit Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brinker International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 26, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself against a class action suit related to
cyber security breach.

On May 12, 2018, the Company issued a public statement that malware
had been discovered at certain Chili's restaurants that resulted in
unauthorized access or acquisition of customer payment card data.
The Company engaged third-party forensic firms and cooperated with
law enforcement to investigate the matter. Based on the
investigation of the third-party forensic experts, the Company
believes most Company-owned Chili's restaurants were impacted by
the malware during time frames that vary by restaurant, but the
Company believes in each case beginning no earlier than March 21,
2018 and ending no later than April 22, 2018.

The Company was named as a defendant in putative class action
lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada, and two in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, filed on May 24, 2018, May 30,
2018, June 14, 2018, and June 28, 2018, respectively (collectively,
the "Litigation") relating to the cyber security incident. In the
Litigation, plaintiffs assert various claims stemming from the
cyber security incident at the Company's Chili's restaurants
involving customer payment card information and seek monetary
damages in excess of $5.0 million, injunctive and declaratory
relief and attorney's fees and costs.

Since the initial filing of these cases, the Nevada plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed this case and joined the Florida lawsuit.
Counsel for all parties subsequently agreed to the transfer of the
California cases to Florida, and they have been consolidated into a
single matter with the case already pending there.

Brinker International said, "We believe we have defenses and intend
to defend the Litigation. As such, as of December 26, 2018, we have
concluded that a loss from this matter is not determinable,
therefore, we have not recorded a liability related to the
Litigation. We will continue to evaluate this matter based on new
information as it becomes available."

Brinker International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns,
develops, operates, and franchises casual dining restaurants in the
United States and internationally. As of June 27, 2018, it owned,
operated, or franchised 1,686 restaurants comprising 997
company-owned restaurants and 689 franchised restaurants under the
Chili's Grill & Bar and Maggiano's Little Italy brand names. The
company was founded in 1975 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


CLEVELAND PUBLIC: Court Dismisses Class Action
----------------------------------------------
The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas dismissed a class action
lawsuit against Cleveland Public Power (CPP), holding that certain
utility charges totaling more than $188 million were not unlawful.
The crux of the lawsuit was Environmental and Ecological Adjustment
(EEA) charges that CCP charged customers in addition to base rates.
Unlike base rates, EEA charges do not need approval from city
council. The EEA charges were collected by CPP from 1984 into 2013.
And although CPP stopped assessing these fees in 2013, it began
charging customers again in 2017. The plaintiffs claimed that CPP
was not allowed to charge the EEA charges under the terms of CPP's
electric service contract with its customers, because these charges
did not relate to compliance with environmental laws or
regulations.             

To examine the plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, the court
analyzed the City of Cleveland's ordinances, which incorporate the
terms of the electric service contract. After analyzing the
ordinances establishing the EEA, the court rejected the plaintiffs'
arguments. The court found that the language of the ordinances
(and, thus, the electric service contract) did not limit the scope
of EEA charges to costs related to environmental laws or
regulations.                                                       


The court's decision is likely to be appealed, but it closes the
first chapter in a contentious legal battle regarding CPP's utility
charges. The decision is also noteworthy due to the court's
in-depth analysis of the applicable standard of review for Ohio
courts that are asked to consider the lawfulness of municipal
utilities' rates.

         Devin D. Parram, Esq.
         Bricker & Eckler LLP
         Associate
         Email: dparram@bricker.com [GN]


CONNECTICUT: Medicaid Recipients Sue DSS Over Transportation
------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Stuart, writing for CT News Junkie, reports that six
Medicaid recipients filed a class action lawsuit on Jan. 8 against
the state Department of Social Services for failing to provide them
with timely transportation to their doctor appointments.

For over a year, with little improvement, the DSS, according to the
complaint, has been failing to provide disabled residents with
necessary transportation to their medical treatment appointments.

The Medicaid program, which is a federal- and state-based program,
provides transportation for all Medicaid covered services,
including emergency services and pre-scheduled medical
appointments.

Last January, DSS inked a three-year, $140-million contract with
Veyo to provide transportation for the state's more than 800,000
Medicaid patients.

Veyo is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

The complaint says that DSS has been unable to give their clients
answers about why their rides were canceled.

A spokesman for DSS said the agency has received the lawsuit and is
reviewing it.

Problems with the transportation of Medicaid patients has been a
topic of discussion for the Medicaid Managed Care Council, but
there have been no solutions to all the problems.

"This is unacceptable," Kristen Noelle Hatcher, Esq. managing
attorney of the public benefits unit at Connecticut Legal Services
said. "The state needs to answer to the thousands of people whose
health is suffering because they are not getting to the doctor,
while the company who is supposed to be helping them is getting
paid and not being held accountable."

Connecticut Legal Services filed the class action on behalf of all
of the individuals who have been left stranded and in the dark,
unable to get to their medical treatment.

One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Terrilynne Trudeau, is a
56-year-old resident of Terryville who requires treatment for
lymphedema, and numerous other serious conditions.

"Ms. Trudeau had eight appointments scheduled to receive this
treatment and her transportation cancelled for seven of them," the
complaint states.

Then there's Ida Davidson, 90, of Norwalk. She is disabled due to
atrial fibrillation, and the effects of a stroke. Because of her
disabilities, she is bedridden, cannot walk, and is unable to use a
wheelchair.

Davidson requires an ambulance with a stretcher to transport her to
medical appointments where her primary care physician and
cardiologist monitor her condition.

Davidson confirmed her transportation Nov. 16, 2018, and on Nov.
17, 2018, the transportation did not arrive.

"Veyo representatives told Mrs. Moorer (Davidson's daughter) that
they were denying her ride because no transportation providers were
able to accommodate her," the complaint states.

The complaint states that in some cases the wrong mode of
transportation arrives for the clients. Sometimes when a client
needs a wheelchair van, a taxicab arrives.

"Even in cases in which an individual's transportation error has
been corrected for an appointment or two, the individual has a high
likelihood of experiencing that problem again," the complaint
states.

The failure to provide the service is compounded by the agency's
lack of guidance for how to complain if their transportation
doesn't arrive.

Matthew Ibrahim, another plaintiff named in the case, has several
disabling health conditions. He uses a wheelchair and needs a
wheelchair van to transport him to appointments.

He routinely sees a cardiologist, pulmonologist and primary care
doctor to monitor him and keep him healthy and out of the hospital
or nursing home. Without regular visits, he may develop infections
in his severely swollen legs, or fluid may build up around his
heart and lungs, causing either to fail. Several times he has
expected a ride to take him to one of these doctors, but he was
told minutes before the scheduled appointment that the ride would
not be coming.

"Connecticut residents have seen their rights under the
Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act ignored by DSS
for too long," James S. Haslam, Esq. a veteran Social Security
Disability and Public Benefits attorney at CLS, said. "It is time
to take this to the courts to get those protections back." [GN]


DANSKE BANK: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Danske Bank A/S.  If you
suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Danske Bank A/S (OTCMKTS: DNKEY)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 11, 2019
Class Period: Purchasers of American Depositary Receipts between
January 9, 2014 and October 23, 2018

Get additional information about DNKEY:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/danske-bank-a-s-loss-submission-form?wire=3


         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Telephone: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN]

DEJA VU SERVICES: Strip Club Workers' Suit Moved to S.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Jane Roe No. 1 and 2, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, and Elana Pera, Penny
Nunez, Sarah Murphy, Poohrawn Mehraban, Nicole Hughes, Angelynn
Hermes, Gypsy Vidal, the Rashele Hamren, the Intervenor Plaintiffs,
vs. Deja Vu Services, Inc., Harry Mohney, The Deja Vu Affiliated
Nightclubs, and Does 1-200, jointly and severally, the Defendants,
Case No. 37-02018-00028044-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) on Jan.
28, 2019.  The Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:19-cv-00196-JM-KSC to the proceeding. The suit alleges
Fair Labor Standards Act violation. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Jeffrey T. Miller.

Deja Vu Services, Inc. is an American company that (as of 2017)
operates about 132 strip clubs in 41 U.S. states, as well as
multiple clubs in the United Kingdom.[BN]

Attorneys for Jane Roe No. 1 and 2, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated:

          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN AND KRINSK
          550 W. C Street, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101-3593
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
          E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com

Attorneys for Intervenor Plaintiffs:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Tammara N Bokmuller, Esq.
          MORRIS POLICH & PURDY LLP
          501 W. Broadway, Suite 500
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 557-0404
          Facsimile: (619) 557-0460
          E-mai: tbokmuller@clarkhill.com

DELAWARE: Inmate Acquitted in Vaughn Prison Riot to Join Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Cherry, writing for The Courier-Express, reports that an inmate
who was cleared by jury of any wrongdoing in the fatal Vaughn
prison riot is joining a class-action lawsuit alleging abuse in
Delaware's prisons.

Deric Forney, who was among the first three inmates tried in the
case -- and the only one to be acquitted of all charges -- has
contacted Dover attorney Steve Hampton, Esq. --
sahampton@gradyhampton.com -- who's leading the charge.

The lawsuit includes more than 100 inmates, who claimed they were
beaten and tortured in the wake of the riot -- and well before it
-- in what the complaint called "systematic torture."  Inmates also
alleged that they've been denied medical care.

WDEL received dozens of letters, detailing what they alleged to be
abuse following the Feb. 1-2, 2016 riot, telling their story to
both WDEL and Hampton.  Hampton, along with lawyers Zachary A.
George, Esq. and James J. Woods Jr., Esq. filed the class-action
lawsuit amid the first Vaughn trial, which seeks compensatory and
punitive damages and injunctive relief from future recurrences" of
abuse.

The state, the Delaware Department of Correction, and the prison's
medical provider, Connections, have all repeatedly denied comment,
citing pending litigation.

Forney, 29, who's serving an 11-year prison sentence on gun
charges, is scheduled to be released from prison in 2023.

The second trial in the Vaughn prison riot is scheduled to begin on
Jan. 14, 2019.[GN]


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court Stays L. Fraley's FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion for Stay in
the case captioned LATRICE FRALEY, Plaintiff, v. ENHANCED RECOVERY
COMPANY, LLC, Defendants. Case No. 2:18-cv-02606-KJM-EFB. (E.D.
Cal.).

Defendant Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, moves to stay proceedings
pending a decision by the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on defendant's motion to transfer this
action for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.  

This putative class action is one of six class action matters
pending in federal district courts throughout the country arising
from defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA). The Defendant cites lack of prejudice to
plaintiff, the prospect of substantial hardship to defendant and
the conservation of judicial resources as justifications for the
requested stay. Having reviewed the defendant's motion, and after
considering the plaintiff's endorsement of the defendant's motion,
the court finds a temporary stay is indeed appropriate and will
best serve the interests of the parties and the court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 24, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc8twjxt from Leagle.com.

Latrice Fraley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz --
jstieglitz@nelsonhardiman.com -- Law Office of Jonathan A.
Stieglitz.

Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Doing business as ERC, Defendant,
represented by Larissa G. Nefulda --
larissa.nefulda@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Bribois Bisgaard & Smith
LLP & Stephen H. Turner -- Stephen.Turner@lewisbrisbois.com --
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Simmons Files Suit Under FDCPA in NJ
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company LLC. The case is styled as Katyana Simmons, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Enhanced Recovery Company LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-02526 (D. N.J., January 30, 2019).

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

Enhanced Recovery Company LLC provides business process outsourcing
services that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research
primarily for Fortune 500 companies in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   YAAKOV SAKS, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext 101
   Fax: (201) 282-6501
   Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


EXPEDIA GROUP: Hagens Berman Files Class-Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
A Washington state consumer is suing Expedia and its subsidiaries
for operating what attorneys say amounts to "highway robbery"
according to consumer-rights law firm Hagens Berman.

The sneaky scheme detailed in the lawsuit filed Jan. 11, 2019 in
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington centers
on what Reservations.com calls "Tax Recovery Charges and Fees,"
that actually have nothing to do with taxes, according to the
filing. According to the lawsuit, these additional fees are tacked
on by Expedia, who pockets the excess charge.

Consumers are told the "tax recovery charges and fees" are "monies
that the hotels must pay to the government." However, the "taxes
and fees" are not actual taxes and exceed the real amount of taxes
and fees owed on the hotel room.

If you booked and paid for a hotel room via Reservations.com -- not
Expedia.com -- since 2014, find out your rights to potential
compensation.

"Simply put, this kind of fleecing is illegal," said Steve Berman,
managing partner of Hagens Berman representing consumers in the
class action. "Consumers are being told that these excessive fees
are related somehow to taxes, but when we ran the numbers,
Expedia's math was full of holes. These amounts are higher than
local hotel taxes, and Expedia is profiting from its falsehoods."

Escalated Fraud

Attorneys say Expedia and its subsidiaries have actually escalated
their fraud since they filed the first lawsuit about the "tax"
overcharges in December: "Defendants have continued their unlawful
scheme, even after the filing of a related case challenging this
practice. For example, if one got online today and booked a room
for the Grand Hyatt in Seattle for January 14-15, the following
charges are listed . . . ." The suit shows a screenshot of online
"Tax Recovery Charges & Fees" listed as $140.09. But as the
complaint shows, under local hotel taxes, the correct "Tax Recovery
Charges & Fees" should have been a total of $72.28, meaning this
particular booking would have defrauded a consumer by $67.81.

"These are brazen lies," Berman said. "And the fact that defendants
in this case have only increased their underhanded scheme since we
filed our original case is shameful."

The lawsuit goes on to list other examples: Reservations.com showed
a room rate of $159 and "Tax Recovery Charges & Fees" of $50.88 for
a reservation at the W Hotel in Seattle for Nov. 22-24, 2018. The
real total state and local Seattle tax for a Seattle hotel room is
15.6 percent, plus $2 per night. Therefore, the total "Taxes &
Fees" on this room should have been $27 -- not $50.88 as listed.
According to the lawsuit, Expedia then keeps the "tax" overcharge
of $23.88.

Reservations.com states that 4 million rooms have been booked
through its website. If one takes the overcharge of $23.88 on the
room at the W hotel and multiplies it by 4 million, Defendants have
collected over $95 million dollars in unlawful "tax" charges.

"We consider this attempting to get away with highway robbery to
the tune of potentially $95 million," Berman added.

The lawsuit states that testing based on information on the
Reservations.com website reveals that the tax overcharge practice
is widespread and violates the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act.

Expedia, Inc. and its subsidiaries, together with Reservations.com,
"operated an association-in-fact enterprise engaged in interstate
and foreign commerce, which was formed for the purpose of obtaining
money from consumers for inflated ‘Taxes & Fees' payments,
through which they conducted a pattern of racketeering activity" in
violation of RICO, the suit states.

The lawsuit seeks to collect and return to consumers the secret
overpayment of taxes made by unwitting consumers, nationwide. In
addition to federal RICO allegations, the suit alleges violations
of state laws against conversion and unjust enrichment.

         Ashley Klann, Esq.
         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
         Telephone: 206-268-9363
         Email: ashleyk@hbsslaw.com [GN]


EXPEDIA GROUP: Krause Seeks Overtime Pay for Travel Consultants
---------------------------------------------------------------
A case, LAURIE KRAUSE, on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff(s), vs. EXPEDIA GROUP,
INC. and EGENCIA, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00123 (W.D.
Wash., Jan. 28, 2019), concerns a potential collective action
against Defendants for misclassifying their workers as independent
contractors instead of as employees.

In particular, the Defendants misclassify their customer service
representatives, also known as "travel consultants," as independent
contractors instead of as employees and enforced this illegal
policy throughout the United States. In doing so, the Defendants
deny those workers the overtime they are entitled under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate an online travel management company. The
Defendants provide booking services for businesses and individuals.
That is, individuals and business can purchase tickets, hotel
reservations, and vehicle reservations directly through Defendants'
website and customer portal. To perform these services, Defendants
employ "travel consultants but classifies them as independent
contractors. The travel consultants work across the country for
Defendants. Travel consultants communicate with the customers of
Defendants and answer questions regarding booking reservations. The
travel consultants communicate by chat, email, inbound phone, and
outbound phone.

According to the complaint, the travel consultants work from home.
They are required to use Defendants' computer software and follow
Defendants' policies and procedures. They are required to work a
minimum number of hours per week. They are told that they must
handle at least four customer calls per hour with an average handle
time that Defendants establish. They are required to undergo a
background check by Defendants and must meet Defendants' required
qualifications to get a job. The Defendants provide training to the
travel consultants in how they are to perform their duties for
Defendants. The Defendants pay the travel consultants a set amount
per minute worked. The travel consults regularly work more than 40
hours per week but are not paid overtime, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Class Members:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com

FCI LENDER: Christopher Tabick Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned, CHRISTOPHER TABICK on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, vs. FCI LENDER SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-04577-RJD-SMG (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court
on April 4, 2019, for an Order granting his motion for class
certification, and such other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.[CC]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

          Adam J. Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone (516) 668-6945

FIAT CHRYSLER: Agrees to Pay $800MM to Settle Ecodiesel Scandal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.Com, reports that Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles N.V. has agreed to pay $800 million to settle class
actions and governmental investigations over its "EcoDiesel"
vehicles.

The deal, announced on Jan. 10, resolved claims that Fiat Chrysler
installed software in 100,000 vehicles nationwide that cheated
emissions tests. It included a $307 million class action settlement
and $400 million in civil penalties to federal and state
regulators. A hearing for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement is set for Jan. 23 in San Francisco federal court.

"We're very pleased to present to the federal court today a class
action agreement that will provide substantial cash compensation to
the owners and lessees of Fiat Chrysler EcoDiesel vehicles while
giving them back the car they were promised -- a car that delivers
on high performance and low emissions," said Elizabeth Cabraser,
Esq. -- ecabraser@lchb.com -- of San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, in a conference call with the media on Jan.
10. Cabraser was lead counsel in the multidistrict litigation
against Fiat Chrysler over its EcoDiesel vehicles.

"Importantly," she noted, "this class consumer agreement will aid
our environment by assuring these EcoDiesels become true EcoDiesel
vehicles and no longer pollute the environment."

The agreements were similar to those carved out in a $14.7 billion
settlement with Volkswagen in 2016 over its vehicles' fuel
emissions. Cabraser also was lead plaintiffs counsel in that case,
and Robert Giuffra, Esq. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- of Sullivan &
Cromwell represented both Volkswagen and Fiat Chrysler in their
separate agreements.

But Cabraser noted some "key differences" between the settlements.
The Chrysler settlement involved fewer than the 475,000 vehicles
featured in that of Volkswagen. Further, Fiat Chrysler consumers
will be able to keep driving their cars after a software fix that
is available for two years following the settlement's final
approval. Volkswagen's deal, in contrast, included buybacks for
many of its "clean diesel" vehicles.And unlike Volkswagen, Fiat
Chrysler did not admit liability.

"We acknowledge that this has created uncertainty for our
customers, and we believe this resolution will maintain their trust
in us," said Mark Chernoby, Fiat Chrysler's head of North American
safety and regulatory compliance, in a statement on Jan. 10.

Fiat Chrysler was responsible for $280 million of the class action
settlement, with software maker Robert Bosch GmbH contributing
$27.5 million. In a separate deal announced on Jan. 10, Bosch
agreed to pay $98 million to attorneys general actions in 49 states
and U.S. jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia, plus $5
million to the National Association of Attorneys General, to
resolve emissions investigations involving both Volkswagen and Fiat
Chrysler. That deal excluded California and West Virginia. And
Texas, according to a Bosch spokeswoman, "supports the settlement
in principle, but is not joining at this point for some
state-specific issues."

"Legal disputes would have resulted in lengthy and costly
proceedings in numerous U.S. states and with a large number of
different claimants," said Stefan Hartung, chairman of Bosch's
Mobility Solutions business sector, in a statement. "As an
innovation leader, we want to devote our attention and resources to
developing our businesses and to intensifying our efforts to shape
the future in our areas of activity."

The government portion of the Fiat Chrysler deal included about
$400 million in civil penalties, of which $86 million went to
attorneys general in 50 states.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, Esq. estimated that both
the Fiat Chrysler and Bosch deals would give the state $171
million.

"Fiat Chrysler and Bosch attempted to pull the wool over the eyes
of American consumers, and pollute their way to the bank, but the
Office of Attorney General will not stand for that type of behavior
from any company," she said on Jan. 10.

New York and Connecticut, which will receive $4.3 million from both
companies, were part of a leadership team of nine states.

"Vehicle emission standards exist as a way to protect the air we
all breathe, and companies that knowingly seek to circumvent those
standards will be held accountable," said Connecticut Attorney
General William Tong, Esq. -- William.Tong@cga.ct.gov -- "These
settlements are critically important in righting the wrongs of the
emissions cheating scandal."

California's portion of the Fiat Chrysler deal was $13.5 million.
That amount, along with $45.8 million in penalties for violations
of environmental laws and a $19 million mitigation payment, gave
the Golden State a total of $78.4 million.

"California's emission standards exist to protect our residents and
the environment from harmful pollution," said Attorney General
Xavier Becerra, Esq. in a statement on Jan. 10. "Fiat Chrysler
tried to evade these standards by installing software to cheat
emissions testing."

Other government regulators involved in the deal included the U.S.
Department of Justice, on behalf of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and the California Air Resources Board, which
received $305 million. U.S. Customs and Border Protection received
another $6 million.

In the class action, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the
Northern District of California early on appointed Kenneth Feinberg
to serve as settlement master. Last year, the judge allowed claims
to go forward against Fiat Chrysler under the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Jan. 10 deal did not include a request for attorneys fees or
expenses, which lawyers plan to file by Feb. 25. A motion for
settlement filed on Jan. 10 said, "Fiat Chrysler and Bosch reserve
all rights to object to an award of attorney's fees and/or expenses
beyond what they believe to be reasonable."

The affected vehicles were Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Ram
1500s, model years 2014 through 2016. Consumers who bring their
vehicles in for the software fixes would be eligible for an
extended warranty, estimated to cost $105 million, and, for most
class members, cash payments of $3,075 -- although former owners
and lessees also can make claims.

"The owners and lessees of these vehicles are literally the engines
driving the repair program," Cabraser said. "They're the ones who
will be bringing in their vehicles and getting repairs done."

She said class members who still own their cars could make claims
within 18 months after the settlement's final approval. Under the
deal, Fiat Chrysler will have to pay an additional $6,000 per
vehicle in penalties if it does not obtain a claims rate of 85
percent.[GN]


FITCHBURG GAS: Bellermann Class Action Concluded
------------------------------------------------
Unitil Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the case entitled
Bellermann et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company, has
been concluded.

In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against
Unitil's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg, in
Massachusetts’ Worcester Superior Court, (captioned Bellermann et
al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company).

The Complaint sought an unspecified amount of damages, including
the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources,
emotional and physical pain and suffering and property damages
allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the loss of
electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service
territory in December 2008.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an order denying
class certification status in July 2016, though the plaintiffs'
individual claims remained pending.

The Company resolved this matter by settlement in the fall of 2018
and there was no material impact on the Company's financial
position, operating results or cash flows.

Unitil Corporation, a public utility holding company, engages in
the distribution of electricity and natural gas in the United
States. It operates through three segments: Utility Gas Operations,
Utility Electric Operations, and Non-Regulated. Unitil Corporation
was incorporated in 1984 and is headquartered in Hampton, New
Hampshire.


FIVE STARS: Quinones Seeks Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Quinones, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Five Stars of Brooklyn Incorporated;
Five Stars of Brooklyn III Incorporated; Five Stars of Brooklyn IV
Inc.; Five Stars of Brooklyn V Inc.; Five Stars of Brooklyn VI
Inc.; Five Stars of Brooklyn VII Inc.; Five Stars of Brooklyn VIII
Inc.; Five Stars of Brooklyn IX Inc.; Five Stars of Brooklyn X
Inc.; Metro of Buffalo Inc; Metro of Buffalo II Inc; Metro of
Buffalo III Inc; and Morad Marashli, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00512 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 25, 2019), seeks recover from the
Defendants unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation,
liquidated damages on those amounts, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest; and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act; the New York Labor Law; and the New York State Wage
Theft Prevention Act.

The Defendants had, and continue to have a policy and practice of
refusing to pay overtime compensation at the statutory rate of time
and one­-half to Plaintiff and the Proposed FLSA Collective
members for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week,
which violated and continues to violate the FLSA. The Defendants
knowingly and willfully disregarded the provisions of the FLSA as
evidenced by their failure to compensate Plaintiff and the Proposed
FLSA Collective members at the minimum wage and the statutory
overtime rate of time and one-half for all hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per week, when they knew or should have known such was
due and that non-payment of minimum wage and overtime compensation
would financially injure Plaintiff and the Proposed FLSA Collective
members, the lawsuit says.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully failed to
supply Plaintiff and the members of the Rule 23 Class with accurate
statements of wages as required by NYLL, containing the dates of
work covered by that payment of wages; name of employee; name of
employer; address and phone number of employer; rate or rates of
pay and basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week,
salary, piece, commission, or other; gross wages; hourly rate or
rates of pay and overtime rate or rates of pay if applicable; the
number of hours worked, including overtime hours worked if
applicable; deductions; and net wages.

The Defendants run a chain of wireless telecommunications'
establishments located throughout the State of New York.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the FLSA Proposed Collective and Rule
23 Proposed Class:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810
          Telephone: (718) 669-0714
          E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com

FLIGHT CLUB: Faces Traynor ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flight Club New York,
LLC. The case is captioned as YASEEN TRAYNOR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLIGHT CLUB
NEW YORK, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00483-RA (S.D.N.Y., Jan.
17, 2019). The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Judge Ronnie Abrams.

Flight Club New York Ltd. retails footwear and apparel products.
The Company offers sweatshirts, bottoms, socks, hats, footwear, and
other accessories. Flight Club New York serves customers in the
State of New York. [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


G4S SECURE: Young et al. Seek OT Pay for Security Service Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN R. HOLLOMAN and SHANIDA YOUNG, on Behalf of Themselves and on
Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. G4S SECURE
SOLUTIONS USA, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00297 (S.D.
Tex., Jan. 28, 2019), alleges that the Defendant failed to pay
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for all hours worked by
failing to pay overtime wages when they worked more than 40 hours
in a workweek as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the similarly
situated individuals they seek to represent, are current and former
employees who work/worked for Defendant and held the job title of
Bank Protection Officer, Upscale Security Officer, or workers known
under another distinct title but whose primary duties were to
provide security services to Defendant's clients/customers. The
Defendant's pay practices and policies applied not only to
Plaintiffs, but also to all Class Members.

The Defendant had a policy and practice of failing to pay
Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, 1-1/2 times their
regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 hours per work week.
Defendant's conduct violates the FLSA because non-exempt employees,
such as Plaintiffs and the Class Members should be paid at one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek, the lawsuit says.

G4S Secure Solutions is a United States/British-based security
services company, and a subsidiary of G4S plc. It was founded as
The Wackenhut Corporation in 1954, in Coral Gables, Florida, by
George Wackenhut and three partners. In 2002, the company was
acquired for $570 million by Danish corporation Group 4 Falck.[BN]


Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Gregg M. Rosenberg, Esq.
          Tracey D. Lewis, Esq.
          Rosenberg Sprovach
          3518 Travis Street, Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 960 8300
          Facsimile: (713) 621 6670

GMA INVESTMENTS: Court Grants Joint Bid to Dismiss Pendleton Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order dismissing the action in the case captioned MEGAN
PENDLETON, SHAVANA NASH, LAUREN MARTELL, KEN HALLEY, MELANIE
JOHNSON, THEORDORA CORK, RAMON TORREZ, RENEE GREEN, SILVIA GREEN,
and XANADU STAMENKOVIC, Plaintiffs, v. GMA INVESTMENTS, LLC, d/b/a
SUMMIT RECEIVABLES, a Nevada corporation, and ANTHONY GUADAGNA,
individually, Defendants. Case No. 2:18-cv-01181-APG-CHW. (D.
Nev.).

The Plaintiffs and the Defendant, individually, through their
respective counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1)(A)(ii), stipulate to dismiss the plaintiff's class action
allegations without prejudice.  The court has not certified the
proposed class and no notice has been given to any putative class
member of this lawsuit. The parties have settled their differences
in a private settlement agreement which is not binding on any class
member other than the plaintiffs. As such, there is no need for
notice to the putative class members pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(e).

The parties also stipulate to dismiss the plaintiff's individual
claims against the defendant with prejudice with both sides to bear
their own fees and costs.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 24, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7q6ttlb from Leagle.com.

Megan Pendleton, Orerbis Carbonell, Lauren Martell, Ken Halley,
Theodora Cork, Ramon Torrez, Renee Green, Silvia Green, Xanadu
Stamenkovic & Melanie Johnson, Plaintiffs, represented by Kevin L.
Hernandez, Law Office of Kevin L. Hernandez.

GMA Investments, LLC, doing business as & Anthony Guadagna,
Defendants, represented by Cami M. Perkins --
CPERKINS@NEVADAFIRM.COM -- Holley Driggs Walch Fine Wray Puzey &
Thompson & Sean Story -- SSTORY@NEVADAFIRM.COM -- Holley, Driggs,
Walch, Fine, Wray, Puzey & Thompson.


GRANGE INSURANCE: Failed to Reimburse Conditional Medicare Payment
------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware entity, and
SERIES 16-11-509 LLC, a series of MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC,
the Plaintiffs, v. GRANGE INSURANCE COMPANY formerly known as
Grange Mutual Casualty Company, an Ohio corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 5:19-cv-00219 (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 28, 2019), concerns about
the Defendant's systematic and uniform failure to reimburse
conditional Medicare payments under the Medicare Secondary Payer
Act.

The lawsuit contends that the Defendant has repeatedly failed to
reimburse payments by Plaintiff's assignors and the Class Members
on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part C of the
Medicare Act for medical expenses resulting from injuries sustained
in an accident.  The Enrollees were enrolled in Medicare Advantage
health plans offered by Plaintiffs' assignors and the Class
Members, i.e., Medicare Advantage Organizations.

The Plaintiffs' assignors and the Class Members suffered an injury
in fact from Defendant's failure to reimburse, and accordingly,
have standing to sue under 42 U.S.C. section 1395y(b)(3)(A) (the
"MSP Private Cause of Action"). The Defendant has failed to fulfill
its statutory duty upon entering into settlements with the
Enrollees. Specifically, Defendant has entered into settlement
agreements with Medicare beneficiaries as a result of claims
arising under liability insurance policies issued by Defendant.
Liability insurance plans are considered primary plans under 42
U.S.C. section 1395y(b)(2). Accordingly, Defendant is a primary
payer and must reimburse Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members
for their Medicare payments, the lawsuit says.

Grange Mutual Casualty Company, commonly known as Grange Insurance,
is an American insurance company based in Columbus, Ohio. Grange
markets its products exclusively through a network of about 3,600
independent agents to offer home, auto, life, and business
insurance protection to policyholders.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Eduardo E. Bertran, Esq.
          Francesco Zincone, Esq.
          ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI
          4960 S.W. 72nd Avenue
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 461-5100
          E-mail: alfred@armaslaw.com
                  ebertran@armaslaw.com
                  nmarrero@armaslaw.com
                  barbi@armaslaw.com
                  fzincone@armaslaw.com

HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: More Patients Expected to Join Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
WABC reports that more potential victims are joining a class-action
lawsuit against a New Jersey surgery center that may have exposed
more than 3,000 patients to HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C.

State health officials say patients who underwent procedures at the
HealthPlus Surgery Center in Saddle Brook may have been exposed to
bloodborne infections because of lapses in infection control
procedures.

Attorney Michael Maggiano filed the lawsuit and said at a press
conference on Jan. 2 that he has been contacted by about 30 people
who had procedures at the facility and are worried as they await
their test results.

One of his clients is Cristal Irons, a trained psychotherapist who
received the letter from HealthPlus and says she can't believe this
is happening to her.

"It feels like a double fraud, because they're sending me for
testing at Hudson Hospital in Secaucus, which is owned by the same
people that own HealthPlus," she said.

Patient Mahogany Clifton described her experience on New Year's
Day, when she opened her letter.

"Jan. 1 was the worst day of my life," she said. "I'm scared,
scared to death these people would put us in danger . . . I don't
trust nobody, feel betrayed. My life is not normal now."

Patient Juan Areas and his wife Blanca were also at the press
conference. Although his test results are not back yet, Areas
believes he has symptoms.

The warning covers anyone who had procedures between January and
September 7 of 2018, and administrator Betty McCabe said the
exposure was due to "deficiencies in infection control" involving
the cleaning of instruments and injection of medications.

A state report said the facility used poor drug storage methods, an
outdated infection control plan, and unacceptable sterilization
practices. Ms. McCabe says 3,778 patients are being urged to get
their blood tested. One person has tested positive for Hepatitis C,
but it is unclear if that patient contracted the disease at the
center or if it was a pre-existing condition.

The report said operating rooms were not properly cleaned and
disinfected between procedures, and in one instance, an inspector
saw a stretcher in a hallway with a blood-stained sheet that wasn't
properly disinfected even after the inspector pointed it out to
staffers.

State surveyors also found the facility improperly stored
sterilized items, jeopardizing their cleanliness, while other
sterilized instruments revealed rust-like stains, the report said.

Facility representatives said an investigation determined that "a
handful of people who have been removed" were mostly responsible
for the lapses that occurred. Two employees were fired after
revelations that thousands may have been exposed to the diseases.

The facility was shuttered for three weeks in September after the
state Department of Health received a complaint. [GN]


HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: Patients Wait for Results Amid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lindy Washburn, writing for North Jersey Record, reports that
hundreds waited on Dec. 31 to learn whether they had contracted HIV
or hepatitis at an unsanitary Saddle Brook, New Jersey, surgery
center. Letters from the facility arrived around Christmas advising
patients in New Jersey and New York to be tested.

Some 3,778 patients underwent same-day procedures at the HealthPlus
Surgery Center between Jan. 1 and Sept. 7, when the state
Department of Health ordered an immediate halt to admissions.

An inspection found blood stains on a stretcher, rust-like spots on
surgical instruments, and a staff so rushed that trays containing
surgical instruments were not allowed to dry thoroughly between
uses.

The center reopened three weeks later after the Health Department
determined corrective steps were adequate.

"As soon as I got my letter I got a panic attack," said Karine
Travieso of Bergenfield, who is 41. She received a certified letter
from the facility on Dec. 26 that recommended blood tests for HIV,
hepatitis B and hepatitis C.

"Getting a certified letter is not the way this should have gone
down," Ms. Travieso said, noting the nearly three-month lag between
the time the facility was shut down for safety reasons and the
patients were alerted. "The doctors who did the procedures should
have been involved -- and they just knew nothing."

Preliminary results from the first 186 people to be tested "show no
acute infection in any of the patients," Mark Manigan, an attorney
representing HealthPlus, said on the surgery center's website.

One patient showed evidence of chronic hepatitis, which probably
existed before his or her treatment at HealthPlus, Mr. Manigan
said, but a state health department analysis will take place to be
sure.

One-time patients at the center who received letters advising
testing are now anxious and angry.

"How could they let all this time pass?" asked Kristin Debenedictis
of Rochelle Park, who is 37. Her letter arrived on Dec. 21. "I
cried. I was upset," the former waitress said.

Ms. Debenedictis had two epidural injections during the critical
time period at the facility to treat a herniated disc following a
car accident. She had a blood test on Dec. 24, but still had not
received the results on Dec. 31.

Robert Stridiron, 52, a breaking news photographer and
emergency-services technician from Queens, said he had arthroscopic
surgery on his right knee at the center on March 9. His letter
arrived Christmas Eve.

Mr. Stridiron went for a blood test on Dec. 27 and was awaiting
results.

"I'm very nervous. It's very stressful. I'm scared about what could
happen," he said. "Being an EMT for 31 years, the first they teach
you is sanitizing, wearing gloves, cleaning your instruments."

The doctor who performed the surgery at HealthPlus hasn't called
him back, he said.

Ms. Debenedictis and Mr. Stridiron spoke on Dec. 31 at a press
conference in Brooklyn with their lawyer, Sanford Rubenstein.

"While it is horrible to contract HIV or hepatitis through no fault
of your own, it is terrible as well to suffer the fear of
contracting these diseases," Mr. Rubenstein said. "Victims of both
are entitled to damages."

The delay in receiving test results "exacerbates the horrors they
suffer," said Mr. Rubenstein, who called for the results to be
expedited. None of his six clients have received results yet, he
said.

A spokesman for LabCorp, Donald R. Von Hagen, said results for the
full panel of tests are typically completed within five days of
LabCorp receiving specimens.

"Since the results will need to be communicated to the individual
patient by HealthPlus or the patient's physician, that could take
additional time," he said.

Mr. Rubenstein said he plans to file individual lawsuits on behalf
of clients on Jan. 2 in New Jersey Superior Court in Hackensack.
Meanwhile, a Fort Lee attorney who filed the first lawsuit against
HealthPlus on Dec. 28 said the list of clients for his class-action
has now reached 30.

The lawyer, Michael Maggiano, of Maggiano, DiGirolamo & Lizzi, said
his clients come from the five boroughs of New York City,as well as
Nanuet, Newark, Jersey City and Passaic and Bergen counties in New
Jersey.

HealthPlus said in a statement that it had corrected the lapses in
infection control and dispensing of medication. Two employees were
fired after the state inspection, and the facility's nursing
director resigned a day before the inspection, Mr. Manigan said.

But Mr. Maggiano said the contamination level throughout the
facility and the delay in notifying patients was very concerning.

"There was a serious systemic failure that had to take place at the
top of management over a nine-month period," he said.

The Saddle Brook surgery center is licensed by the state and owned
by Yan Moshe, a real estate multimillionaire, Manigan said.

Moshe, who also owns a surgery center in Hackensack cited for
failing to meet safety regulations, bought Meadowlands Hospital
Medical Center in December 2017 despite having no experience
running a hospital.

The Secaucus facility is now called Hudson Regional Hospital. It's
where HealthPlus Surgery Center is referring patients to be
tested.

Patient Karine Travieso received good news on Dec. 31. After being
unable to obtain her blood test results from LabCorp, the company
she was referred to by HealthPlus, she had additional tests done
privately at NYU/Langone Medical Center.

All of the results came back negative for HIV, hepatitis B and
hepatitis C.

"The way this was handled is absurd," she said. "People deserve to
be treated better than this." [GN]


HOCKEY CANADA: Faces Class-Action Concussion Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Rick Westhead, writing for TSN, reports that a former Western
Hockey League player has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit
against the WHL, Canadian Hockey League and Hockey Canada, alleging
that he was often not given medical attention after his 72 fights
in the WHL and that he now is showing symptoms of the
brain-withering disease chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE.

James Johnathon McEwan made his allegations in a 24-page notice of
claim filed on Jan. 9 in B.C. Superior Court. His allegations
haven't been proven and the defendants haven't filed their
responses to the claim.

McEwan has brought forward the proposed class-action on behalf of
any and all former CHL players who didn't advance to play in the
National Hockey League and suffered injury as a result of
concussive and subconcussive impacts.

McEwan, 31, is seeking damages for personal and physical injury,
psychological injuries, special damages for out-of-pocket medical
expenses and loss of past and future income. The Ottawa Citizen
first reported on the lawsuit.

WHL spokesman Taylor Rocca, Hockey Canada spokesman Mark Halliday
and CHL president David Branch didn't respond to an email seeking
comment.

McEwan, a left wing, played for four seasons in the WHL from 2004
to 2008.

He joined the Seattle Thunderbirds in 2004 at the age of 17 and was
involved in 18 fights throughout the season, fights that, according
to his claim, were "not just condoned and tolerated by the coaches
and managers of the teams he had played for, but… encouraged,
praised and rewarded."

The fights led to "swelling, black eyes, loss of consciousness and
temporary confusion. After each fight, Mr. McEwan would continue to
play. He was not given medical attention."

The following season, McEwan was involved in 19 fights as a member
of the Thunderbirds. He then served as an assistant captain for the
Kelowna Rockets during the 2006-07 season.

"Mr. McEwan was involved in 25 fights throughout the season and was
‘glorified' on numerous social media outlets as holding the best
fight with the most punches landed, and was voted the third most
entertaining player," his claim says. "The side effect of his
continuous head trauma began to have a noticeable impact in his
day-to-day life. He was beginning to experience severe anxiety,
mood swings, personality changes and angry outbursts. 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."

As a 20-year-old, McEwan was Kelowna's captain in the 2007-08
season, when he had 11 fights. His claim says the bouts in his
final WHL season led to swelling and pressure in his head and a
documented concussion, which resulted in a two-week medical leave
from the team.

"Mr. McEwan began experiencing severe depression, anxiety, mood
swings, memory loss, confusion, angry outbursts, and suicidal
thoughts," his claim says. The WHL, CHL and Hockey Canada "should
have known, or ought to have known, that multiple sub concussive
and concussive blows to the head would lead to long term injury
including but not limited to memory loss, dementia, depression, and
CTE and its related symptoms."

McEwan played parts of five seasons in the ECHL after his junior
career. His final season was 2014-15, when he appeared in 21 games
with the Duluth, Ga.-based Gwinnett Gladiators.

In the statement of claim, McEwan's lawyer, Robyn Wishart, Esq. --
rlw@brainandspinelaw.com -- wrote that scientific evidence for
decades has linked brain trauma to long-term neurological problems
and that during practices and games, a CHL player can sustain close
to 1,000 or more hits to the head in one season without any
documented concussions.

"Such repeated blows result in permanently impaired brain
function," the claim says, adding that neuropathologist Dr. Ann
McKee, a researcher with Boston University, has diagnosed CTE in
the brains of four former junior hockey players who never advanced
to the NHL. All four of those players committed suicide before the
age of 30.

McEwan's claim comes months after the NHL settled major
concussion-related litigation of its own.

In August, a U.S. judge ruled that a proposed lawsuit against the
NHL filed in Minnesota would not proceed as a class action largely
because medical monitoring laws were too different between various
U.S. states and Canadian provinces for players to form a common
class of plaintiffs.

After that ruling, the NHL offered a settlement to some 300 former
players. They face a Jan. 20 deadline to accept the settlement or
pursue their own individual lawsuits against the NHL.

The CHL is also fighting class-action lawsuits in Alberta, Ontario
and Quebec related to working conditions for players. In each of
those cases, former players have alleged that for-profit teams
should be paying players at least minimum wage.

The leagues have countered that if they have to pay players, some
teams will go out of business. They also contend that most players
who don't go on to play pro hockey are well looked after with
education scholarships. [GN]


HOUZZ INC: Underpays Account Coordinators, Merritt Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH MERRITT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOUZZ INC.; and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19CV341181 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., Jan. 17, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Merritt was employed by the Defendants as account
coordinator.

Houzz Inc. owns and operates a platform that connects homeowners,
home design enthusiasts, and home improvement professionals around
the world. Houzz Inc. was incorporated in 2008 and is based in Palo
Alto, California. The company has additional offices in Palo Alto,
Irvine, and San Diego, California; London, United Kingdom; Berlin,
Germany; Sydney, Australia; Moscow, Russian Federation; and Tokyo,
Japan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          Kristina De La Rosa, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 595-3001
          Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
          E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com
                  kdelarosa@ckslaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
          LEBE LAW, APC
          5723 Melrose Avenue, Suite 100
          Los Angeles, CA 90038
          Telephone: (310) 921-7056
          Facsimile: (310) 820-1258
          E-mail: jon@lebelaw.com


HUD HOSPITALITY: Leible Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage for Servers
-------------------------------------------------------------
A case, S.D. RYAN LEIBLE, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff, vs. HUD HOSPITALITY LLC d/b/a YOON
HAEUNDAE GALBI, and JUSUNG YOON, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00842 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 28, 2019), alleges pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law that the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated are entitled to recover
from Defendants unpaid minimum wage due to invalid tip credit
deductions, unlawfully retained tips, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

According to the complaint, from in or around March 2018 until on
or about July 7, 2018, the Plaintiff worked as a server for
Defendants' "Yoon Haeundae Galbi" restaurant located at 8 West 36th
Street, New York, NY 10018. Throughout his employment with
Defendants, the Plaintiff regularly worked seven hours per day for
5-6 days per week. No break time was provided during Plaintiff's
employment. Based on Plaintiff's observations and conversations
with his co-workers, all tipped employees at Yoon Haeundae Galbi
regularly worked similar hours.

The Defendants had a policy of improperly retaining the tips earned
by Plaintiff and other tipped employees. In addition, the
Defendants had a common policy of penalizing employees who are late
for work by reducing their tip pool allocation by 5% permanently
and the management keeping such tips. As a result of Defendants'
improper tip pool and unlawful tip retention, the Plaintiff was not
paid approximately $200 in tips he earned from customers each week.
At no time during the relevant time periods did Defendants provide
Plaintiff with proper wage and hour notices or wage statements as
required by NYLL. The Defendants paid Plaintiff and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs at hourly rates below the prevailing minimum wage, in
violation of the FLSA and NYLL, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

INTEL CORP: Settlement Reached in Suit over McAfee Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 29, 2018, that the parties in the
consolidated class action suit related to the company's acquisition
of McAfee, Inc., agreed in principal to settle the case for an
aggregate payment by defendants of $11.7 million.

On August 19, 2010, the company announced that it had agreed to
acquire all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. (McAfee) for $48.00
per share. Four McAfee shareholders filed putative class-action
lawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior Court
challenging the proposed transaction. The cases were ordered
consolidated in September 2010.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that named former McAfee
board members, McAfee, and Intel as defendants, and alleged that
the McAfee board members breached their fiduciary duties and that
McAfee and Intel aided and abetted those breaches of duty.

The complaint requested rescission of the merger agreement, such
other equitable relief as the court may deem proper, and an award
of damages in an unspecified amount. In June 2012, the plaintiffs'
damages expert asserted that the value of a McAfee share for the
purposes of assessing damages should be $62.08.

In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class action,
appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the class
representative, and scheduled trial to begin in January 2013. In
March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the California Court
of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the class certification
order; the petition was denied in June 2012.

In March 2012, at defendants' request, the court held that
plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial and ordered a bench
trial. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the
California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that
order, which the court of appeal denied in July 2012. In August
2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial
court granted that motion in November 2012, and entered final
judgment in the case in February 2013.

In April 2013, plaintiffs appealed the final judgment. The
California Court of Appeal heard oral argument in October 2017, and
in November 2017, affirmed the judgment as to McAfee's nine outside
directors, reversed the judgment as to former McAfee director and
chief executive officer David DeWalt, Intel, and McAfee, and
affirmed the trial court's ruling that the plaintiffs are not
entitled to a jury trial.

At a June 2018 case management conference following remand, the
Superior Court set an October hearing date for any additional
summary judgment motions that may be filed, and set trial to begin
in December 2018.

In July 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the
complaint, which the court denied in September 2018. Also in July
2018, McAfee and Intel filed a motion for summary judgment on the
aiding and abetting claims asserted against them; in October 2018,
the court granted the motion as to McAfee and denied the motion as
to Intel.

In late October 2018, the parties agreed in principal to settle the
case for an aggregate payment by defendants of $11.7 million.
Intel's contribution to the settlement will be immaterial to its
financial statements. The parties will seek court approval of the
settlement after they have completed documenting the agreement.

Intel Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells computer,
networking, data storage, and communication platforms worldwide.
The company operates through Client Computing Group, Data Center
Group, Internet of Things Group, Non-Volatile Memory Solutions
Group, Programmable Solutions Group, and All Other segments. The
company was founded in 1968 and is based in Santa Clara,
California.


INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE: Inks $65.5MM Proposed Settlement Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Slevin, writing for Associated Press, reports that a
proposed $65.5 million settlement for low-paid child care workers
from around the world would be divided up under a formula after a
judge decides whether the agreement is fair, a conclusion that
could take several months to reach.

The deal, filed in Denver federal court on Jan.9, covers nearly
100,000 people, mainly women, who came to the United States to work
as au pairs between Jan. 1, 2009, and Oct. 28, 2018. Lawyers who
have been representing the au pairs in the class-action case for
free over the past four years expect to ask a judge for 35 percent
of the settlement for compensation and legal fees, leaving about
$40 million to be divided among the au pairs.

The 11 au pairs named as plaintiffs -- from Colombia, Australia,
Germany, South Africa and Mexico -- would get $5,000 each as a base
payment. Amounts for other au pairs and any additional money for
the named plaintiffs would be determined using the formula, which
factors in when they worked, whether they had to undergo unpaid
training, which states they worked in, and the various claims of
wrongdoing in the lawsuit.

"This settlement is designed to get as much of the class funds to
as many class members as possible," said David Seligman, Esq.
director of Denver's Towards Justice, which filed the lawsuit in
2014.

If a judge gives the deal preliminary approval, which could happen
in a matter of weeks, notices of the settlement will be sent to au
pairs using their email addresses provided by the companies that
recruited them, said Peter Skinner, Esq., a partner at Boies
Schiller Flexner, a New York firm that took over as lead counsel in
the case. He also expects word to spread through social media,
including Facebook groups for current and former au pairs.
Information about the settlement is also being added to
aupairclassaction.com.

Money would not be paid out until after final approval by the
court.

The lawsuit claimed 15 companies authorized to bring au pairs to
the United States colluded to keep their wages low, ignoring
overtime and state minimum wage laws and treating the federal
minimum wage for au pairs as a maximum amount they could earn. In
some cases, the lawsuit said, families pushed the limits of their
duties, requiring au pairs to do things like feed backyard chickens
and help families move and not allowing them to eat with the
family.

The companies denied any wrongdoing under the deal, which came a
few weeks before the case was set to go on trial. The trade group
representing many of those companies, Alliance for International
Exchange, declined to comment on the settlement.

The settlement also requires the companies to tell future au pairs
that they have the right to ask to be paid above the federal
minimum wage of $7.25, which the lawyers expect will help some to
negotiate for higher pay based on things like their experience, the
number of children or their cost of living.

"As a former au pair and career nanny, I feel hopeful about this
settlement," said Tatiane Oliveira, a native of Brazil who now
advocates for domestic workers at Boston's Matahari Women Workers'
Center.

However, she said more work needs to be done to protect au pairs'
rights, including setting up a third party to ensure families are
complying with all regulations. [GN]


JACKSON HANDS: Williams Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JACKSON HANDS OF CHANGE, LLC
and DREATHA JACKSON, Case No. 2:19-cv-00646-JCZ-MBN (E.D. La.,.
Jan. 28, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Hands of Change failed to pay Williams
and other workers like her the overtime premium required by federal
law for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. In fact, Hands
of Change did not even pay Williams, and other workers like her, at
all for a large portion of the time these individuals worked for
Hands of Change each week, the lawsuit says.

Williams was an employee of Hands of Change. Hands of Change is a
mental health provider located in New Orleans, Louisiana. Williams
began working for Hands of Change in July 2017, and was employed as
a mental health therapist providing in-home services to Hands of
Change's clients.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          P.O. Box 540907
          800 Sawyer St. (77007)
          Houston, TX 77254
          Telephone: 713 999 5228
          Facsimile: 713 999 1187
          E-mail: matt@parmet.law

JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Challenges Donoff Subpoena Bid
-----------------------------------------------
JetBlue Airways has commenced a lawsuit against class action
plaintiff, Judith Marilyn Donoff, and filed a motion to quash
Donoff's attempt to subpoena the airline company.  The case is
captioned as JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUDITH
MARILYN DONOFF, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-mc-00076-ARR (E.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 11, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge Allyne R. Ross.

Donoff commenced a lawsuit against Delta last year over travel
insurance.  CBS News reported in September that Delta and JetBlue
were accused in separate class actions of failing to disclose to
consumers that they receive payments from sales of travel
cancellation insurance promoted on their websites.  According to
the nearly identical lawsuits, the airlines leave consumers "with
the false impression that the charge for trip insurance is a
pass-through" fee from another entity with which they have no
financial interest. Instead, the suits allege JetBlue and Delta
receive "kickbacks" for selling policies on their websites.  The
suits claim that the payments to the carriers are illegal because
the companies aren't providing anything in return. Moreover, since
Delta and JetBlue lack licenses to sell insurance, they can't
accept any payments relating to its sale, according to the
lawsuits.  The Donoff case captioned as, is JUDITH MARILYN DONOFF
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC, Defendant, Case No. 9:18-cv-81258-DMM
(S.D. Fla.).

JetBlue is not a party to the Florida suit.

Donoff's counsel, Leon Cosgrove, LLP, issued the Subpoena in the
Donoff case directing JetBlue to designate under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) one or more individuals competent to
testify on (1) JetBlue's participation in conferences or meetings
sponsored by AGA Service Company d/b/a Allianz Global Assistance;
(2) the uniformity or differences in pricing for Allianz travel
insurance policies between Delta Air Lines and JetBlue, and (3) the
ways in which JetBlue competes with Delta in the travel insurance
policy market.  Currently pending in Donoff is a Motion to Dismiss
filed by Delta, as well as a motion to stay discovery pending a
decision on its Motion to Dismiss.

JetBlue contends that the Subpoena is improper and should be
quashed.  JetBlue argues that the Subpoena seeks information that
is not relevant to any claim or defense and is not proportional to
the needs of the Donoff case and poses an undue burden because it
is overbroad and requires a comprehensive gathering of information
that simply cannot occur in the designated time frame.  Leon
Cosgrove, who also represents another plaintiff in a nearly
identical action against JetBlue in the Southern District of
Florida, served the Subpoena for an improper purpose -- namely, to
obtain discovery for use in proceedings other than in Donoff.  In
the event the Court wishes to modify, rather than quash, the
subpoena, Donoff should be directed to proceed by serving a notice
of deposition by written questions, narrowly tailored to the
information she seeks from JetBlue.

JetBlue asserts that it should not be required to disclose any
information that is not otherwise publicly available to its
competitors. Plaintiff Donoff is seeking to expose JetBlue's
internal strategies and information to Delta; the Protective Order
in the Donoff case is insufficient protection as Plaintiff Donoff
refused to execute a Protective Order with an "Attorneys' Eyes'
Only" provision. Thus, Delta would be entitled to review the
transcript and/or Plaintiff would be able to disclose its contents
to Delta witnesses.  If JetBlue should be required to turn over
this highly confidential information for Plaintiff Donoff's case,
it should be under an "Attorneys' Eyes' Only" basis to ensure that
JetBlue's information is not disclosed to its competitors.
Finally, at a minimum, JetBlue should not be asked to comply with
Plaintiff Donoff's non-party discovery unless and until it has been
determined that Plaintiff Donoff possesses a viable claim for
relief, or that the presiding court orders the action to proceed in
light of the pending Motion to Dismiss.

JetBlue Airways Corporation, a passenger carrier company, provides
air transportation services. As of December 31, 2017, the company
operated a fleet of 53 Airbus A321 aircraft, 130 Airbus A320
aircraft, and 60 Embraer E190 aircraft. It also served 101
destinations in 30 states in the United States, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
and 21 countries in the Caribbean and Latin America. JetBlue
Airways Corporation was founded in 1998 and is based in Long Island
City, New York. [BN]

Jetblue is represented by:

          Seth Eliot Spitzer, Esq.
          Winston & Strawn LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 294-6700
          E-mail: sspitzer@winston.com


JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Seeks to Quash Subpoena in Dolan Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants have filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena in the case
captioned as MILITA BARBARA DOLAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS
CORPORATION; and DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00313-MLB-CMS (N.D. Ga., Jan. 16, 2019). The case is
assigned to Judge Michael L. Brown and referred to Magistrate Judge
Catherine M. Salinas.

Judge Salinas on Feb. 8, 2019, directed the parties to file a
supplemental brief, not to exceed 10 pages in length, by 5 p.m. on
Feb. 15 addressing these issues.  Delta is further ordered to
advise the Court in its supplemental brief as to whether it will
consent to transfer this motion to the court in the Southern
District of Florida pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
45(f).

CBS News reported in September that Delta and JetBlue were accused
in separate class actions of failing to disclose to consumers that
they receive payments from sales of travel cancellation insurance
promoted on their websites.  According to the nearly identical
lawsuits, the airlines leave consumers "with the false impression
that the charge for trip insurance is a pass-through" fee from
another entity with which they have no financial interest. Instead,
the suits allege JetBlue and Delta receive "kickbacks" for selling
policies on their websites.  The suits claim that the payments to
the carriers are illegal because the companies aren't providing
anything in return. Moreover, since Delta and JetBlue lack licenses
to sell insurance, they can't accept any payments relating to its
sale, according to the lawsuits.

JetBlue Airways Corporation, a passenger carrier company, provides
air transportation services. JetBlue Airways Corporation was
founded in 1998 and is based in Long Island City, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG KEECHL
          200 SW 1st Avenue, Suite 1200
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          E-mail: alperstein@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP - GA
          120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
                  sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Peter M. Jones, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP - GA
          3424 Peachtree Road, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 504-6500
          Facsimile: (404) 504-6501
          E-mail: pjones@rgrdlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David Lewis Balser, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP-ATL
          1180 Peachtree Street, NE, 40th Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
          E-mail: dbalser@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Julia Constance Barrett, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP - ATL
          1180 Peachtree St., N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-3562
          E-mail: jbarrett@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Katherine Paige Nobles, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP - ATL
          1180 Peachtree St., N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-3560
          E-mail: pnobles@kslaw.com


JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Sued over Damaging Retirement Savings Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
TOM TARANTINO and ROCHELLE ROSEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, vs. JOHNSON AND JOHNSON PENSION AND
BENEFITS COMMITTEE, PETER FASOLO, and JOHN DOES 1-10, the
Defendants Case No. 3:19-cv-01115 (D.N.J., Jan. 25, 2019), seeks
recover many millions of dollars of damages suffered in Plaintiffs'
retirement accounts due to breaches of fiduciary duties owed to
them, pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plaintiffs file this Complaint on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated current and former employees of Johnson
and Johnson who were participants in and beneficiaries of the
Johnson and Johnson Savings Plan and who were invested in the
Johnson and Johnson Common Stock Fund during the period of February
22, 2013 through January 25, 2019, inclusive.

Fiduciaries of the Plan, who owed "the highest duty known to the
law" to Plan participants, breached those duties throughout the
Class Period when they knew that J&J's stock price had become
artificially inflated in value, which made the Fund, which
primarily invested in J&J stock, an imprudent investment under
ERISA, thereby damaging the Plan and those Plan participants
invested in the Fund. As fiduciaries, Defendants had responsibility
for the Plan's management, operations and investments. They
breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan and its participants
when, as, upon information and belief, high-level corporate
insiders, they knew (or should have known) as that J&J's stock
price had become artificially inflated due to undisclosed
misrepresentation and fraud, yet they took no action whatsoever to
protect the Plan or Plan participants from foreseeable resulting
harm. They knowingly permitted Plan participants to purchase and
hold an imprudent investment that was disqualified under ERISA as
well as damaging to the Plan.

According to the complaint, the Defendants were duty-bound to try
to prevent, or at least to mitigate, any damage caused by the fraud
to the Plan and its participants. They could have mitigated the
harm to Plan participants by trying to effectuate, through
personnel with disclosure responsibilities, corrective public
disclosures to cure the fraud consistent with the requirements of
the federal securities laws, thereby making J&J stock an accurately
priced, prudent investment again. The Defendants could not
reasonably have believed that taking this action would do more harm
than good to the Plan or to Plan participants. J&J stock traded in
an efficient market. The Defendants were -- or should have been --
familiar with the rudimentary principles of how securities trade in
efficient markets. Thus, they would have known that correcting the
Company's fraud would reduce J&J's stock price only by the amount
by which it was artificially inflated to begin with. They had no
basis to believe that any factor was distorting the market for J&J
stock at the time -- such as widespread short-selling or liquidity
problems or the like -- and thus no reason to fear that public
correction of the Company's fraud would reduce J&J's stock price to
anything but its true, accurate value. Moreover, Defendants should
have known that, the longer the artificial inflation of the
Company's stock persisted, the greater the risk of reputational
harm that would inure to J&J upon revelation of the truth. When a
public company like J&J prolongs a fraud, the likelihood of a
harsher price correction and a more lethargic price recovery
increases. A prudent fiduciary would take this increasing risk of
harm to Plan participants into account in deciding whether and when
to act on the basis of inside information.

Accordingly, Defendants should have taken appropriate responsive
action by trying to effectuate, through personnel with disclosure
responsibilities, corrective public disclosures to cure the fraud,
correct the stock price, and render the Fund a prudent investment
again. As such, between February 22, 2013, through January 25,
2019, Plan participants could not appreciate the true risks
presented by investments in J&J's stock and, therefore, could not
make informed decisions regarding their investments. As a direct
and proximate result of the breaches of alleged fiduciary duties,
the Plan, and indirectly Plaintiffs and other Plan participants,
suffered foreseeable damage to or lost a significant portion of
their retirement investments, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

          Samuel E. Bonderoff, Esq.
          Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq.
          Edward H. Glenn, Jr., Esq.
          Justin Sauerwald, Esq.
          ZAMANSKY LLC
          50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 742-1414
          Facsimile: (212) 742-1177
          E-mail: justin@zamansky.com

KEMET CORP: 4th Payment in Capacitors Antitrust Suit Due May 15
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kemet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the fourth payment
in the case entitled, In re: Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, is
due May 15, 2019 and the final payment is due by December 31,
2019.

On July 15, 2016, TOKIN entered into definitive settlement
agreements in two antitrust suits filed with the United States
District Court, Northern District of California as In re:
Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD (the
"Capacitor Class Action Suits").

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, in consideration of the
release of TOKIN and its subsidiaries (including TOKIN America,
Inc.) from claims asserted in the Capacitor Class Action Suits,
TOKIN will pay an aggregate $37.3 million to a settlement class of
direct purchasers of capacitors and a settlement class of indirect
purchasers of capacitors.

Each of the respective class payments is payable in five
installments, three of which have been paid on or before their
respective due dates of July 29, 2016, May 15, 2017, and May 15,
2018. The fourth payment is due May 15, 2019 and the final payment
is due by December 31, 2019.

Kemet Corporation manufactures and sells passive electronic
components under the KEMET brand worldwide. The company operates in
three segments: Solid Capacitors, Film and Electrolytic; and
Electro-Magnetic, Sensors, and Actuators. The company was founded
in 1919 and is headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.


KEMET CORP: Inductors Antitrust Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
Kemet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that TOKIN and TOKIN
America Inc. continues to defend in the purported class action suit
entitled, In re: Inductors Antitrust Litigation.

On July 2, 2018, TOKIN and TOKIN America Inc. were named as two of
20 defendants in a purported U.S. class action antitrust lawsuit,
In re: Inductors Antitrust Litigation, No. 5:18-cv-00198-EJD-NC,
filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, regarding the sale of inductors brought on behalf of
direct product purchasers and indirect product purchasers.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman
Act, for which it seeks injunctive and equitable relief and money
damages.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Kemet Corporation manufactures and sells passive electronic
components under the KEMET brand worldwide. The company operates in
three segments: Solid Capacitors, Film and Electrolytic; and
Electro-Magnetic, Sensors, and Actuators. The company was founded
in 1919 and is headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.


KICKS USA: Faces Traynor ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kicks, U.S.A. Inc.
The case is captioned as YASEEN TRAYNOR, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KICKS, U.S.A. INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00488-GBD (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2019).
The lawsuit alleges violation of Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case is assigned to Judge George B. Daniels.

Founded in 2002, KicksUSA provides urban footwear, apparel and
career opportunities to communities in Philadelphia, New Jersey and
surrounding areas. [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


LEGACY HEALTH: Former Nurse Sues Over Breaks, Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
Lynne Terry, writing for The Lund Report, reports that a former
registered nurse for Legacy Health has filed a class action lawsuit
against the Portland hospital network, claiming that it
systematically denied meal breaks to non-exempt nursing staff and
failed to pay overtime.

Julianne Hunter, who worked for Legacy Health for nine years,
including the last three at Legacy Emanuel Medical Center, filed
the suit in Multnomah County Circuit Court on behalf of herself and
other nurses, nurse aides and nurse assistants. The complaint says
Legacy does not allow nursing staff to take a 30-minute break
during their shift as required by state and federal law but rather
expects them to try to grab a bite to eat when they can while
attending to patients and other duties.

Yet, the suit says, Legacy still deducted 30 minutes a day from
nursing staff pay for a meal break. The complaint also accuses the
hospital chain of systematically failing to pay for work performed
before clocking in and after clocking out.

"This case implicates the longstanding policy of Legacy Health,
which fails to properly compensate non-exempt employees for work
during meal periods and for work performed while 'off-the-clock,'"
the suit says.

Legacy Health did not respond to requests for comment.

This is not the first time that Legacy staff have complained about
being denied breaks. A year ago, the state Bureau of Labor and
Industries fined Legacy Emanuel Medical Center a record $277,000
for failing to ensure that staff got breaks. That fine followed an
investigation of a dozen complaints, many from surgical
technicians, who said they were not allowed to go to the restroom
for four hours or more. The bureau found that the North Portland
hospital had more than 4,400 meal and rest period violations in
2015 and 2016.

Legacy paid the fine, saying it did not want to start shelling out
money in legal fees.

Then in September, the bureau announced it was fining Legacy
another record sum -- more than $5 million -- for 5,000-plus meal
and rest period violations at Legacy Meridian Park Hospital, Legacy
Mount Hood Medical Center and Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital and
Medical Center.

This time Legacy appealed, asking for a hearing. That meeting is
scheduled for April, said Christine Lewis, spokeswoman for the
bureau.

This latest lawsuit says Hunter worked as a non-exempt nurse for
Legacy Emanuel Medical Center between March 2009 through April
2016, earning $48.18 an hour during her last year of employment.
Her responsibilities including caring for patients, administering
medicine, monitoring test results, responding to emergencies and
interacting with other staff and visitors. The suit says she worked
throughout her shifts and was "interrupted or denied meal and rest
breaks on a regular basis." The suit says she worked off-the-clock
as well, doing things like cleaning, preparing equipment, charting,
interacting with patients and assisting other staff but was not
paid for that time.

"In practice, nursing staff involved in direct patient care are not
permitted to take a 30-minute uninterrupted and bona fide meal or
rest breaks due to the demands of their job during the majority of
their shifts," the complaint says. "In the rare instances where
they attempt a meal or rest break, they remain on duty in that they
are required to respond to calls from their patients, doctors,
patients' families, other nursing staff and hospital staff, attend
to the normal demands of the job and otherwise respond to
emergencies."

Hunter worked long days, the suit says, 12 or 13-hour shifts and up
to 52 hours a week.

Oregon law requires employers to give staff a 30-minute meal break
free of interruptions after six hours or work and 10-minute breaks
for each four hours of work. Federal law also requires employers to
pay hourly wage employees time and a half their regular pay for all
hours that exceed a 40 in a week.

The complaint says that when non-exempt employees like Hunter
worked more than 40 hours a week that Legacy did not pay overtime
because it did not include time spent working off-the-clock in its
pay calculations and automatically deducted break time that wasn't
taken.

The complaint says this policy was not the result of an accounting
error but rather part of a "willful" policy.

The complaint says that all non-exempt staff who worked more than
40 hours in at least one week in the past three years at Legacy
Health should be included in the suit. It estimates that there are
at least 100 people in this class.

The suit seeks orders banning Legacy from retaliation against the
plaintiffs, stating that Legacy willfully violated federal law and
violated Oregon law. It also seeks all unpaid wages due to
plaintiffs under the law, with 9 percent interest; an equal amount
in damages; attorneys fees and fines of $200 for each violation.
[GN]


LEXICON PHARMA: Sued over Misleading Report on Sotagliflozin
------------------------------------------------------------
A case, DANIEL MANOPLA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., LONNEL COATS, and JEFFREY L. WADE, the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00301 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 28, 2019), seeks to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Lexicon securities between March 11, 2016 and
January 17, 2019, both dates inclusive. In November 2015, Lexicon
entered into a collaboration and license agreement with Sanofi S.A.
("Sanofi"), a French multinational pharmaceutical company. Under
the collaboration and license agreement, Lexicon granted Sanofi an
exclusive, worldwide, royalty-bearing right and license to develop,
manufacture and commercialize Sotagliflozin.

Lexicon is responsible for all clinical development activities
relating to type 1 diabetes and retains an exclusive option to
co-promote and has a significant role, in collaboration with
Sanofi, in the commercialization of Sotagliflozin for the treatment
of type 1 diabetes in the United States. Sanofi is responsible for
all clinical development and commercialization of Sotagliflozin for
the treatment of type 2 diabetes worldwide and is solely
responsible for the commercialization of Sotagliflozin for the
treatment of type 1 diabetes outside the United States.

On May 22, 2018, Sanofi filed a New Drug Application ("NDA") for
"Zynquista" (the trademarked, commercialized name of Sotagliflozin)
with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). The NDA for
Zynquista was based on data from the inTandem clinical trial
program that included three Phase 3 clinical trials (called,
respectively, "inTandem1," "inTandem2," and "inTandem3") assessing
the safety and efficacy of Zynquista in approximately 3,000 adults
with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes. According to Jorge
Insuasty, Senior-Vice President, Global Head of Development,
Sanofi, "if approved, Zynquista would be the first oral
antidiabetic drug approved in the U.S. for use by adults with type
1 diabetes, in combination with insulin, the lawsuit says."

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) the data from Lexicon's Phase 3 clinical trials assessing the
safety and efficacy of Sotagliflozin in treating type 1 diabetes
were not as positive as Lexicon represented; (ii) the health risks
posed by Sotagliflozin were severe enough to threaten its FDA
approval prospects; and (iii) as a result, Lexicon's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. On January 17, 2019, Lexicon announced that the
Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee of the FDA
(the "Advisory Committee") had "voted eight to eight on the
question of whether the overall benefits of [Lexicon's product]
Zynquista (sotagliflozin) outweighed the risks to support
approval."

According to the complaint, on news of the Advisory Committee's
stalemate, Lexicon's stock price fell $1.74 per share, or 22.6%, to
close at $5.96 per share on January 18, 2019. As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages.

Lexicon was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in The Woodlands,
Texas. Lexicon is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the
development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products for
the treatment of human diseases. "Sotagliflozin" is the scientific
name of one of Lexicon's orally-delivered small molecule drug
candidates under development. Sotagliflozin is in Phase 3 clinical
trials for the treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          12700 Park Central Drive, Suite 520
          Dallas, TX 75251
          Telephone 972 521-6868
          Facsimile 281 254-7789
          E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

               - and -

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

LLOYD'S OF LONDON: Hit With Federal Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Terry Gangcuangco, writing for Insurance Business, reports that
certain underwriters at Lloyd's of London, insurance agencies, and
Lloyd's syndicates have been taken to court.

A federal class action lawsuit has been filed with the United
States District Court for the District of Hawaii over what were
described as "virtually worthless" policies. The case centres on
surplus lines insurance and points to an alleged scheme designed to
drive Hawaiian homeowners away from state-established coverage.

In a release, Foster Law Offices stated: "Lloyd's and its agents
knew that they were not allowed to place surplus lines insurance
unless other insurance was not available and the insurance coverage
amounts exceeded the coverage available through traditional
insurance carriers, including the government-established insurance
coverage offered through the HPIA (Hawaii Property Insurance
Association)."

According to the Hawaii-based firm, residents could have qualified
for HPIA-sponsored insurance, "but Lloyd's and its agents deceived
them by artificially inflating coverage limits" beyond those
provided under non-surplus lines insurance.

Citing data from the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners and the Centre for Insurance Policy and Research,
Foster Law Offices said Lloyd's syndicates wrote approximately
US$52 million in surplus lines premium in Hawaii in 2017.

Meanwhile the 60-page class action complaint, which is demanding a
jury trial, alleges that insurance brokers received "kickbacks"
from Lloyd's in the form of increased and unwarranted commissions.
It also cites policy exclusions which insureds claim render the
Lloyd's offering essentially useless.

"By wrongfully steering plaintiffs and the class into surplus lines
insurance, defendants have been able to deny coverage to plaintiffs
and many class members impacted by the recent eruption of the
Kilauea Volcano on the basis of the lava exclusion," read the court
filing seen by Insurance Business.

"In the absence of defendants' unlawful scheme, plaintiffs and the
class would have been offered more comprehensive insurance,
including insurance through HPIA, which provides for coverage
against 16 perils, including fire and volcanic eruption."

The lawsuit asserts that class members "discovered in the aftermath
of this tragedy that they unknowingly were sold virtually worthless
homeowner's insurance that did not provide coverage for the losses
they have suffered." [GN]


LOANCARE, LLC: Hamilton Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK L. HAMILTON, the Plaintiff, vs. LOANCARE, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00554 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 28, 2019), seeks
damages for Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

On January 10, 2013, the Plaintiff executed a mortgage in favor of
United Security Financial Corp.  The Mortgage secured the purchase
of real estate located at 148 North Bertram Drive, Yorkville,
Illinois 60560.  The Mortgage secured the repayment of the
indebtedness evidenced by a promissory note in the amount of
$124,343.  On January 23, 2015, United Security Financial Corp.
initiated mortgage foreclosure proceedings against the Property.
The subject debt was subsequently transferred to Lenderlive
Network, Inc.

On January 28, 2015, the Plaintiff initiated a bankruptcy case in
the Northern District of Illinois by filing a voluntary petition
for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. Simultaneously,
Plaintiff filed his Chapter 13 plan. The Plaintiff's plan
explicitly provided for the subject debt: "[Plaintiff] is
surrendering [the Property] to LenderLive Network, Inc. in full
satisfaction of its claims." On March 27, 2015, the Bankruptcy
Court confirmed Plaintiff's January 28, 2015 Chapter 13 Plan.  The
Plaintiff successfully completed plan payments in accordance with
the confirmed Chapter 13 plan.  On September 8, 2015, the Plaintiff
was granted a discharge under section 1328(a) of the Bankruptcy
Code, thus extinguishing Plaintiff's liability on the subject debt.
On April 1, 2016, LenderLive transferred the servicing rights to
the subject debt to RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation. On
December 16, 2016, the Circuit Court of Kendall County entered a
judgment of foreclosure.

On May 2, 2017, RoundPoint transferred the servicing rights to the
subject debt to Defendant. The Defendant received notice of
Plaintiff's bankruptcy discharge from its predecessor RoundPoint
during the loan onboarding process. At the time Defendant acquired
servicing rights, the subject debt was in default.  On July 10,
2017, the Property was sold at public sale by the Sheriff of
Kendall County, Illinois. On December 13, 2018, the Defendant sent
a letter addressed to Plaintiff pertaining to the subject debt.
The Plaintiff was highly confused and misled by the Defendant's
letter because he was led to believe that his bankruptcy discharge
had no legal effect and that he was liable for the deficiency
balance up to the date he received the Defendant's letter, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Joseph S. Davidson, Esq.
          Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 575 8180
          Facsimile: (630) 575 8188
          E-mail: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com
                  mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com

LYONDELLBASELL ACETYLS: McDevitt Seeks Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
A case, SHELLY McDEVITT, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LYONDELLBASELL ACETYLS, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00028 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 28, 2019),
seeks to recover compensation, overtime wages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Putative Class
Members are those similarly situated persons who worked for LYB
anywhere in the United States, and were not paid for all hours
worked or the correct amount of overtime compensation in violation
of federal law.

Specifically, LYB has enforced a uniform company-wide policy
wherein it improperly compensated its non-exempt hourly employees
-- Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members -- for their time spent
during the "shift relief" or "turnover" between the day and night
shifts -- that is, the twenty to thirty minutes per shift during
which each outgoing employee was required to brief and prep the
incoming shift worker.

LYB's company-wide policies have caused Plaintiff and the Putative
Class Members to have hours worked that were not compensated and
further, to not receive overtime compensation at a rate of one had
one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in
a workweek. Although Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members
routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiffs
and the Putative Class Members have not been paid overtime of at
least one and one-half their regular rates for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek.

LYB has knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff
and the Putative Class Members for all hours worked each workweek
and therefore failed to provide the proper amount of overtime
compensation on a routine and regular basis in the last three
years, the lawsuit says.

LyondellBasell produces two grades of acetic acid, for industrial
use and for food use.[BN]

Attorneys in Charge for Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members:

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

MARRIOTT INT'L: Class Action Powerhouses Sue Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
National class action law firms DiCello Levitt; Hausfeld; Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll; Cohen & Gresser; and Kramon & Graham have
teamed up to file the nation's largest class action complaint
against Marriott (NASDAQ: MAR) following a massive, long-running
data breach at the company. With 176 Plaintiffs from all fifty
states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands, this landmark court filing comes on the heels of
Marriott's recent admission that approximately 5.25 million
unencrypted passport numbers and 20.3 million encrypted passport
numbers were among the sensitive customer records accessed by
hackers. By the hotel chain's own acknowledgement, the breach
compromised the personal information of nearly 400 million
customers who made reservations at Starwood-branded hotels, which
Marriott acquired in 2016, making it one of the largest data
breaches in the country's history.

The consumers filed their lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Maryland on Wednesday January 9,
2019, and allege that Starwood, and later Marriott, took more than
four years to discover the breach and then failed to notify its
customers in a timely manner. Marriott became the world's largest
hotel chain when it acquired Starwood.

"It is difficult to comprehend how Marriott did not discover a data
breach of this size during the course of its due diligence efforts
in conjunction with its 2016 Starwood acquisition," said Amy
Keller, a partner with DiCello Levitt, who also serves as Co-Lead
Counsel in the nationwide class action against Equifax related to
its 2017 data breach. "Marriott has completely failed its customers
and it is disingenuous for the company to attempt to downplay the
seriousness of this breach." Co-counsel James Pizzirusso of
Hausfeld, who is also a Plaintiffs' Steering Committee member in
the Equifax case, added that, "Our clients have instances of
documented fraud that we allege are tied to the breach and
Marriott's empty promise to replace passports for only a select few
customers rings hollow."

Beginning in 2014 and possibly earlier, and continuing through
November 2018, hackers exploited vulnerabilities in Starwood's
network to access the guest reservation system and steal customer
data. Marriott discovered the breach on September 8, 2018 but
failed to publicly disclose it until nearly three months later, on
November 30, 2018, when it admitted that there had been
unauthorized access to the Starwood guest reservation database.
This database contained personal customer information, including
names, mailing addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, passport
numbers, Starwood Preferred Guest (SPG) account information, date
of birth, gender, arrival and departure information, reservation
dates, and communication preferences. For some customers, the
information also included payment card numbers and payment card
expiration dates.

"Marriott's post-breach response plan was wholly inadequate, and we
intend to hold the company accountable for its failings," said
Andrew Friedman of Cohen Milstein. "Marriott's latest revelation
that millions of customer passport numbers were unencrypted boggles
the mind and is an unprecedented lapse in cybersecurity for such a
large customer service business."

The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland, Southern Division, is Vetter, et al. v. Marriott
International, Inc., No. 19-cv-00094 (D. Md.). A copy of the
complaint is available upon request.

If you believe that you have been affected by the Marriott data
breach, attorneys are eager to speak with you about the ongoing
litigation and how to protect your rights. Call (440) 953-8888 to
speak with one of our attorneys.

         Jason Milch, Esq.
         Baretz+Brunelle
         Telephone: 312.379.9406
                    (440) 953-8888
         Email: jmilch@baretzbrunelle.com [GN]


MCKESSON CORP: Plaintiffs Seek to Lead Evanston Police Fund Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that several plaintiffs
in the case, Evanston Police Pension Fund v. McKesson Corporation,
filed motions for appointment as lead plaintiff with the court.

On December 12, 2018, the Company was served with a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, alleging that McKesson and several of its
officers violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by reporting
profits and revenues from 2013 until early 2017 that were false and
misleading, due to an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices of
generic drugs.

Evanston Police Pension Fund v. McKesson Corporation, No.
3:18-06525. On December 26, 2018, several plaintiffs filed motions
for appointment as lead plaintiff with the court.

McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies
in the United States and internationally. It operates in three
segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European
Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions. McKesson
Corporation was founded in 1833 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


MDL 1566: Suggestion to Remand Suit to JPML Granted
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Suggest Remand in the case
captioned In re WESTERN STATES WHOLESALE NATURAL GAS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. No. 2:03-cv-01431-RCJ-PAL, MDL No. 1566, No.
2:05-cv-01331-RCJ-PAL., 2:06-cv-00233-RCJ-PAL,
2:06-cv-00267-RCJ-PAL, 2:06-cv-00282-RCJ-PAL,
2:06-cv-01351-RCJ-PAL, 2:07-cv-00987-RCJ-PAL,
2:07-cv-01019-RCJ-PAL, 2:09-cv-00915-RCJ-PAL (D. Nev.).

The Plaintiffs, retail buyers of natural gas, allege that the
Defendants, natural gas traders, manipulated the price of natural
gas by reporting false information to price indices published by
trade publications and by engaging in wash sales. In 2003, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) transferred seven
class action cases from various districts in California to this
District under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 as Multidistrict Litigation
Case No. 1566, assigning Judge Pro to preside. Since then, the JPML
has transferred in several more actions from various districts
throughout the United States.   

Judge Pro ruled on many motions to remand, to dismiss, and for
summary judgment. He also approved several class settlements.
Several parties settled on their own. One or more of the cases have
been to the Court of Appeals twice and to the Supreme Court once.
Specifically, in 2007, the Court of Appeals reversed several
dismissals under the filed-rate doctrine and remanded for further
proceedings. In 2013, the Court of Appeals reversed several summary
judgment orders, ruling that the Natural Gas Act did not preempt
state law anti-trust claims and that certain Wisconsin- and
Missouri-based Defendants should not have been dismissed for lack
of personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari as
to preemption under the Natural Gas Act and affirmed. The case was
soon thereafter reassigned to this Court when Judge Pro retired.
The Court issued several dispositive orders and denied class
certification in applicable cases.

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

The Plaintiffs in the remaining cases have asked the Court to
suggest remand to the JPML. The Defendants have opposed the motions
and filed additional dispositive motions. The Court grants the
motions for suggestion of remand for the reasons given therein.  

The Motions for Suggestion of Remand are granted.  The Court is of
the opinion, having had its grants of summary judgment reversed,
that dispositive motion practice should be concluded, and the
matters should proceed to trial in the transferor courts. Further
delay is inappropriate. Only class certification remains in the
five of the eight remaining actions that are class actions, and
given the Court of Appeals' reversal of this Court's denials of
class certification, the transferor courts are better positioned to
apply the relevant states' laws in these complex matters. The Court
respectfully suggests remand of these actions for trial.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 14, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybwf25yv from Leagle.com.

In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation,
Plaintiff, represented by Jay Kevin Wieser -- jwieser@jw.com --
Jackson Walker L.L.P., Anna K. Milunas -- amilunas@mckoolsmith.com
-- McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Bradley C. Weber --
bweber@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, Brent Cohen --
bcohen@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Brett D.
Bissett -bbissett@mckoolsmithhennigan.com -- McKool Smith Hennigan,
P.C., Craig A. Fitzgerald -- cfitzgerald@gablelaw.com -- Gable
Gotwals, D. Neal Tomlinson, Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., Diane R. Hazel
-- dhazel@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Eric I.
Unrein, Cavanaugh, Biggs & Lemon, P.A., Gary D. McCallister, Gary
D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, Gregory M. Bentz --
gbentz@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli Shughart, Jennifer Gille Bacon
-- jbacon@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC, Joseph A. Fischer, III
-- tfisher@jw.com -- Jackson Walker L.L.P.

Aquila, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles A. Moore, Dewey &
LeBoeuf LLP, Khai LeQuang -- klequang@orrick.com -- Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, pro hac vice, Martin M. Loring --
martin.loriing@huschblackwell.com -- Blackwell, Sanders, Peper,
Martin, William Molinski -- wmolinski@orrick.com -- Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Bradley C. Weber --
bweber@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III --
oharrison@ghjhlaw.com -- Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank.

Cantera Natural Gas, Inc. & Cantera Resources, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Orrin L. Harrison,
III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, Sean Commons --
scommons@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP & T. Robert Scarborough --
TSCARBOROUGH@SIDLEY.COM- Sidley Austin LLP.

CMS Enterprises Group, Inc., Encana Energy Services, Inc., EPNG
Mojave, Inc., Mojave Pipeline Company, Mojave Pipeline Operating
Company & WD Energy Services, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber
Hurst Johansen Hail Shank.

Dynegy Holding Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Jay Kevin
Wieser, Jackson Walker L.L.P.,Joseph A. Fischer, III, Jackson
Walker L.L.P., Michael J. Kass -- mkass@vlplawgroup.com -- VLP Law
Group LLP, Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Douglas R. Tribble --
douglas.tribble@pillsburylaw.com -- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank.


MDL 2323: Ex-Wife Can't Intervene in Concussion Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum denying Cynthia Phillips' Motion
to Intervene in the case captioned IN RE: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE
PLAYERS' CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION, THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
Lewis et al. v. Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc. No.
2:12-md-02323-AB, MDL No. 2323, No. 14-1995. (E.D. Pa.).

Cynthia Phillips seeks to permissively intervene in Lewis, et al.
v. Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc., No. 14-1995 (E.D. Pa.)
to assert a claim against Defendant Kansas City Chiefs Football
Club, Inc., for loss of consortium related to head injuries her
ex-husband sustained while playing for the Chiefs.

In Lewis, former Chiefs players including Phillips's ex-husband,
Joseph Phillips bring claims against the Chiefs for harms arising
from concussive and sub-concussive injuries suffered during their
time playing football for the Chiefs. Phillips asserts that
permissive intervention is warranted because her loss of consortium
claim shares common issues of law or fact with the claims in Lewis.


The Class Action Settlement

The proposed Class consisted of:

     All living NFL Football Players who, prior to the date of the
Preliminary Approval and Class Certification Order [July 7, 2014],
retired, formally or informally, from playing professional football
with the NFL or any Member Club (Retired NFL Football Player); and
spouses parents, children who are dependents, or any other persons
who properly under applicable state law assert the right to sue
independently or derivatively by reason of their relationship with
a Retired NFL Football Player (Derivative Claimants).

The Settlement contained a broad release of claims by Class Members
against the NFL Defendants.

Each Class Member released any claims against the NFL Defendants,
including individual NFL teams, that could have been asserted in
the Class Action Complaint or any other Related lawsuit. The
Settlement explicitly released, among others, claims arising out
of, or relating to, head, brain, and/or cognitive injury, as well
as any injuries arising out of, or relating to, concussions and/or
subconcussive events; claims arising out of, or relating to, CTE
(Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy) and claims arising out of, or
relating to, loss of support, services, consortium, companionship,
society, or affection, or damage to familial relations.

Cynthia Phillips and the Lewis Action

Phillips was previously married to Joseph Phillips. From 1992-1998,
during their marriage, Joseph Phillips was a professional football
player with the Chiefs. Joseph Phillips, along with other former
Chiefs players and their spouses, filed this action against the
Chiefs in Missouri state court. Phillips alleged that the Chiefs'
wrongful conduct directly caused or directly contributed to cause
him to develop post-concussion syndrome and latent brain disease,
including .

Phillips's ex-husband and most of the other Lewis plaintiffs filed
a stipulation of dismissal of their claims. This stipulation of
dismissal followed confidential settlement discussions. The granted
the Chiefs' motion to dismiss the claim of the only remaining Lewis
plaintiff, Anita Martin, because her claim was precluded by the
Settlement.

Phillips argues that her action for loss of consortium shares a
question of law or fact with her ex-husband's action, that her
motion to intervene is timely, and that intervention will not
unduly delay or prejudice adjudication of the parties' rights. The
Chiefs do not contest that Phillips's action and her ex-husband's
action share a common question of law or fact, but contend that her
motion is untimely.  

Phillips's Motion to Intervene is Futile Because her Claim is
Precluded by the Class Action Settlement

Intervention is not warranted because the Settlement precludes the
claim Phillips seeks to assert.

A district court has the discretion to deny a motion to intervene
where intervention would be futile.  

Phillips is a Settlement Class Member Who Did Not Opt Out

The Settlement Agreement defines the Settlement Class as all
Retired NFL Football Players, Representative Claimants and
Derivative Claimants" who do not timely and properly exercise the
right to be excluded from the Settlement Class. The Settlement
defines Derivative Claimants as spouses, parents, children who are
dependents, or any other persons who properly under applicable
state law assert the right to sue independently or derivatively by
reason of their relationship with a Retired NFL Football Player.
Phillips is a Derivative Claimant because she has a claim against
the Chiefs under applicable state law by reason of [her]
relationship with a Retired NFL Football Player. Joseph Phillips,
Phillips's ex-husband, is a Retired NFL Football Player under the
definition of the Settlement because he stopped playing
professional football after 1998.

Phillips's loss of consortium claim exists because she was married
to Joseph Phillips while he played for the Chiefs.

Phillips did not timely opt out of the settlement.   

Therefore, Phillips is a Derivative Claimant and a Settlement Class
Member.

Phillips Was Not Exempt from the Requirement to Individually Opt
Out

Phillips argues that she did not need to independently opt out of
the Settlement, because her ex-husband opted out.   

This is incorrect.

The right to opt out of a class action is one that must be
exercised individually. The Settlement Agreement and the Summary
and Long-Form Notices, approved by this Court and the Third
Circuit, clearly communicated that each class member was required
to individually opt out in order to continue pursuing claims
against the NFL parties.  

Nothing in the Settlement Agreement, this Court's opinion approving
the Settlement, or the Notices suggests that the opt-out right did
not need to be exercised by each individual Class Member, or that
any Class Member's opt out could have had the effect of opting out
any other Class Member.

Phillips's Claim Was Released by the Settlement and Her Current
Suit is Barred by Res Judicata

The Chiefs argue that the Settlement bars all claims of non-opt-out
Class Members, including Phillips, against the NFL Parties for
injuries arising from head concussions.

The Chiefs are correct.

Because Phillips is a Class Member who failed to opt out and
because she brings a loss of consortium claim for injuries arising
from her ex-husband's alleged head injuries experienced during his
time playing for the NFL, her claims are squarely within those
released by the Settlement. The Settlement thus precludes her
claim.

Claim preclusion bars a plaintiff's claim when there has been: (1)
a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving (2) the
same parties or their privies and (3) a subsequent suit based on
the same cause of action.

The NFL Concussion Settlement was a final judgment on the merits.
Allowing Phillips to intervene to assert her loss of consortium
claim against the Chiefs would result in the relitigation of
settled question at the core of the NFL Settlement. Because
Phillips's claim is precluded by the Settlement, intervention would
be futile.

Phillips's Motion to Intervene is Untimely

Courts consider three factors to determine whether the intervention
motion is timely: (1) the stage of the proceeding (2) the prejudice
that delay may cause the parties and (3) the reason for the delay.

Stage of the Proceeding

A motion to intervene after entry of a decree should be denied
except in extraordinary circumstances. While no decree of judgment
has been entered in this case, this is because there are no claims
remaining to enter judgment on: all but one of the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed their claims, and this Court has dismissed
the claim of the only plaintiff who did not settle.

Phillips contends that this litigation is not at an advanced stage
because no discovery has occurred. However, because the parties
settled their claims, no discovery is needed. The stage of the
proceedings is as advanced as it can possibly be essentially, the
case is at an end. Because the litigation is at such an advanced
stage, Phillips must provide a compelling explanation for her
four-year delay in filing this motion.

Prejudice the Delay May Cause the Parties

Here, the existing parties in the case chose to resolve their
claims by settlement rather than engaging in discovery. At this
late stage in the litigation when all claims have been either
settled or dismissed allowing intervention would prejudice the
Chiefs by forcing them to now engage in discovery, and expend time
and resources they made the strategic choice to avoid.  

Reason for the Delay

Phillips's made her request for intervention in August 2018, nearly
five years after the Lewisaction was filed, and nearly four years
after the Settlement opt-out period ended. The only reason Phillips
puts forth for her delay is that she did not learn of her
ex-husband's action against the Chiefs until recently.

Extensive news coverage of a case undermines a proposed
intervenor's claim that she was unaware of the litigation. The
month the Lewis action was filed, several national media outlets
covered the litigation: USA Today, the New York Times, Forbes, and
ESPN all published articles online discussing the lawsuit and
listing Phillips's ex-husband by name as a plaintiff. While
Phillips may be correct that the Lewis action, specifically, did
not receive media coverage in her county, the NFL Concussion
Settlement did. The Observer-Reporter, Phillips's local paper,
published at least two articles about the NFL concussion litigation
and settlement, one in November 2014 and one in April 2015.  

In addition, the Settlement included an extensive notice program,
approved by both this Court and the Third Circuit. The notice
program included full-page advertisements in Ebony, People, Sports
Illustrated, and Time; thirty-second television commercials on ABC,
CBS, CNN, and other television stations; and ads on popular
internet sites. This was supplemented by widespread national news
coverage of the Settlement. As the Settlement has been implemented,
it has continued to receive extensive national and local news
coverage, including coverage on the website of the
Observer-Reporter.

Phillips thus received at least constructive notice of the ongoing
NFL concussion litigation, the class action settlement, and the
opt-out deadline. Even if Phillips did not see the national media
coverage of the Lewis action, she had notice of the Settlement and
the potential for her to recover under the Settlement as a
Derivative Claimant. Phillips' failure to give a compelling
explanation for her multi-year delay in seeking intervention,
Phillips's motion is untimely.

Accordingly, the Motion to Intervene will be denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 14, 2018
Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/yaxv77km from
Leagle.com.

CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR, Adminstrator, represented by ORRAN L. BROWN,
BROWNGREER PLC.

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

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

THE LOCKS LAW FIRM, Movant, represented by DAVID D. LANGFITT, LOCKS
LAW FIRM PLLC, MICHAEL B. LEH, LOCKS LAW FIRM & TOBIAS BARRINGTON
WOLFF, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW SCHOOL.


MDL 2848: Court Lifts Conditional Transfer Order Stay for 89 Cases
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ZOSTAVAX (ZOSTER VACCINE LIVE) PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2848, the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order lifting the stay of
the Panel's conditional transfer order designated as "CTO-15" filed
on November 14, 2018, insofar as it relates to 89 lawsuits against
Merck & Co.,Inc., et al., pending in the District of New Jersey,
Division 3.  The actions are transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 being conducted by
the Honorable Harvey Bartle, III.

A conditional transfer order was filed in the 89 actions on
November 14, 2018.  Prior to expiration of that order's 7-day stay
of transmittal, plaintiffs in these actions filed a notice of
opposition to the proposed transfer.  Plaintiffs later filed a
motion to vacate the conditional transfer order and a supporting
brief.  Plaintiffs have now withdrawn their opposition to
transfer.

The Panel, therefore, lifted the stay of its conditional transfer
order designated as "CTO-15" filed on November 14, 2018, as it
relates to the 89 actions.  The actions are transferred to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for inclusion in the coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407
being conducted by the Honorable Harvey Bartle, III.

The Panel also vacated the January 31, 2019 Hearing Session Order
insofar as they relate to these actions.

A full-text copy of the Panel's January 30, 2019 Order is available
at https://is.gd/JHXIOS

The 89 actions are:

   C.A. NO.    CASE CAPTION
   --------    ------------
   18-15844   ANDERSON v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15845   BIRMANTAS v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15846   WORTMAN v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al
   18-15847   LUCAS v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15850   BRAGINTON v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15852   BROWNING v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15853   ALVAREZ v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15854   WALDROUP v. MERCK & CO. INC et al
   18-15858   BLOCHER v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15860   VANHOOSE v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al
   18-15865   SMITHSON v MERCK & CO., INC. et al.
   18-15866   CAIN v. MERCK & CO., INC et al
   18-15867   NICHOLS v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15868   CARDINE v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
   18-15871   DOHERTY v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15872   SHOWALTER v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al
   18-15873   CARTWRIGHT v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
   18-15874   THOMAS v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15875   PETERSON v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al
   18-15876   CASE v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
   18-15878   CAMPBELL v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15879   PENDLETON v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al
   18-15880   COMEAU v. MERCK & CO., INC et al
   18-15882   COOPER v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15883   DELACRUZ v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
   18-15884   PALERMO v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al
   18-15885   CLAUSELL v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15886   MICHAEL v. MERCK & CO., INC et al
   18-15888   O'SHEA v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al
   18-15890   BROWN v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15844   ANDERSON v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15845   BIRMANTAS v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15846   WORTMAN v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al
   18-15847   LUCAS v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15850   BRAGINTON v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15852   BROWNING v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15853   ALVAREZ v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15854   WALDROUP v. MERCK & CO. INC et al
   18-15858   BLOCHER v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15860   VANHOOSE v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al
   18-15865   SMITHSON v MERCK & CO., INC. et al.
   18-15866   CAIN v. MERCK & CO., INC et al
   18-15867   NICHOLS v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15868   CARDINE v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
   18-15871   DOHERTY v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15872   SHOWALTER v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al
   18-15873   CARTWRIGHT v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
   18-15874   THOMAS v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15875   PETERSON v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al
   18-15876   CASE v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
   18-15878   CAMPBELL v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15879   PENDLETON v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al
   18-15880   COMEAU v. MERCK & CO., INC et al
   18-15882   COOPER v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15883   DELACRUZ v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
   18-15884   PALERMO v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al
   18-15885   CLAUSELL v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15886   MICHAEL v. MERCK & CO., INC et al
   18-15888   O'SHEA v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al
   18-15890   BROWN v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15952   MILLER v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
   18-15953   NIESPOREK v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15954   FRISBIE v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al
   18-15955   MORSE v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
   18-15956   BUTLER v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al
   18-15957   OTTE v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15958   NELSON v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
   18-15959   COLE v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al
   18-15961   PARIBELLO v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15962   OLIVA v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
   18-15963   EDMONDS v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al
   18-15964   WYLIE v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15965   GLEASON v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al
   18-15966   PERKINS v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
   18-15968   LINN v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al
   18-15969   CARVER v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al
   18-15970   PILLOW v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
   18-15971   EVERSOLE, SR. v. MERCK & CO. INC. et al
   18-15973   MCCULLOUGH v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15974   REDDEN v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
   18-15976   REED v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
   18-15977   MEYERS v. MERCK & CO.,INC. et al
   18-15979   ROSSI v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
   18-15980   RUBIK v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
   18-15981   SANCHEZ v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
   18-15982   BREITNER et al v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
   18-15983   METZ v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
   18-15984   OPATRNY et al v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al
   18-15985   SHERMAN et al v. MERCK & CO., INC. et al

MEDLEY CAPITAL: Khan & Dicristino Balk at Sierra Income Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD DICRISTINO and EVAN KHAN, On Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, 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. 650510/2019
(N.Y. Super Ct., N.Y. Cty., Jan. 25, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants, in connection with a proposed merger transaction,
knowingly or recklessly violated their fiduciary duties, including
their duties of loyalty, care, good faith, and candor owed to
Plaintiffs and the Class, or aided and abetted such breaches.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs bring this stockholder
class action on behalf of themselves and similarly situated
stockholders of MCC against the directors and certain officers of
MCC for breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with a
proposed transaction whereby MCC will combine with Sierra Income
Corporation and Medley. The Plaintiffs also bring 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 Plaintiffs also assert 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.

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. For the
reasons set forth below, neither can be established. 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.
These shares are held by Medley Seed Funding I LLC, a limited
liability company controlled by Medley LLC, which in turn is
controlled by Brook Taube and Seth Taube.

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. 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 lawsuit further alleges that 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 Defendant 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
advisor of the Combined Company, for which it will receive fees via
a fee structure that is likely to create incentives for MCC
Advisors that are not fully aligned with the interests of MCC
stockholders. The inadequate Merger Consideration for MCC
stockholders is the result of an illusory "negotiation" process
leading up to the execution of the Merger Agreements that was
fundamentally flawed and marred by conflicts of interest.
Specifically, several of MCC's officers and directors hold
overlapping leadership roles at MDLY and Sierra and had significant
financial interests in MDLY, including three of MCC's seven
directors.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971-1341
          Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
                  mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com

MISSOURI: Court Denies Bid for Counsel Appointment in Postawko
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, Central Division, issued an Order denying Plaintiffs'
Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Injunctive Relief in the case
captioned MICHAEL POSTAWKO, CHRISTOPHER BAKER, and MICHAEL
JAMERSON, On behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et
al., Defendants. Case No. 2:16-cv-04219-NKL. (W.D. Mo.).

Darrin Walker, a pro se inmate in the custody of the Missouri
Department of Corrections (MDOC), seeks appointment of counsel and
injunctive relief in this class action. Three inmates in MDOC's
custody, Michael Postawko, Christopher Baker, and Michael Jamerson,
bring this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, alleging that
they were denied direct-acting antiviral (DAA) drugs for treatment
of their chronic hepatitis C (HCV).  

Mr. Walker requests that the Court appoint him counsel in this case
or direct current class Action counsel to represent him in his
efforts to get an Injunction or TRO in order to obtain the Hep C
cure, to modify the claims raised to include damages awards against
defendants on [his] behalf, and to obtain life-saving treatment to
include a living donor liver transplant. Mr. Walker also requests
that the Court order defendants to begin immediate Hepatitis C cure
treatment on him.

It is the policy of the Court not to consider pro se filings when a
party is represented by counsel.

But even if the Court were to construe Mr. Walker's filings as a
request to intervene, the Court would deny Mr. Walker's motions
because he does not suggest that the named plaintiffs are
inadequate representatives of the class of inmates to which he
purportedly belongs. The class representatives here are presumed
adequate, given that both the class representatives and Mr. Walker
have the same ultimate objective—obtaining HCV treatment with DAA
drugs.  

Mr. Walker's desire to pursue individual monetary damages also does
not overcome the presumption of adequate representation. To the
extent that Mr. Walker wishes to pursue monetary damages, he will
need to do so in a separate action, on his own behalf.

Accordingly, Mr. Walker's motions for appointment of counsel and
for injunctive relief are denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 24, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7btplw4 from Leagle.com.

Michael G Postawko, Christopher Baker & Michael Jamerson,
Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony E. Rothert, American Civil
Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation, Megan G. Crane, pro hac
vice, Amy Elizabeth Breihan, MacArthur Justice Center at St. Louis,
Gillian R. Wilcox, American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri
Foundation, Jessie Steffan, American Civil Liberties Union of
Missouri Foundation & Omri E. Praiss, American Civil Liberties
Union of Missouri Foundation.

Missouri Department of Corrections & Anne L. Precythe, in her
official capacity as Director of the Missouri Department of
Corrections, Defendants, represented by David D. Dean, Missouri
Attorney General's Office, Dean John Sauer, Missouri Attorney
General's Office & John W. Taylor, Missouri Attorney General's
Office.

Corizon, LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel L. Messeloff,
Jackson Lewis PC, pro hac vice, Dwight Allan Vermette,
Eckenrode-Maupin, Attorneys at Law & William R. Lunsford, pro hac
vice.


MUNCHERY, INC: Joshua Philips Sues over Mass Layoffs
----------------------------------------------------
Joshua James Eaton Philips, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Munchery, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00469 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 25, 2019), seeks
to recover 60 days' wages benefits, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. from
Defendant, as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act and the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and the other
similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendant and
who were terminated without cause, as part of, or as the result of,
the mass layoff or plant closing ordered by Defendant on or about
January 21, 2019 and within 30 days of that date, and who were not
provided 60 days' advance written notice of their terminations by
Defendant.

According to the complaint, until its sudden demise on January 21,
2019, the Defendant operated an online food delivery service based
in San Francisco. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant until January
21, 2019, when Defendant abruptly ceased operations. The Plaintiff,
along with an estimated 250 other employees, were terminated
without any written notice, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff Joshua James Eaton Philips, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated:

          Gail Lin Chung, Esq.
          Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
          Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One California Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638-8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
          E-mail: gl@outtengolden.com
                  rsr@outtengolden.com
                  jar@outtengolden.com

MUTUAL OF OMAHA: Workers Pursue Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that workers suing
Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. over affiliated investment funds in
the company's 401(k) plan are moving forward with their proposed
class action.

The workers put forth enough facts to show that Mutual of Omaha
acted disloyally when it paid above-market rates to a subsidiary
that acted as a plan service provider, Senior Judge Joseph F.
Bataillon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska
said Dec. 31. [GN]


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Abdulrahman Asserts Personal Injury Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Amin Abdulrahman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00477-JMS-DML (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Ashby Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Paul Ashby,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00303 (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Booker Files Personal Injury Case in Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Jonathon Booker,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Millikin
University, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00409-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: Campbell Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Anthony Campbell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00478-JRS-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Caylor Files Personal Injury Suit in Ind.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as David Caylor,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00472-TWP-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Chuinard Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Edmund Chuinard,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00475-TWP-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Cooke Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Clifford Cooke,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00268-JPH-DML (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Elliott Asserts Personal Injury Claim
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Thomas Elliott,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Canisius
College of Buffalo, N.Y., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00493-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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 Fox Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Domarco Fox,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00474-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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 Markham Personal Injury Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Houston Markham, Jr.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00377-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: Fahy Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Matthew Fahy,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00501-TWP-DLP (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Fontaine Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Jeremy Fontaine,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00486-SEB-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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 Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Derek Freeman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00378-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: Hurst Suit Claim for Personal Injury
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Alex Hurst,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Millikin
University, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00357-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind.,
January 26, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Johnson Files Personal Injury Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Howard Johnson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00485-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Jones Suit Alleges Personal Injury Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Eric Jones,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Fairleigh
Dickinson University, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00483-JPH-TAB
(S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Kidd Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Eric Kidd, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association and Howard Payne
University, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00376-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: Kuehne Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as David Kuehne,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00277-JPH-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Lauback Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Tyler Lauback,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00503-JPH-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: MacLellan Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Darren MacLellan,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and
University of La Verne, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00480-JRS-TAB
(S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Martin Brings Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Chad Martin,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Central
College, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00479-JRS-TAB (S.D. Ind.,
January 29, 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: McMonigle Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as William McMonigle,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00496-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Merchant Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Emmett Merchant,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00476-SEB-DML (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Montgomery Files PI Suit in Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Devin Montgomery,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00473-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Moravec Asserts Personal Injury Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Jonathan Moravec,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00487-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Robert Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Donald Robert,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Worcester
Polytechnic Institute, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00481-JPH-DML
(S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Sepanski Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Joshua Sepanski,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Southwest
Baptist University, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00488-JPH-MJD
(S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Smith Files PI Suit in S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Paul Smith,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00502-JRS-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Staten Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Armond Staten,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00358-JRS-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Stinyard Suit Alleges Personal Injury Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Cleo Stinyard, III,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00266-TWP-DLP (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Udovich Suit Asserts Personal Injury Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Mark Udovich,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00499-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Watts Brings Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Gregory Watts,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00498-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Willis Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Damon Willis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00270-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Wilson Suit Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Charles Wilson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00471-TWP-DLP (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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: Young Files Personal Injury Suit in Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Floyd Young,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00497-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 29, 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




NATIONWIDE BUSINESS: Court Grants Joint Bid to Dismiss Cunningham
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued an Order granting dismissal in the case captioned
CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE BUSINESS RESOURCES,
INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
Defendant. Case No. 2:18-cv-04180-MWF-KLS. (C.D. Cal.).

The entire above-captioned action is dismissed with prejudice as to
named Plaintiff Cunningham's individual claims, and without
prejudice as to the putative class action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 24, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yaar4y49 from Leagle.com.

Craig Cunningham, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Todd M. Friedman --
tfriedman@toddflaw.com -- Law Office of Todd M. Friedman PC, Adrian
Robert Bacon -- abacon@toddflaw.com -- Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman PC, Meghan Elisabeth George -- mgeorge@toddflaw.com -- Law
Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC & Thomas Edward Wheeler --
twheeler@toddflaw.com -- Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC.

Nationwide Business Resources, Inc., Defendant, represented by
David George Hagopian -- dhagopian@cdflitigation.com -- Carothers
DiSante and Freudenberger LLP & Jeffrey L. Sikkema --
jsikkema@cdflitigation.com -- Carothers DiSante and Freudenberger
LLP.


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Hill Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
A case, AMANDA HILL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00161 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 28, 2019), seeks
legal and equitable remedies resulting from illegal actions of
Navient Solutions, LLC in transmitting unsolicited, autodialed SMS
or MMS text messages, en masse, to Plaintiff's cellular device and
the cellular devices of numerous other individuals across the
country, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant transmitted its text
messages to the 9785 Number and to the numbers of the members of
the Class using an "automated telephone dialing system" because its
text messages were sent from a telephone number used to message
consumers en masse; because Defendant's dialing equipment includes
features substantially similar to a predictive dialer, inasmuch and
because the hardware and software used by Defendant to send such
messages have the capacity to store, produce, and dial random or
sequential numbers, or to receive and store lists of telephone
numbers and to then dial such numbers, en masse, in an automated
fashion and without human intervention.  And indeed, the Defendant
actually transmitted the text messages at issue in this case to
Plaintiff and all other unnamed Class members in an automated
fashion and without human intervention, with hardware and software
that received and stored lists of telephone numbers to be dialed
and then dialed such numbers automatically, the lawsuit says.

Navient Solutions, LLC provides asset management and business
processing solutions to education, healthcare, and government
clients at the federal, state, and local levels.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Classes:

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

NCAA: Disregards WNEU Student-Athletes' Safety, Hurd Says
---------------------------------------------------------
JEREMY HURD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and WESTERN NEW ENGLAND UNIVERSITY, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00424-JRS-DLP (S.D. Ind. Jan. 28, 2019), seeks
redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless
disregard for the health and safety of generations of Western New
England University ("WNEU") 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 25 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, WNEU football players were under Defendant's care.
Unfortunately, Defendant did not care about the off-field
consequences that would haunt students 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 WNEU 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 WNEU 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
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com

NCAA: McCormick Sues over Johns Hopkins Student-Athletes' Safety
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MCCORMICK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, the Defendants, Case
No.: 1:19-cv-00425-SEB-DLP (S.D. Ind. Jan. 28, 2019), seeks redress
for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard
for the health and safety of generations of Johns Hopkins
University ("JHU") 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 25 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, JHU football players were under Defendant's care.
Unfortunately, Defendant did not care about the off-field
consequences that would haunt students 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 JHU 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 JHU 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
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com

NCAA: Newbern Sues over Safety of Lehigh Student-Athletes
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL NEWBERN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and LEHIGH UNIVERSITY, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00426-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind. Jan. 28, 2019), seeks redress for
injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for
the health and safety of generations of Lehigh University ("LU')
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 25 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, LU football players were under Defendant's care.
Unfortunately, Defendant did not care about the off-field
consequences that would haunt students 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 LU 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 LU 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
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com

NH STATE EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION: Non-union Members Hit Illegal Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Doughty and Randy Severance, as individuals and
representatives of the requested class, Plaintiffs, v. State
Employees' Association of New Hampshire, SEIU, Local 1984, CTW,
CLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00053 (D. N.H., January 14, 2019),
seeks to recover compensatory damages, refunds or restitution in
the amount of compulsory union fees paid to the union from
Plaintiff's wages without their written consent, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to the
First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Patrick Doughty and Randy Severance are public employees of the
State of New Hampshire but not members of the union, the State
Employees' Association of New Hampshire. They were allegedly forced
by provisions of the operative collective bargaining agreements to
pay union fees to the union as a condition of their employment. The
State deducted those compulsory fees without Plaintiffs' consent
and remitted them to the union, notes the complaint.

Doughty has worked in the Department of Transportation while
Severance worked in the Department of Information Technology. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bryan K. Gould, Esq.
      Cleveland, Waters and Bass, P.A.
      Two Capital Plaza, P.O. Box 1137
      Concord, NH 03302-1137
      Telephone: (603) 224-7761
      Facsimile: (603) 224-6457
      Tel: gouldb@cwbpa.com

           - and -

      Milton L. Chappell, Esq.
      Alyssa K. Hazelwood, Esq.
      Frank D. Garrison, Esq.
      National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc.
      8001 Braddock Rd, Ste. 600
      Springfield, VA 22160
      Tel: (703) 770-3329
      Email: mlc@nrtw.org
             akh@nrtw.org
             fdg@nrtw.org


NORTHWESTERN MEDICINE: Bars Patients From Bringing Class-Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Spitzer, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that
Chicago-based Northwestern Medicine placed new restrictions on how
patients can use its digital services, according to Chicago's NPR
station WBEZ.

Patients who opt in to Northwestern Medicine's MyChart patient
portal must agree not to seek jury trials or class-action lawsuits
if information stored on the portal is misused. Instead, patients
are instructed to bring disputes up directly with Northwestern
Medicine, either through arbitration or in small claims court.

A Northwestern Medicine spokesperson told WBEZ the new rules apply
only to digital services, such as MyChart.

Patients who do not agree to the new terms will lose access to
MyChart, according to WBEZ.[GN]


NOVA LIFESTYLE: Responds to Research Report, To Defend Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nova LifeStyle, Inc. (NASDAQ: NVFY) on Jan. 2 responded to a
document published by Seeking Alpha on December 21, 2018. The
document is a self-styled research report regarding the Company
(the "Purported Research Report"). The Purported Research Report
was apparently generated by an Eastern European firm apparently
formed in 2017 and called Andri Capital. The Purported Research
Report contains a "Sell" recommendation, and purports to present
evidence that a substantial portion of the Company's sales to four
of the Company's largest customers during the relevant past is not
legitimate, and it posits that as a consequence the Company's
operating results have been substantially overstated. Exactly one
month earlier Andri Capital issued a report on Seeking Alpha
concluding that the Company's Common Stock was significantly
undervalued with a "Buy" recommendation. Within the month preceding
the Purported Research Report and before Andri Capital published
the reversal in its advice that the stock was substantially
undervalued, Andri Capital accumulated a large short position which
Andri Capital disclosed in its December 21, 2018 Purported Research
Report. Following the publication of the Purported Research Report,
the market price of the Company's Common Stock suffered a rapid
decline, and a number of putative class action complaints that
largely parrot the assertions set forth in the Purported Research
Report have followed. To date the Company is aware that the
following complaints have been filed: George Barney, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v Nova Lifestyle,
Inc., Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery Chuang, and Yuen Ching
Ho, Defendants. Case No. Case 2:18-cv-10725 (US District Court for
the Central District of California).

Management believes that the conclusions set forth in the Purported
Research Report are baseless; and further that the report is
malicious and manipulative, intended to serve the interests of the
author (and his organization) who disclosed that he accumulated a
short position in advance of the publication of the report. The
complaints that have been filed are based largely upon the
insidious claims set forth in the Purported Research Report, and
are baseless. The Company will defend those lawsuits. The Company
is also considering the assertion of direct claims against anyone
that has caused damage to the Company.

The Audit Committee has acted promptly to address the concerns
raised in the Purported Research Report, and to reinstate the
market confidence that the Purported Research Report so severely
undermined. The Audit Committee has engaged independent counsel,
expert in addressing such matters, to advise it, and it has engaged
the Company's auditor to perform special procedures to confirm the
reported sales. Those procedures include but are not limited to the
examination and testing of relevant documentation relating to the
sales made by the Company to the customers identified in the
Purported Research Report for the periods 2015-2018. Those
procedures will include 100% sampling of all transactions between
the Company and the subject customers. Once the special procedures
are completed, reviewed, and to the extent necessary supplemented
by the Audit Committee with the advice of its independent counsel,
the Audit Committee will disclose the results of that work. The
Audit Committee expects that this process will take approximately
two months.

                       About Nova LifeStyle

Nova LifeStyle, Inc., a NASDAQ Global Market listed company
headquartered in California -- http://www.NovaLifeStyle.com-- is a
fast growing, innovative designer and distributor of modern
LifeStyle furniture; primarily sofas, dining rooms, cabinets,
office furniture and related components, bedrooms, and various
accessories in matching collections. Nova's products are made in
the US, Europe, and Asia that include LifeStyle brands such as
Diamond Sofa, Nova QwiK, and Bright Swallow International. Nova's
products feature urban contemporary styles that integrate comfort
and functionality, incorporating upscale luxury designs appeals to
middle and upper middle-income consumers in the USA, China, Europe,
and elsewhere in the world. [GN]


OAKWOOD, OH: Plaintiffs to Receive $200K in Checks from Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Baker, writing for My Dayton Daily News, reports that more
than $200,000 in checks will be mailed out today to thousands of
plaintiffs and the lawyers who won a class-action suit against the
city of Oakwood regarding its Pre-Sale Inspection Program.

In November, Oakwood City Council agreed to pay $295,000 as a
result of a lawsuit regarding the city's Pre-Sale Inspection
Program.

About $73,000 will go to 1,055 plaintiffs to refund a $60
inspection fee, according to city officials. More than $200,000
will be spent covering attorney fees.

The inspection program required that properties pass an inspection
by the city before being sold.

A lawsuit filed by the 1851 Center in federal court in May 2016
claimed the requirement was like a warrant-less search.

In February, Judge Thomas M. Rose in the Southern District of Ohio
rejected the pre-sale inspections, granting a refund of inspection
fees.

"Checks will be mailed out on Jan. 11, so Oakwood residents and
former residents should receive them the next week," said Executive
Director Maurice Thompson of the 1851 Center for Constitutional
Law, which represented the homeowners in the federal suit.

An Oakwood statement said the case centered around a lack of a
search warrant provision in the ordinance "that would allow for
independent judicial review in the event that a property owner
refused consent for the inspection."

"Without that language, the ordinance appeared to mandate a minor
misdemeanor criminal penalty for refusing an inspection," the
statement said.

In 1992, search warrant language was left out of the ordinance
accidentally, according to Oakwood Law Director Rob Jacques, Esq..

"This was a scrivener's error, a drafting mistake, that happened
more than 25 years ago," Jacques said. "Despite the court's finding
of liability, the ordinance was never implemented in an
unconstitutional manner, and the city never had so much as a single
complaint prior to this lawsuit."[GN]


OYSHI TABLE: De Jesus et al. Seek Unpaid Wages and Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
FIDEL DE JESUS, and VICTOR RAMOS on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, the Plaintiffs, vs. OYSHI
TABLE CORP. d/b/a TOASTIES, JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-4 d/b/a
TOASTIES, MATTHEW AHN, ROBERT KIM, ELLIOT LEE, JIN CHOI, and HELEN
LEE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00830 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 28,
2019), seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages due to
time shaving, unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime, illegally
retained gratuities, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs, pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have
had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and
are and have been subjected to Defendants' decisions, policies,
plans, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and
rules, all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay them
their proper wages. A subclass of tipped employees also has a claim
for unpaid minimum wage and overtime, including those due to an
improperly deducted tip credit and time-shaving, and a claim for
illegally retained tips.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the
Class:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212 465-1188
          Facsimile: 212 465-1181

P.A.M. TRANSPORT: Bid to Decertify FLSA Collective Action Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned DAVID BROWNE; ANTONIO
CALDWELL; and LUCRETIA HALL, on behalf of themselves and all those
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. P.A.M. TRANSPORT, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-05366-TLB (W.D. Ark., Jan. 25, 2019),
the Hon. Judge Timothy L. Brooks entered an order on Jan. 25,
2019:

   1. granting David Browne's, Antonio Caldwell's, and Lucretia
      Hall's motion for class certification pursuant to F.R.C.P.
      23;

   2. denying P.A.M. Transport, Inc.'s motion to decertify
      conditional Collective FLSA Action; and

   3. directing the parties must to confewr and provide the Court
      with an agreed-to form of and plan for notice to class
      members by no later than Feb. 8, 2019.

The Court said, "Turning now to the matter of FLSA collective
action certification: other than choice-of-law issues, which
obviously are not implicated for this federal-law claim, the issues
discussed above are all substantively identical here.  . . . the
Plaintiffs intend to use evidence common to all members of the
collective action to prove that PAM had "a single, FLSA-violating
policy." Bouaphakeo, 765 F.3d at 796. This Court has already
explained above that federal minimum wage law and Arkansas minimum
wage law are substantively identical in all respects pertinent to
this Order’s analysis. Thus, decertification of the FLSA
collective action is inappropriate here, and PAM's Motion to
Decertify will be denied."[CC]

PORANIA LLC: Robinson Files Class Action in Arizona
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Porania LLC. The case
is styled as Ernestine Robinson, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, Debtor, Plaintiff v.
Porania LLC and Biltmore Asset Management LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-mc-00002 (D. Ariz., January 30, 2019).

The docket of the lawsuit states the case type as Other statutory
actions.

Porania LLC is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq.
   Consumer Litigation Associates PLLC - Tucson, AZ
   382 S Convent Ave.
   Tucson, AZ 85701
   Tel: (520) 622-2481
   Fax: (757) 930-3662
   Tel: srotkis@clalegal.com


PORTAGE COUNTY, WI: Court Won't Strike B. Lieberman's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin denying Defendants' Motion to Strike as Premature in the
case captioned BRETT LIEBERMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PORTAGE COUNTY, MIKE LUKAS
in his individual OPINION and capacity, CORY NELSON in his
individual capacity, DALE BOETTCHER in his individual capacity,
JOHN DOE PORTAGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE PERSONNEL in their
individual capacities, and JOHN DOE PORTAGE COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PERSONNEL in their individual capacities,
Defendants. No. 18-cv-450-jdp. (W.D. Wis.).

Two motions are before the court: (1) the defendants' motion to
strike Lieberman's state law class claims and (2) a motion to
intervene filed by the county's insurer, Wisconsin County Mutual
Insurance Corporation (WCMIC).

This is a proposed class action in which plaintiff Brett Lieberman
alleges that Portage County, the county's sheriff, and two jail
officials recorded his and other jail detainees' confidential legal
communications without the detainees' knowledge or consent.
Lieberman is asserting claims under the United States Constitution,
the Wisconsin Constitution, and the Wisconsin Electronic
Surveillance Act.

The court will deny the defendants' motion to strike as premature.


Motions to strike generally are governed by Rule 12(f), which
applies when allegations in a pleading are so unrelated to a
plaintiff's claim as to be devoid of merit, unworthy of
consideration, and unduly prejudicial. But this is not what
defendants are contending. Rather, their brief is styled as a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: they say that
potential class members cannot proceed on a state-law claim because
they did not comply with the prerequisites in Wis. Stat. Section
893.80(1d) for bringing such a claim. But Lieberman has not moved
for class certification yet, so the claims of potential class
members are not before the court. The court cannot issue an
advisory opinion about claims that are not yet part of the case.  

It seems that what the defendants are really trying to do is obtain
an early determination under Rule 23 that Lieberman's state-law
claims should not be certified for class treatment. Rule 23 does
not prohibit defendants from seeking a decision on class
certification, which defendants ignore. This is reason alone for
denying defendants' motion.

But even if the court were to apply the test for the defendants,
the court would deny the defendants' motion. The arguments raised
in the defendants' motion are most similar to the question whether
Lieberman's claims are typical of the class, as required by
Rule23(a)(3). Generally, a plaintiff cannot represent a class if he
is not subject to the same defenses as the potential class
members.

If the defendants believe that neither Lieberman nor the potential
class members complied with Section 893.80(1d), that is not a
ground for denying class certification. It is an argument for
certifying the class and then moving to dismiss the entire class
action on that ground.  

Finally, even if the court could consider at this stage of the
proceedings whether potential class members complied with §
893.80(1d), the court would deny the defendants' motion. The
parties debate many issues about the application of Section
893.80(1d) in their briefs, but the defendants simply ignore
Lieberman's argument that potential class members substantially
complied with Wis. Stat. Section 893.80(1d), which is usually
sufficient. Because the defendants failed to develop an argument on
this issue, the court concludes that the defendants have forfeited
it for the purpose of their motion. The Defendants are free to
raise any issues about class certification in a Rule 23 motion or
about the merits in a summary judgment motion, but they have not
shown that they are entitled to any relief at this time.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 24, 2018 Opinion
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7cpkjug from
Leagle.com.

Brett Lieberman, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Howard Eldridge --
beldridge@hmelegal.com -- Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC, John
Shannon Marrese, Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC & Steven Alan
Hart, Hart McLaughlin & Eldridge, LLC.

Portage County, Mike Lukas, Cory Nelson & Dale Boettcher,
Defendants, represented by Garrett Anthony Soberalski, Meissner
Tierney Fisher & Nichols, S.C., Lori Marie Lubinsky --
llubinsky@axley.com -- Axley Brynelson, LLP, Michael J. Cohen,
Meissner Tierney Fisher & Nichols SC, Michael J. Modl --
mmodl@axley.com -- Axley Brynelson, LLP & Morgan Kathleen Stippel
-- mstippel@axley.com -- Axley Brynelson, LLP.

John Doe Portage County District Attorney's Office Personnel,
Defendant, represented by David C. Rice, Wisconsin Department of
Justice.

Wisconsin County Mutual Insurance Corporation, Intervenor,
represented by Thomas J. Donnelly -- tjd@ghnlawyers.com- Grady,
Hayes & Neary, LLC.


POST HOLDINGS: Opt-Out Plaintiffs' Antitrust Claims v. Unit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that anti-trust claims by
plaintiffs who opted out of class action lawsuits remains pending
against a subsidiary.

In late 2008 and early 2009, approximately 22 class action lawsuits
were filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc.
("MFI"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and
approximately 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs and egg
products, and egg industry organizations), alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the production
and sale of shell eggs and egg products, and seeking unspecified
damages. All cases were transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

The case involved three plaintiff groups: (i) a nationwide class of
direct purchasers of shell eggs ("direct purchaser class"); (ii)
individual companies (primarily large grocery chains and food
companies that purchase considerable quantities of eggs) that opted
out of various settlements and filed their own complaints related
to their purchases of shell eggs and egg products ("opt-out
plaintiffs"); and (iii) indirect purchasers of shell eggs
("indirect purchaser plaintiffs").

To date, MFI has resolved the following claims, including all class
claims: (i) in December 2016, MFI settled all claims asserted
against it by the direct purchaser class for a payment of $75.0,
which was approved by the district court in December 2017; (ii) MFI
settled all claims asserted against it by opt-out plaintiffs
related to shell egg purchases on confidential terms in January
2017; and (iii) in June 2018, MFI settled all claims asserted
against it by indirect purchaser plaintiffs on confidential terms.
MFI has at all times denied liability in this matter, and no
settlement contains any admission of liability by MFI.

MFI remains a defendant only with respect to claims that seek
damages based on purchases of egg products by six opt-out
plaintiffs. The district court had granted summary judgment
precluding any claims for egg products purchases by such opt-out
plaintiffs, but the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and
remanded these claims for further pre-trial proceedings. Defendants
have filed a second motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal
of the claims, and that motion is currently pending.

Post Holdings said, "Although the likelihood of a material adverse
outcome in the egg antitrust litigation has been significantly
reduced as a result of the MFI settlements described above, the
remaining portion of the case could still result in a material
adverse outcome."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Post Holdings, Inc. operates as a consumer packaged goods holding
company in the United States and internationally. It operates
through Post Consumer Brands, Weetabix, Refrigerated Food, and
Active Nutrition segments. The company was founded in 1895 and is
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.


PUBLIC STORAGE: Underpays Sales Agents, Arakelian Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
TANYA ARAKELIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PUBLIC STORAGE; and DOES 1-20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV01191 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Jan. 17, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal
and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Arakelian was employed by the Defendants as sales
agent.

Public Storage, a member of the S&P 500 and FT Global 500, is a
REIT that primarily acquires, develops, owns and operates
self-storage facilities. The Company’s headquarters are located
in Glendale, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vache A. Thomassian, Esq.
          Caspar Jivalagian, Esq.
          KJT LAW GROUP LLP
          230 North Maryland Avenue, Suite 306
          Glendale, CA 91206
          Telephone: (818) 507-8525
          E-mail: vache@kjtlawgroup.com
                  caspar@kjtlawgroup.com


REDROCK TRAVEL: Ramos-Rivera Seeks Minimum Wage Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY RAMOS-RIVERA, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff(s), vs. REDROCK TRAVEL GROUP, LLC,
CARDIFF LEXINGTON CORPORATION, JAY JAHID, individually, FERNANDA
JAHID, individually, and ROLLAN ROBERTS, individually, the
Defendants, Case No.: 6:19-cv-00174 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 25, 2019),
alleges that Defendants have unlawfully deprived Plaintiff, and all
other employees similarly situated, of federal minimum wage
compensation during the course of their employment, under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked an average of at
least 37.5 hours per week. The Defendants failed to properly
compensate Plaintiff pursuant to federal law for hours worked in
these workweeks, notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff performed
work for the benefit of Defendants. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is
entitled to recover at least $271.87 per week for each of these
three workweeks in which Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff for a
total of $815.62.

However, Defendants' actions were intentional and/or willful and
Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an additional amount of
liquidated (double) damages for wages in the amount of $815.62, the
lawsuit says.

Red Rock provides travel and tourism services. The company is based
in Orlando, Florida.[BN]

Counsel for Ashley Ramos-Rivera:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS -
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          805 East Broward Blvd. Suite 301
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  melissa@jordanrichadrspllc.com
                  livia@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  jake@jordanrichardspllc.com

REDROCK TRAVEL: Tibolla Suit Seeks Minimum Wage Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE TIBOLLA, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff(s), vs. REDROCK TRAVEL GROUP, LLC,
CARDIFF LEXINGTON CORPORATION, JAY JAHID, individually, FERNANDA
JAHID, individually, and ROLLAN ROBERTS, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-00168 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 25, 2019),
alleges that Defendants have unlawfully deprived Plaintiff, and all
other employees similarly situated, of federal minimum wage
compensation during the course of their employment, under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, during Plaintiff's employment, the
Defendants assigned Plaintiff to work multiple workweeks in which
Defendants failed and refused to compensate Plaintiff. From October
29, 2018, through November 11, 2018, the Defendants failed to
compensate Plaintiff in any conceivable way. The Defendants failed
to ever compensate Plaintiff for any hours worked in these
workweeks notwithstanding that Plaintiff performed work for the
benefit of Defendants. The Plaintiff worked an average of at least
40 hours per week during this time period, the lawsuit says.

Redrock specializes in developing leads for timeshare and vacation
club industries and has been operating in the State of Florida
since 2014. The Company also provides discounted theme park
tickets, highly discounted travel, and engages in significant
online, media, and offline advertising that directs traffic to
online websites or to state-of-the-art call centers.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS -
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          805 East Broward Blvd. Suite 301
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  melissa@jordanrichadrspllc.com
                 livia@jordanrichardspllc.com
                 jake@jordanrichardspllc.com

REDROCK TRAVEL: Wilder Seeks Minimum Wage Compensation
------------------------------------------------------
MARC WILDER, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b), the Plaintiff(s), vs. REDROCK TRAVEL GROUP, LLC, CARDIFF
LEXINGTON CORPORATION, JAY JAHID, individually, FERNANDA JAHID,
individually, and ROLLAN ROBERTS, individually, the Defendants,
Case No. 6:19-cv-00165 Document (M.D. Fla., Jan. 25, 2019), alleges
that Defendants have unlawfully deprived Plaintiff, and all other
employees similarly situated, of federal minimum wage compensation
during the course of their employment, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked an average of at
least 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff is entitled to recover at
least $290.00 per week for each of these three workweeks in which
Defendants refused to pay Plaintiff for a total of $870.00.
However, the Defendants' actions were intentional and/or willful
and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an additional amount of
liquidated (double) damages for wages in the amount of $870.00. The
Defendants also refused to pay Plaintiff commissions he earned
during the past six months in an amount equal to $4,000.00, the
lawsuit says.

Red Rock Travel Group LLC provides travel and tourism
services.[BN]

Counsel for Marc Wilder:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS –
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          805 East Broward Blvd. Suite 301
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  melissa@jordanrichadrspllc.com
                  livia@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  jake@jordanrichardspllc.com

RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Settles SEC Fraud Case Amid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Avi Mizrahi, writing for Bitcoin.com, reports that Riot Blockchain,
Inc. replaced its CEO in September after the SEC charged him in
connection with a fraudulent $27 million pump and dump scheme. Now
another person involved in that case, biotech billionaire Phillip
Frost, has agreed to pay $5.5 million to settle the charges.

$5.5 Million Settlement
Phillip Frost Agrees to Settle Riot Blockchain Related Case for
$5.5 MillionThe Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged a
group of 10 individuals and 10 associated entities back in
September for fraudulent schemes that generated over $27 million
from unlawful stock sales and "caused significant harm to retail
investors who were left holding virtually worthless stock."

According to the SEC's complaint, the group of "microcap
fraudsters" was led by Barry Honig who was once the largest
shareholder in Riot Blockchain, Inc. (NASDAQ:RIOT) and included
John O'Rourke, its former CEO. From 2013 to 2018, the South
Florida-based group manipulated the share price of the stock of
three companies in pump-and-dump schemes, and Miami billionaire
Phillip Frost allegedly participated in two of these.

On Dec. 27, Mr. Frost and his company OPKO Health, Inc. (NASDAQ:
OPK) announced they have agreed to a settlement with the SEC to
resolve the action brought against them, subject to court approval.
Without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, OPKO agreed to
a $100,000 penalty. Frost agreed, also without admitting or denying
the SEC's allegations, to approximately $5.5 million in penalties,
disgorgement, and prejudgment interest. He also agreed to a
prohibition from trading in penny stocks, with certain exceptions.
Frost will continue to serve as OPKO's CEO and Chairman.

"We have reached agreement with the SEC that will end a potentially
expensive, contentious and time-consuming litigation and I am happy
that we can focus on an exciting and productive 2019 for OPKO
Health," said Frost.

Before October 2017, Riot was a biotechnology company known as
Bioptix, Inc. that specialized in the development of veterinary
diagnostic tools. On October 4, 2017 Bioptix announced it was
changing its name to Riot Blockchain and shifting its business
focus to investing in blockchain technologies.

In February 2018 Riot was hit with a class action lawsuit in the
Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleged that the
company failed to disclose that it had changed its name to Riot
Blockchain in order to generate investor enthusiasm and tie the
company to the then recent rise in the price of cryptocurrencies.
This was done despite Riot's lack of a significant blockchain
business in order to further an insider scheme that would allow
controlling shareholder Barry Honig and his associates to sell
their Riot securities at artificially inflated prices. [GN]


SAFE HAVEN: Martin et al. Seek to Certify Salespeople Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned ISAIAH MARTIN, KIRK KINCAID,
and ERIK FOUTS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SAFE HAVEN SECURITY SERVICES, INC.,
the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00063-ODS (W.D. Mo.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court on Jan. 15, 2019, for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the case a collective action;

   2. authorizing Plaintiffs to send notice of the case to:

      "all current and former Salespeople/"Inside Sales
      Representatives" employed by Safe Haven Security Services,
      Inc., within the past three years who were subject to
      Defendant's policy of denying compensation for any employee
      who worked more than 45 hours in a workweek and/or who work
      more than 40 hours in a workweek, but were not properly
      compensated";

   3. requiring the Defendants to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with

      a computer readable data file containing the name, telephone

      number, last known address, and e-mail address for each such

      current and former employee;

   4. directing Defendants to conspicuously post notice of this
      lawsuit in its facilities for a period not less than 90
      days;

   5. directing Defendants to place a notice in three separate
      paychecks for each potential class member;

   6. designating Isaiah Martin, Kirk Kincaid, and Erik Fouts as
      collective representatives; and

   7. approving Plaintiffs' counsel to act as collective class
      counsel.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Marck N. Middleton, Esq.
          Ryan M. Paulus, Esq.
          CORNERSTONE LAW FIRM
          8350 N. St. Clair Ave., Ste 225
          Kansas City, MI 64151
          Telephone: (816) 581 4040
          Facsimile: (816) 741 8889
          E-mail: n.middleton@cornerstonefirm.com
                  r.paulus@cornerstonefirm.com

SAFE HAVEN: Martin et al. Seek Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
ISAIAH MARTIN, KIRK KINCIAD, and ERIK FOUTS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
SAFE HAVEN SECURITY SERVICE, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00063-ODS (W.D. Mo., Jan. 25, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and related penalties and damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's primary function is to
sell home security systems to homeowners and leases. The
Defendants' practice and policy is to deny compensation to its
employees for any hours worked above 45 hours in any workweek. The
Defendant refused to pay employees more than 5 hours of overtime,
despite requiring they work well above 15 hours of overtime each
week. As a result, the Plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated, have not been paid appropriate overtime under FLSA, the
lawsuit says.

Safe Haven provides residential security systems and
installations.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Marck N. Middleton, Esq.
          Ryan M. Paulus, Esq.
          CORNERSTONE LAW FIRM
          8350 N. St. Clair Ave., Ste 225
          Kansas City, MI 64151
          Telephone: (816) 581 4040
          Facsimile: (816) 741 8889
          E-mail: n.middleton@cornerstonefirm.com
                  r.paulus@cornerstonefirm.com

SAGORA SENIOR: Mickle Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
A case, CATRISHA MICKLE Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SAGORA SENIOR LIVING, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00044 (E.D. Tex., Jan. 28, 2019),
seeks all available relief, including compensation, overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and Texas common law.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated who worked for Sagora Senior Living, Inc.
at any time from January 28, 2016 through the final disposition of
this matter. Specifically, Sagora has allegedly enforced a uniform
company-wide policy wherein it systematically reduced the hours of
its non-exempt hourly nursing assistants -- Plaintiff and the
Putative Class Members -- causing them to perform work
off-the-clock and without pay. Sagora's illegal company-wide policy
has caused Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members to have hours
worked that were not compensated and further created a
miscalculation of their regular rate(s) of pay for purposes of
calculating their overtime compensation each workweek.

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

Sagora knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff
and the Putative Class Members for all hours worked and the proper
amount of overtime each workweek on a routine and regular basis
during the relevant time period. The Plaintiff and the Putative
Class Members did not and currently do not perform work that meets
the definition of exempt work under the FLSA or Texas law, the
lawsuit says.

Sagora Senior Living, Inc. operates senior living communities in
Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Florida.[BN]

Attorneys in Charge for Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members:

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

SALAS CONCRETE: Denied Break Periods, Wage Statements, Cavazos Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John Cavazos, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Salas Concrete, Inc. and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19-at-00035 (E.D. Cal. January 14,
2019), seeks redress for Defendant's failure to pay overtime and
minimum wages, failure to provide meal breaks and proper wage
statements, and failure to pay earned wages upon discharge
including waiting time penalties under Unfair Business Practices
statutes of the California Business and Professions Code, the
California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission
Orders.

Salas Concrete employed Cavazos as an hourly construction worker
from 2011 until approximately September 19, 2018.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David G. Spivak, Esq.
      Maralle Messrelian, Esq.
      THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
      16530 Ventura Blvd, Suite 312
      Encino, CA 91436
      Telephone: (818) 582-3086
      Facsimile: (818) 582-2561
      Email: david@snivaklaw.com
             maralle@spivaklaw.com

             - and -

      Walter Haines, Esq.
      UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
      5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
      Huntington Beach, CA 92649
      Telephone: (562)256-1047
      Facsimile: (562)256-1006
      Email: walter@uelglaw.com


SARAH JONES: White et al. Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
KELVIN WHITE, MICHAEL JENKINS, JEREMY DEERING, and KELVIN DELVONTAE
WHITE, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. SARAH JONES ENTERPRISES, INC., and SARAH A. JONES,
Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00207-EAK-AAS (M.D.
Fla., Jan. 25, 2019), seeks to recover compensatory damages, lost
wages and benefits, prejudgment interest, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees and costs, and any other damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were qualified to
perform their job duties within the legitimate expectations of
their employers. The Plaintiffs regularly and routinely worked over
40 hours in a work week. The Plaintiffs were not paid time and a
one-half their regular hourly rate for each and every hour that
they worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week for all weeks that
they worked.

The Plaintiffs routinely worked past their regularly scheduled work
hours without pay. The Plaintiffs were required to begin work at
6:00 a.m. to travel to the job site and load up the truck. The
Plaintiffs were not considered "on the clock" until approximately
10:00 a.m. The Plaintiffs were then required to clean the truck
"off the clock" after the day's work. The Plaintiffs estimate they
worked approximately 15 hours each week without pay, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

SEALIFT HOLDINGS: Faces Baduria Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sealift Holdings,
Inc. The case is captioned as EUFRONIO JOLLADO BADURIA, and DANIEL
LLAGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SEALIFT HOLDINGS, INC.; SEALIFT INC.;
SEALIFT INC. OF DELAWARE; BLACK EAGLE SHIPPING, LLC; FORTUNE
MARITIME, LLC; SAGAMORE SHIPPING LLC; SEALIFT TANKSHIPS, INC.; and
REMINGTON SHIPPING, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00364-SJF-GRB (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2019). The case is
assigned to Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein and referred to Magistrate
Judge Gary R. Brown.

Sealift Holdings, Inc. operates as a shipping company. The Company
offers general cargo, breakbulk liner, paper, and rice handling
services. Sealift Holdings serves customers in the State of New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Shisha, Esq.
          Ralph J. Mellusi, Esq.
          TABAK MELLUSI & SHISHA
          29 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 962-1590
          Facsimile: (212) 385-0920
          E-mail: jshisha@yahoo.com
                  rjmellusi@sealawyers.com


ST. LOUIS, MO: Class Action Prompts Warrantless Arrest Changes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Byers, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that:


CLAYTON Wanted: Dwayne Furlow

Age: 31

Charge: Domestic assault

Originating agency: St. Louis County police

That's about all a county officer learned about Mr. Furlow when he
ran his name through a regional police database after pulling him
over in January 2016. There was no warrant in Mr. Furlow's name,
but his listing as "wanted" in the database was enough for police
to arrest him and hold him for 24 hours.

No one checked with the detective who had listed Mr. Furlow as
wanted. If they had, they might have learned that three days before
the traffic stop, the alleged domestic assault victim had told
police that she made up the allegations against Mr. Furlow out of
anger and withdrew her complaint.

Mr. Furlow was held for 24 hours, then released. He wasn't
questioned during that time, and he was never charged in the
domestic assault case.

Mr. Furlow was caught up in a practice that is rare in other parts
of the country, but has affected thousands in the St. Louis area.
He was one of an estimated 15,000 people county police officers
entered between 2011 and 2016 into the regional law enforcement
database as wanted, though there was no warrant for his arrest. And
he was one of about 2,500 who were arrested between 2011 and 2016
based on their listing in the database, according to court filings
in a lawsuit Mr. Furlow later filed against the county police on
behalf of himself and others.

Though a judge ruled against Mr. Furlow, saying the practice is
constitutional, the suit still prompted changes. Since September,
St. Louis County police have been using the wanted system only for
more serious crimes. And Wesley Bell, the new St. Louis County
prosecutor who took office on Jan. 1, has said eliminating wanteds
altogether is one of his priorities.

Despite the judge's ruling in Mr. Furlow's case, Bell said he
believes wanteds are unconstitutional. He would like officers to
seek warrants instead, a system he said includes protections for
the accused because warrants require approval from prosecutors and
judges, not just police officers alone.

"We want to make sure we are not violating people's rights, and
there are requirements established when it comes to warrants to
make sure we are protecting people's rights to due process," Bell
said.

How it works
It's not clear when the practice of entering people into a regional
law enforcement database as wanted began. Former St. Louis County
Prosecutor Robert McCulloch, who left office at midnight after 28
years, says officers have been doing it for as long as he can
remember.

Officers in the St. Louis area routinely check the database during
traffic stops and other encounters with the public, arresting those
listed as wanted and holding them for up to 24 hours without a
charge. They've been doing that for years, whether the alleged
offense was a felony, a misdemeanor or an ordinance violation.

In most of the rest of the country, officers would check instead to
see if the person had an arrest warrant, approved by a judge. But
the wanted system, which is unusual outside of St. Louis, doesn't
require there be a warrant for the person's arrest, only that a
police officer somewhere in Missouri wants the person held.

It's a system that Mr. Furlow's lawsuit says can upend lives with
little outside oversight.

"Can you imagine the kind of disruption that can cause in someone's
life, to be arrested and held for 24 hours?" asked Rebecca Gorley,
spokeswoman for ArchCity Defenders, the firm that represented
Furlow. "People have jobs. People have kids."

Ms. Gorley declined to comment further on the matter and did not
make Mr. Furlow nor his attorneys available for comment.

Mr. Furlow's lawsuit played a role in the St. Louis County
department's decision to reevaluate its wanted system. The federal
civil rights class-action lawsuit he filed in 2016 named the county
police, Chief Jon Belmar and the county officer who entered him as
wanted.

"When (lawsuits) happen, you owe it to your community and it's part
of your responsibilities to make sure we're taking a look at what
we do and why we do it," Belmar said.

On Oct. 5, U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey ruled in favor of the
county police.

Judge Autrey ruled that although Mr. Furlow and the other
plaintiffs were arrested without a warrant, a warrantless arrest
can be constitutional if there is "at least 'arguable probable
cause'" to support it. Even a mistaken arrest can be constitutional
if that mistake is "arguably reasonable," Judge Autrey wrote,
quoting an appellate court opinion.

In the plaintiffs' cases, Judge  Autrey wrote that officers who
issued the wanteds relied on witnesses and other evidence that
constituted probable cause. Officers can rely on wanteds to make an
arrest in the same way that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that
officers can rely on wanted flyers or bulletins to stop a person,
question them and detain them while trying to get more information,
Judge Autrey wrote.

Mr. Furlow alleged in the lawsuit that the officer investigating
the domestic assault charge told Mr. Furlow he would enter him as
wanted out of spite after Mr. Furlow invoked his right to silence
in a phone conversation. Judge Autrey rejected that claim.

Belmar changed the county police policy before Judge Autrey's
ruling, even though it went in the department's favor.

As of Sept. 4, his 900 or so officers can no longer enter people as
wanted without a warrant in cases of misdemeanors and ordinance
violations. They can still be issued for those police suspect of
felonies. And other departments continue the practice, even for
lesser crimes.

Another change: When St. Louis County officers learn someone is
wanted, they're now required to contact the investigator who
entered the person in the system. They will seek to learn about the
probable cause behind the entry before making an arrest. And, if
the originating officer cannot be reached, the wanted person will
not be detained, Mr. Belmar said.

As a result, Mr. Belmar expects his officers will make fewer
warrantless arrests and do their jobs like most of their peers
throughout the country.

"Most of American law enforcement doesn't have a system like us,"
he said. "Even the top 10 most wanted by the FBI are individuals
that have federal charges issued against them.

"This also creates an additional layer of certainty that we have
the individual we want and actually have a legit reason to detain
them."

'No need'
A Post-Dispatch series in 2008 on the wanted system found it
developed because prosecutors in the St. Louis area required
officers to get statements from suspects before they would ask
judges to consider issuing warrants. Having suspects' statements
could make stronger cases.

In 2015, the Justice Department criticized the countywide practice
in a report on Ferguson, which quoted "one veteran officer,"
apparently from Ferguson, as saying he would issue a wanted "if I
do not have enough probable cause to arrest you." The report was a
summary of how policing practices in the area were racially biased
against black people.

As of Nov. 15, county police had 546 people listed as wanted in the
Regional Justice System. About 90 percent were for felony crimes,
7.9 percent were for ordinance violations and 1.6 percent were for
misdemeanors. Of those wanted for felonies, about 80 percent were
men, according to a Post-Dispatch analysis of the data. Black
suspects made up more than half of all felony wanteds.

Mr. McCulloch, who was the county prosecutor for 28 years, said his
office was always willing to issue charges on suspects even if they
didn't talk to police. He doesn't consider himself one of the
reasons why police created the wanteds practice.

"Generally we like to have a guy picked up and we like to talk to
him to see what other evidence might develop, but it's certainly
not a hard-and-fast rule," Mr. McCulloch said. "If a warrant
facilitates picking him up, we have no hesitation. I can't tell you
how many cases we prosecuted without a defendant's statements."

Mr. Bell, sworn in early on Jan. 1 after defeating Mr. McCulloch in
August, said he's already met with police departments and municipal
courts throughout St. Louis County to talk about his priorities,
including his desire to end the practice of issuing wanteds. He
said most law enforcement leaders agree with him because it can
make the region safer.

That's because many other parts of the country have no wanted
database. Officers there check for warrants. If a suspect from the
St. Louis area who is wanted but not yet charged leaves the area,
officers elsewhere would have no way to know the person is wanted.

"When someone is accused of a violent or serious crime, it makes it
hard for officers (elsewhere) to catch them because they're often
not in their system because there's no warrant," Mr. Bell said.

Mr. Bell said the St. Louis County police policy change is a step
in the right direction, but wants to see the practice eliminated
entirely.

"I look at it as a sign of cooperation when I see departments start
to go away from the wanted system," he said. "If they have the
requirements for a warrant, we should be issuing that warrant, in
which case there will be no need for a 'wanted' in these
situations."

Robert Patrick and Janelle O'Dea of the Post-Dispatch contributed
to this report. [GN]


STADION MONEY: Sued over Underperformance of Retirement Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Davis, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs. Stadion Money
Management, LLC, and United of Omaha Life Insurance Company, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00119-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C., Jan. 25,
2019), alleges that the Defendants have breached their fiduciary
duties and engaged in other unlawful conduct to the detriment of
Plaintiff and the Class, and seeks to recover losses caused by this
unlawful conduct, prevent further similar conduct, and obtain
equitable and other relief as provided by the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

Stadion provides a managed account service to participants in
employer-sponsored retirement plans governed by ERISA. Through the
service, participants pay Stadion a fee, and in return, Stadion
accepts complete fiduciary discretion to manage the participant's
retirement account by allocating the participant's account balance
among the investment options offered within the plan. Stadion is
not a well-known investment manager. Although Stadion has over $3
billion in assets under management within its managed account
service, this is based not on the strength of its investment
management acumen, but on its relationships with insurance
companies who market group annuity products to small and midsize
retirement plans. This case focuses on Stadion's relationship with
United of Omaha, and the self-interested conduct of both parties in
relation to Class members' retirement assets.

According to the complaint, Stadion depends on United of Omaha as
its entree to employers. United of Omaha sells employers a group
annuity product that serves as a one-stop-shop for employees'
retirement savings. Employees receive account statements,
investment information, and a menu of investment options, and
United of Omaha receives fees. United of Omaha also pitches
Stadion's managed accounts as an add-on service. If employers
include Stadion's service, Stadion exercises complete discretion
over participating employees' accounts by selecting investments
from the menu of options in the employer's retirement plan. Stadion
receives a fee from participating employees, which it shares with
United of Omaha and its affiliates.

It is not unusual for a managed account provider to depend on
another provider to pitch their service to employers. Nor is it
unusual for the managed account fee to be split between them. There
is potential for abuse, however, if a managed account provider can
confer additional benefits on its marketing partner or itself by
selecting certain investment options over others for participants.
Unfortunately, that is what happened here, and Defendants violated
ERISA by putting their own interests ahead of retirement plan
participants.

Stadion owed fiduciary duties under ERISA to every participant
enrolled in its service. These duties are "the highest known to the
law." Stadion was required to act solely in the interest of
participants and beneficiaries, and "exclude all selfish interest
and all consideration of the interests of third persons." Stadion
also was required to manage participants' accounts with the care,
skill, prudence, and diligence of a prudent person in similar
circumstances. Omaha could not knowingly benefit from Stadion's
violations of ERISA in connection with the managed account program.
Stadion breached its fiduciary duties by making investment
decisions to further its own interests and the interests of United
of Omaha. Stadion directed participants' accounts into United of
Omaha- and Stadion-affiliated investment options, despite the
availability of lower-cost, higher-performing investment options
within the plan that would have better met the needs of
participants. In certain cases, there were identical options
available in the plan menu that would have charged 50% less in
fees. Stadion avoided these options because they did not generate
as much revenue for its business partner, United of Omaha. In other
cases, Stadion financially benefited itself and United of Omaha by
continuing to use Stadion-affiliated accounts despite their
underperformance on both an absolute and risk-adjusted basis.

United of Omaha improperly retained revenue resulting from
Stadion's malfeasance despite knowledge of Stadion's compromised
loyalty and imprudence. Indeed, United of Omaha expected
preferential treatment from Stadion in exchange for retaining
Stadion as a managed account provider available through its
retirement platform. Based on this conduct, Defendants cost
participants millions of dollars in losses due to excess fees and
investment underperformance. To remedy this, Plaintiff asserts
ERISA claims against Stadion for breach of the fiduciary duties of
loyalty and prudence (Count I) and prohibited transactions (Counts
III & IV), and against United of Omaha for knowingly profiting from
a fiduciary breach (Count II).

Stadion Money Management, LLC is a privately owned investment
manager. The firm also provides retirement account management
services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          F. Hill Allen, Esq.
          THARRINGTON SMITH, L.L.P.
          P.O. Box 1151
          Raleigh, NC 27602-1151
          Telephone: 919-821-4711
          Facsimile: 919-829-1583
          E-mail: hallen@tharringtonsmith.com

               - and -

          Kai H. Richter, Esq.
          Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
          Paul Lukas, Esq.
          Brandon T. McDonough, Esq.
          Brock J. Specht, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center, 80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: 612-256-3200
          Facsimile: 612-338-4878
          E-mail: krichter@nka.com
                  cengstrom@nka.com
                  lukas@nka.com
                  bmcdonough@nka.com
                  bspecht@nka.com

STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Lawsuit Disputes Background Check Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Knowles, writing for The Stanford Daily, reports that a
class action lawsuit alleges that Stanford violated federal law by
failing to get proper consent from prospective employees before
performing background checks.

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), employers conducting
background checks must notify potential hires of checks in advance
and obtain signed authorization forms. The FCRA requires that
employers disclose their intent to use background checks in a
"document that consists solely of the disclosure." The lawsuit
claims that Stanford failed to meet this stand-alone document
requirement by combining its background disclosure with additional
language that states that "all persons or entities requesting or
supplying" relevant background information are released from
liability. Such extra information could distract from the
background check disclosure, the suit argues.

The University could be ordered to pay up to $1,000 per person for
whom it performed a background check that was not properly
authorized, as well as other damages and attorney's fees, the
lawsuit states.

An initial case management conference for the lawsuit, which was
filed in October, is scheduled for Jan. 30 at a District Court in
San Jose. The lawsuit proposes a class action on behalf of anyone
who did not properly consent to background check between Aug. 16,
2015 and a date that will be determined by the court. The named
plaintiff in the case is Theresa Richard, who according to the suit
was hired in 2017 as a dining worker at Stanford's Residential &
Dining Enterprises (R&DE).

Stanford spokesperson EJ Miranda said the University will seek to
dismiss the claim.

"This lawsuit is baseless," he wrote in an email to The Daily. "The
plaintiff received and signed a FCRA disclosure form which was
fully compliant with the law."

Stanford's Human Resources website includes an employment
application with a background check consent section at the end, as
well as a separate background check form intended "for use when
there is no SU Employment Application." Both forms contain language
mostly identical to what the lawsuit takes issue with.

"I agree to cooperate in the Background Investigation . . . . and
to release from all liability and responsibility all persons or
entities requesting or supplying such information in connection
with the Background Investigation," Stanford's forms state.

While the lawsuit focuses on the note about liability, the Federal
Trade Commission also states on its website that the FCRA-mandated
background check notice "cannot be in an employment application."


Asked if the background check section included in the "Employment
Application" document on Stanford's Human Resources website
violates the FTC's guidance, Miranda stated that "the disclosure
and consent form is a standalone document and is not contained in
the employment application."

Other recent class action lawsuits have successfully sought
compensation from employers — including Stanford — for failing
to clearly disclose and gain consent for background checks as set
out in the FCRA.

A district court ruled in 2015 that Stanford violated the FCRA's
stand-alone stipulation by noting seven state laws and adding a
disclaimer that "nothing herein shall be construed as an offer of
employment or contract for services," alongside the school's
disclosure to applicants about background checks.

A 2018 district court verdict reinforced that ruling by holding
that extra language about state law and other documents, as well as
a link to a privacy policy, prevented an employer's materials from
meeting the stand-alone notice bar.

However, the Central District of California ruled this year in an
employer's favor in another suit about FCRA technicalities, finding
that Hansen & Adkins Auto Transport did not break the law by
including its background checks notice at the back of an
application packet and within a package of several documents. The
Court found that the relevant disclosure need not be provided
"separate in time from any other documents" and that the disclosure
form itself met standards.

Lawyers representing the complainant did not respond to a request
for comment. [GN]


TIDAL BASIN: Gonzalez Seeks Unpaid Wages for Workers
----------------------------------------------------
YAHAIRA GONZALEZ, on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TIDAL BASIN HOLDING, INC.
and VANGUARD EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, the Defendants, Case No.
7:19-cv-00058-GEC (W.D. Va., Jan. 28, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate
Plaintiff and the Class Members at the rate of time and one half
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a
workweek as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and the employees she seeks to represent are current
and former workers classified as independent contractors by Tidal
Basin Holdings, Inc. and Vanguard Emergency Management. The
Defendants violated the FLSA by misclassifying the Plaintiff and
Class Members as independent contractors instead of as employees.
Consequently, Defendants' compensation policy violates the FLSA's
mandate that non-exempt employees, such as the Plaintiff and Class
Members, be compensated at 1-1/2 times their regular rate of pay
for each hour worked over 40 in a week, the lawsuit says.

Vanguard Emergency Management is a company owned, controlled, and
operated by Tidal Basin Holdings, Inc. Vanguard Emergency
Management provides housing inspection services for those
individuals whose homes have been damaged by a natural
disaster.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Class Members:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
          124409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com
                  gassaad@kennedyhodges.com

               - and -

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net

TRANSAMERICA CORP: Faces ERISA Class Action Over 401(k) Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a proposed class of roughly 17,000 participants
in Transamerica Corp.'s 401(k) plan have sued the financial
services company in Iowa federal court, claiming it flouted the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act. [GN]


TRIDENT ASSET: Green Files Case Under FDCPA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trident Asset
Management, LLC. The case is styled as Harold Green, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Trident Asset Management, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00591
(E.D. N.Y., January 30, 2019).

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

Trident Asset Management, LLC offers collection services and
servicing of non-performing consumer receivables.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
   Barshay Sanders, PLLC
   100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 203-7600
   Fax: (516) 281-7601
   Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


TRILLIANT FOOD: Mitchell Seeks OT Pay for Production Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, KATHLEEN MITCHELL on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TRILLIANT FOOD AND
NUTRITION, LLC, 1101 Moasis Drive Little Chute, Wisconsin 54140,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00147 (E.D. Wisc., Jan. 28, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon
wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory
and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court
may deem appropriate, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated are current and former hourly-paid,
non-exempt Production employees of Trilliant Food and Nutrition,
LLC.  The Defendant allegedly operated (and continues to operate)
an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to
compensate all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt
Production employees for all hours worked and work performed each
workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay, by:

     (1) failing to include all non-discretionary compensation,
such as bonuses, commissions, incentives, and/or other monetary
payments of rewards, in said employees' regular rates of pay for
overtime calculation purposes, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL;
and

     (2) failing to compensate said employees for meal periods
during which they were not completely relieved of duty or free from
work for at least 30 consecutive minutes, in violation of the
WWPCL.

The Defendant's failure to compensate its hourly paid, non-exempt
Production employees for compensable work performed, including but
not limited to at the correct and lawful overtime rate of pay, was
intentional, willful, and violated federal law as set forth in the
FLSA and state law as set forth in the WWPCL, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant formerly known as Victor Allen's Coffee, is a
privately owned company headquartered in Little Chute, Wisconsin
that produces and manufactures food, beverage, and nutrition
products.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

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

TSYS BUSINESS: Court Grants Final Approval of Gardiner Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued an Order granting Final Approval of the
Settlement Agreement in the case captioned ADAM GARDINER, JOSEPH
GRECO, and SEAN CONROY, as individuals and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TSYS BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC,
f/k/a TRANSFIRST, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; TOTAL
SYSTEM SERVICES, INC., a Georgia corporation; and DOES 1 through
100, Defendants. Case No. 8:18-cv-00415 DOC (JCGx). (C.D. Cal.).

The Court grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement because
it meets the criteria for final settlement approval. The settlement
falls within the range of approval as fair, adequate, and
reasonable, appears to be the product of arm's-length and informed
negotiations, and treats all members of the Settlement Class
fairly.

The Court finds that the distribution by U.S. first-class mail of
the Class Notice constituted the best notice practicable under the
circumstances to all persons within the definition of the
Settlement Class and fully met the requirements of due process
under the United States Constitution and applicable state law.
Based on evidence and other material submitted in conjunction with
the Final Approval Hearing, the notice to the Settlement Class was
adequate.  

The Court finds, for purposes of settlement only, that the
Settlement Class satisfies the applicable standards for
certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
23(b)(3) and under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly,
solely for purposes of effectuating this Settlement, this Court has
certified the Settlement Class, as defined above. Because the
Settlement Class is being certified here for settlement purposes
only, the Court need not (and does not) address the manageability
requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).  

The Court approves the Settlement, and each of the releases and
other terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement, as fair,
reasonable, and adequate as to the Settlement Class, the Class
Representatives, and Defendants (Settling Parties). The Settling
Parties and the Settlement Administrator are directed to perform in
accordance with the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

The Court approves the payment from the Gross Settlement Amount of
settlement administration costs in the amount of $16,500.00 to
Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC, the Settlement Administrator, for
services rendered in this matter. The Court also approves payment
from the Gross Settlement Amount of an Incentive Payment of
$7,500.00 to each of the Class Representatives (for a total of
$22,500.00) to reimburse the Class Representatives for their
valuable services in initiating and maintaining this litigation and
the benefits conferred onto the Settlement Class as a result of the
Action. The Court finds that these payments are fair and
reasonable. The Settlement Administrator is directed to make the
foregoing payments in accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.

The Court approves a payment from the Gross Settlement Amount of
$37,500.00 to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency
for its share of penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act, pursuant to Labor Code Section 2699(i), in accordance
with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

The Court awards to Class Counsel the amount of $428,333.33 for
attorney's fees, and the amount of $14,324.78 for litigation costs.
Based on Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class
Representative Incentive Payments, the Court finds that Class
Counsel advanced legal theories on a contingent-fee basis, and that
their efforts resulted in a substantial monetary recovery for the
Settlement Class. The Court finds this payment to be fair and
reasonable. The Settlement Administrator is ordered to make these
payments to Class Counsel in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 24, 2018 Judgment
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7dknxbn from
Leagle.com.

Adam Gardiner, as individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Joseph Greco, as individuals and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,, Plaintiffs, represented by Paul Keith Haines
-- phaines@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group APC, Daniel
Johnson Brown -- dbrown@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group APC
& Tuvia Korobkin -- tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law
Group APC.

Sean Conroy, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Hamner
-chamner@hamnerlaw.com -- Hamner Law Offices APC, Isam C. Khoury --
Ikhoury@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury and Singer, Jeff Geraci --
jgeraci@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury and Singer, Michael D. Singer
msinger@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury and Singer & Paul Keith Haines
-- phaines@haineslawgroup.com -- Haines Law Group APC.

TSYS Business Solutions, LLC, a Delaware limited liablity company &
Total System Services, Inc., a Georgia corporation, Defendants,
represented by John R. Giovannone -- jgiovannone@cdflaborlaw.com --
Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers' Class Action Can Go Ahead
-----------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit
against the ride-hailing company Uber filed by one of its drivers
will go ahead after Ontario's top court reversed a lower court
decision that would have sent the matter to arbitration overseas.

In a ruling released on Jan. 2, the Court of Appeal for Ontario
says a clause in Uber's services agreement that requires all
disputes to go through arbitration in the Netherlands amounts to
illegally outsourcing an employment standard and therefore cannot
stand.

It further concludes that the clause takes advantage of the
significant power and financial disparity between Uber and its
drivers, who would bear up to $14,500 US in filing fees just to
begin the arbitration process, no matter the amount at stake in the
dispute.

"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," the appeal court said. "It is a reasonable
inference that Uber did so knowingly and intentionally."

Lawsuit stayed by motion judge
The lawsuit, which claims Uber drivers are employees rather than
contractors and thus subject to Ontario's labour legislation, had
been stayed in 2018 by a motion judge who found Uber drivers were
bound by the arbitration clause.

The three-judge appeal panel says the motion judge erred on several
points, including in considering the arbitration clause like the
kind seen in "normal commercial contracts" where the parties are
relatively equal in power and sophistication.

A spokesman for Uber Canada says the company will be reviewing the
appeal ruling.

The appeal court ruling does not deal with the claims made in the
lawsuit, which will be tested in civil court. Nor does it rule on
whether the suit qualifies as a class action.

The man behind the suit, David Heller, is a 35-year-old driver for
UberEats, a service that calls on drivers to deliver food from
restaurants to Uber customers. He argues that Uber drivers are
employees, which makes them entitled to a minimum wage, vacation
pay and other protections under Ontario's Employment Standards
Act.

"This decision confirms that employment laws actually matter in
Ontario, and that you cannot deprive workers of their legal rights
under the Ontario Employment Standards Act by sending them 6,000 km
overseas to enforce those rights at exorbitant personal cost,"
lawyer Lior Samfiru, who represents Mr. Heller, said in a
statement.

"Legal rights are meaningless if there is no mechanism to enforce
those rights. Uber's contract with its drivers seeks to make the
enforceability of rights virtually impossible. The court sent a
loud and clear message that this is illegal in Ontario."

Contracting out employment standards prohibited
The appeal court said the law prohibits employers from contracting
out employment standards.

Another lawyer for the plaintiff, Michael Wright of Cavalluzzo LLP,
told CBC News that one aspect of the court's decision has already
made a significant impact on employment law.

Michael Wright says one aspect of the court's decision already made
a significant impact on employment law. (Cavalluzzo LLP)
"The Court of Appeal was very strong in emphasizing how seriously
it takes any efforts to contract out of the Ontario Employment
Standards Act, which is the minimum standards legislation [in] the
province for all employees," he said.

"Going forward, the significant issue is going to be how is the law
going to respond to these much less conventional arrangements than
have traditionally been the case in the workforce."

It also found that a provision that allows workers to file
complaints against an employer with the Ministry of Labour
constitutes an employment standard. And so, in requiring disputes
to go to arbitration, Uber's services agreement is illegally
contracting out the employment standard that establishes a
mechanism to deal with complaints, and depriving Heller of the
right to have the ministry investigate his complaint, the ruling
said.

"This is of some importance for, among other reasons, if a
complaint is made then the Ministry of Labour bears the burden of
investigating the complaint. That burden does not fall on the
appellant. Under the arbitration clause, of course, the appellant
would bear the entire burden of proving his claim," the decision
read.

Arbitration clause invalid
The fact that Heller chose to file a lawsuit rather than complain
to the ministry doesn't change that finding, the appeal court
said.

The arbitration clause is invalid regardless of his decision, it
said, and both a complaint to the ministry and a proposed class
action would rule on the issue publicly and for all Uber drivers --
unlike arbitration, which would affect only him and do so
privately.

The court also found that the arbitration clause "represents a
substantially improvident or unfair bargain" in that it
disproportionately favours Uber in any dispute brought by its
drivers.

"It requires an individual with a small claim to incur the
significant costs of arbitrating that claim . . . the fees for
which are out of all proportion to the amount that may be involved.
And the individual has to incur those costs up front," the court
said.

The evidence showed that starting arbitration costs the applicant
roughly $14,500 US, which does not include the costs of travel,
accommodation or counsel, the appeal panel said.

"These costs are to be contrasted with the appellant's claim for
minimum wage, overtime, vacation pay and the like brought by a
person earning $400-$600 per week," it said.

"Additionally, the arbitration clause requires each claimant to
individually arbitrate his/her claim and to do so in Uber's home
jurisdiction, which is otherwise completely unconnected to where
the drivers live, and to where they perform their duties. Still
further, it requires the rights of the drivers to be determined in
accordance with the laws of the Netherlands, not the laws of
Ontario, and the drivers are given no information as to what the
laws of the Netherlands are," it said.

The court has ordered Uber to pay Mr. Heller his costs for the
appeal, a total of $20,000. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Can't Pause Suit Over Migrant Teens' Detention
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a D.C. federal judge has refused to pause a
class action challenging the detention of migrant teenagers in
adult facilities despite the lapse in federal funding during the
government shutdown. [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: Workers Oppose Supreme Court Review Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court shouldn't hear a case asking whether the University
of Southern California can use arbitration agreements to avoid a
class action over its retirement plan, university workers said.

The appeals court decision favoring the workers was based on a
sound reading of the relevant arbitration agreements and wasn't in
conflict with any Supreme Court or federal appeals court opinions,
the workers said in their Dec. 31 opposition to the school's
request for Supreme Court review. [GN]


VISA INC: Amended Deal with Damages Class Wins Initial Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 31, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2018, that a district court has granted
preliminary approval on the Damages Class plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement, in the
Interchange Multidistrict Litigation (MDL).

On December 6, 2018, the district court held a hearing on the
Damages Class plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the
Amended Settlement Agreement, and on January 24, 2019, the district
court granted preliminary approval.

Settlement discussions with plaintiffs purporting to act on behalf
of the putative Injunctive Relief Class are ongoing. On January 16,
2019, the bank defendants moved to dismiss the claims brought
against them by the Injunctive Relief Class, on the grounds that
plaintiffs lack standing and fail to state a claim against the bank
defendants.

Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.


VISTA ACQUISITION: Stell Seeks Unpaid 60 Days' Pay & Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
CONDIE STELL on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, 148 S Edgehill Ave Austintown, OH 44515, the Plaintiff,
vs. VISTA ACQUISITION COMPANY LLC a/k/a VISTA WINDOW COMPANY LLC
1701 Henn Parkway Lordstown, OH 44481, and PARADIGM OPERATING
COMPANY, LLC 56 Milliken Street Portland, Maine 04103, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00203-BYP (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 25, 2019),
seeks to recover damages in the amount of 60 days' pay and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 benefits by reason of
Defendants' violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988.

According to the complaint, although the Plaintiff and the Other
Similarly Situated Employees were nominally employed by Defendant,
Vista Acquisition Company LLC a/k/a Vista Window Company LLC,
pursuant to the WARN Act's single employer rule, Paradigm Operating
Company, LLC was also the Plaintiff's and the Other Similarly
Situated Employees "Employer" until they were terminated as part
of, or as a result of a mass layoff and/or plant closing ordered by
Defendants on or about December 6, 2018-January 16, '2019 and
thereafter.

The Defendants allegedly violated the WARN Act by failing to give
the Plaintiff and the Other Similarly Situated Employees of the
Defendants at least 60 days' advance written notice of termination,
as required by the WARN Act. As a consequence, the Plaintiff and
the Other Similarly Situated Employees of the Defendants are
entitled under the WARN Act to recover from the Defendants their
wages and ERISA benefits for 60 days, none of which has been paid.

The Defendants employed 100 or more employees, exclusive of
part-time employees, or employed 100 or more employees who in the
aggregate worked at least 4,000 hours per week exclusive of hours
of overtime within the United States as defined by the WARN Act and
employed more than 60 employees at the Facility, the lawsuit says.

Vista Window Company, LLC manufactures vinyl replacement windows
and patio doors in the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Kenneth R. Cookson, Esq.
          KEGLER BROWN HILL & RITTER
          Capitol Square, Suite 1800
          65 East State Street
          Columbus, OH 43215-4294
          Telephone (614) 462-5445
          Facsimile (614) 464-2634

               - and -

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
          132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 581-5005
          Facsimile: (212) 581-2122

               - and -

          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM
          182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 433-8100
          Facsimile: (251) 433-8181

               - and -

          THE NLG MAURICE AND JANE SUGAR
          LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
          4605 Cass Ave.
          Detroit, MH 48201
          Telephone: (313) 993-4505

WAYFAIR INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
(http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/wayfair/)today announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Wayfair
Inc. (NYSE:W) Class A common stock during the period between August
2, 2018 and October 31, 2018 (the "Class Period"). This action was
filed in the District of Massachusetts and is captioned Goodstein
v. Wayfair Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-10062.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Wayfair Class A common stock during the
Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its
choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, Mary K. Blasy of Robbins Geller
at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com.
You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/wayfair/.

The complaint charges Wayfair and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Wayfair is an online purveyor of household retail goods. The
Company offers approximately 10 million products for the home
sector under various brands.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse
information regarding Wayfair's business and prospects, including
that Wayfair had been experiencing significantly diminished demand
for its online product offerings and had significantly increased
advertising spending to grow sales. As a result of defendants'
false statements and/or omissions, the price of Wayfair stock was
artificially inflated to more than $149 per share during the Class
Period. Meanwhile, with the price of Wayfair common stock
artificially inflated, certain of its senior executives and
directors cashed in, selling more than $87.75 million worth of
their personally held shares.

Then, on November 1, 2018, before the open of trading, Wayfair
issued a press release announcing its third quarter 2018 financial
results. The Company reported a massive $151.7 million GAAP net
loss for the quarter, or $(1.69) per share, compared with a GAAP
loss of $76.4 million, or $(0.88) per share, for the third quarter
of 2017. In reality, advertising expenses had skyrocketed in the
third quarter to more than $202.5 million, an increase of 43%. On
this news, the price of Wayfair common stock declined
precipitously, falling more than $14 per share, or nearly 13%, to
close at $96.16 per share on November 1, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Wayfair Class A common stock during the Class Period (the "Class").
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

         Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Telephone: 800-449-4900
         Email: djr@rgrdlaw.com
                mblasy@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Court Approves $1,300,000 Settlement in Fowler Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned VANA FOWLER, the Plaintiff,
vs. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., the Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-02092-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam,
Jr. entered an order on Jan. 25, 2019:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class
      action settlement;

   2. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for
      an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of costs to class
      counsel, and incentive award;

   3. approving approves settlement amount of $1,300,000 including
      payments of costs in the amount of $70,000; incentive awards

      of $7,500 to Plaintiff Vana Fowler, and $5,000 to Plaintiff
      Michael Peters; and attorneys' fees in the amount of
      $7,500,000 (less the incentive awards total).

   4. directing parties and settlement administrator to implement
      the Final Order and the settlement agreement in accordance
      with the terms of the settlement agreement; and

   5. directing Parties to submit a joint proposed judgment by
      Feb. 1, 2019.

The Court declines to award the requested $500 each to non-Named
Plaintiff class members Gerald Braxmeyer, Henry Yrlas, Russell
Reece, Seth Hawk, Sandra McKenzie, and Dane Yetzer.  The Court has
found the settlement to be a good and fair deal for the class
members generally, and concludes that it is fair for these class
members as well.  The Court does not believe it appropriate to
award more than 15 times the maximum recovery projected for other
class members to these individuals based on their contributions to
claims that were never filed. The Court is of the view that
incentive awards should be reserved for named plaintiffs, to avoid
creating tiers of differently-treated class members. See, e.g.,
Hendricks v. StarKist Co., 2016 WL 11 5462423 at 14 (N.D. Cal.
Sept. 29, 2016) (denying request for $1,000 incentive payments for
eight "interested party" class members who filed motion to
intervene, assisted with preparation of class action complaint that
was never filed, and were on standby to represent statewide classes
if necessary), aff'd, Hendricks v. Ference, 2018 WL 5115482 (9th
Cir. October 19, 2018).[CC]

XPO LOGISTICS: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP notifies investors in XPO
Logistics, Inc. (NYSE:XPO) of the securities class action pending
in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
and the February 12, 2019 Lead Plaintiff deadline.  If you
purchased or otherwise acquired XPO securities between February 26,
2014 and December 13, 2018 (the "class period") and suffered losses
contact Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.  For more information
visit: https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/XPO or contact Reed Kathrein,
who is leading the firm's investigation, by calling 510-725-3000 or
emailing XPO@hbsslaw.com.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, Defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or did not disclose
adverse information about XPO's mergers and acquisitions strategy
and engaged in improper accounting.

On December 12, 2018, an analyst reported its forensic
investigation results and accused XPO of financial irregularities
"that conveniently cover its growing financial strain and inability
to complete additional acquisitions despite repeated promises."
The analyst concluded, "[g]iven its unreliable and dubious
financials, $4.7 bn debt burden, inability to generate sustaining
free cash flow, and dependency on external capital and asset sales,
we have a worst-case terminal price target of zero."

This news drove the price of XPO shares down $15.77, or about 26%,
to close at $44.50 on December 13, 2018.

"We're focused on investors' losses, the extent to which
management's statements about XPO's M&A strategy and financial
reporting may have been misleading," said Hagens Berman partner
Reed Kathrein.

Whistleblowers:  Persons with non-public information regarding XPO
should consider their options to help in the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.  Under the new program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC.  

         Reed Kathrein, Esq.
         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
         Telphone: 510-725-3000
         Email: XPO@hbsslaw.com
                reed@hbsslaw.com [GN]


YIN WALL: Court Grants Final Approval of Ginseng Growers' Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin issued a Joint Motion for Final Approval of the Class
Action Settlement in the case captioned BAUMANN FARMS, LLP a
Wisconsin limited liability partnership; GLENN HEIER; and AARON
KAISER, Plaintiffs, v. YIN WALL CITY, INC., an Illinois
corporation; SUT I. FONG; CHEONG SAT O; YIN WALL CITY, DALLAS,
INC., a Texas Corporation, Defendants. YIN WALL CITY, INC.
(Illinois), YIN WALL CITY, INC. (Texas), and YIN WALL CITY DALLAS,
INC., Counterclaim and Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. BAUMANN FARMS,
LLP; GLENN HEIER; and AARON KAISER, Counterclaim Defendants and
GINSENG BOARD OF WISCONSIN, INC.; THOMAS HACK, JOE HEIL and KURT
BAUMANN, Third-Party Defendants. Case No. 16-CV-605. (E.D. Wis.).

The Court previously preliminarily approved the parties' stipulated
Class Action Settlement, and certified the Settlement Class as:

     All individuals and entities engaged in the business of
cultivating ginseng in the State of Wisconsin who have registered
as ginseng growers with Wisconsin's DATCP as mandated by Wis.
Stats. Section 94.50(2), during the calendar years 2010 through
2015, excluding Certified Class members who have previously asked
to be excluded from the Class, defendants, and all officers,
directors, employees, and agents of defendants.

The Court grants final approval of the Settlement, and this entire
action, including all claims, counterclaims and third-party claims,
is dismissed with prejudice.

The Court grants final approval to the method of allocation and
distribution of the Settlement Fund as set forth in the Settlement
Agreement. Class Counsel, as the Settlement Administrator, will
distribute the funds according to the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.

The Court grants Plaintiffs' Motions for attorneys' fees in the
reasonable sum of $64,000.00; expenses in the reasonable amount of
$5,556.30; and Class Representative participation awards to the
three named Plaintiffs in the reasonable amount of $1,500.00 each,
all to be paid from the Settlement Fund.

The Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion to File Exhibit A to the
Declaration of Michael T. Hopkins Regarding Registered Ginseng
Growers and Class Members Under Seal.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 24, 2018 Decision
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8bnq98c from
Leagle.com.

Baumann Farms LLP, Glenn Heier & Aaron Kaiser, Plaintiffs,
represented by Michael T. Hopkins, IP-Litigation US LLC.

Yin Wall City Inc, an Illinois Corporation, Sut I Fong, Choeng Sat
O, Yin Wall City Inc, a Texas Corporation & Yin Wall City Dallas
Inc, Defendants, represented by Peter J. Phillips, Lucas & Mercanti
LLP, Eric V.C. Jansson, Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD, Molly
H. McKinley, Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD & Peter N.
Jansson, Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD.

Yin Wall City Inc, a Texas Corporation, Yin Wall City Dallas Inc &
Yin Wall City Inc, an Illinois Corporation, Third Party Plaintiffs,
represented by Peter J. Phillips, Lucas & Mercanti LLP, Eric V.C.
Jansson, Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD, Molly H. McKinley,
Jansson Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD & Peter N. Jansson, Jansson
Munger McKinley & Kirby LTD.


YOGAWORKS INC: Mirza Sues over 89% Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------
RUBINA MIRZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YOGAWORKS, INC.; ROSANNA MCCOLLOUGH; VANCE
CHANG; PETER L. GARRAN; MICHAEL A. KUMIN; MICHAEL J. GEREND; BRIAN
T. COOPER; GREAT HILL PARTNERS, L.P.; GREAT HILL EQUITY PARTNERS V,
L.P.; GREAT HILL INVESTORS, LLC; COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC; ROTH
CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC; STEPHENS INC.; GUGGENHEIM SECURITIES, LLC;
IMPERIAL CAPITAL, LLC; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 19STCV00438 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 17, 2019)
seeks to obtain a recovery for the damages suffered as a result of
the Defendants' violations of the Securities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants failed
in their duty by inducing public investment in the Company by means
of the materially untrue, inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete
Offering Materials. As a result of the materially misleading
Offering Materials, the Company's share price was inflated at the
time of the August 11, 2017 IPO, through which YogaWorks raised
approximately $40.15 million in gross proceeds.

Unfortunately for YogaWorks stockholders, the Company's stock has
consistently traded lower that the $5.50 Offering price, weighed
down by the truth regarding the Company's business and financial
prospects.

YogaWorks' stock has continued to drop, with the Company filing a
Form 8-K on December 12, 2018 reporting that, on December 6, 2018,
it had received a letter from Nasdaq indicating that the market
value of the publicly held shares of the Company for the prior
thirty business days fell below the exchange's $5 million minimum
value and thus, the Company was subject to delisting if it was
unable to regain compliance. The Company then received a second
similar letter from the Nasdaq on December 12, 2018 for its
noncompliance with the exchange's $1 minimum share price
requirement.

As of the filing of the complaint, the Company's stock price has
dropped to $0.58 per share -- 89.5% below the Offering price.

YogaWorks, Inc. operates yoga studios under the YogaWorks and Yoga
Tree brand names in the United States. The company was formerly
known as YWX Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to YogaWorks, Inc.
in April 2017. YogaWorks, Inc. was founded in 1987 and is
headquartered in Culver City, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rosanne L. Mah, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 373-1671
          Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
          E-mail: rmah@zlk.com


[*] McGuireWoods Attorneys Discuss 2 Class Action Rulings
---------------------------------------------------------
R. Locke Beatty, Esq. -- lbeatty@mcguirewoods.com -- and Laura A.
Lange, Esq. -- llange@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuireWoods LLP, in
an article for Lexology, report that that as the new year begins,
this is a good time to recap two of the major Supreme Court
decisions from the past year impacting class action law, and to
look ahead to a couple big decisions on the horizon.

Looking Back

Arbitration and Class Actions

First, in Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis, the Court confirmed
that class action waivers in arbitration agreements are enforceable
in employment contracts, even where the employee is covered by the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Within a year after the
Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, which
held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) overrode any state law
prohibiting class action waivers, the National Labor Relations
Board ruled that class action waivers in employer arbitration
agreements were not enforceable because such waivers limited
employees' rights under the NLRA to engage in "concerted
activities." Federal courts consistently disagreed with the Board's
reasoning until the Seventh Circuit's decision adopting it in Epic
Systems. The Ninth Circuit and Sixth Circuit followed suit shortly
thereafter, creating a circuit split with the Second, Fifth and
Eighth Circuits on one side and the Sixth, Seventh and Ninth
Circuits on the other. On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court ended the
split, holding that the NLRA did not override the FAA's clear
instruction that arbitration agreements must be enforced as
written. Relying on Concepcion, the Court further explained that
the savings clause in the FAA permits courts to invalidate
arbitration agreements only on the basis of contract defenses such
as fraud and duress, not on the basis of defenses that apply only
to arbitration. The Court held that challenges to an agreement
because it requires individualized arbitration attacks arbitration,
not the contract itself, and therefore, was not a basis to
invalidate the arbitration provision under the FAA.

Class Actions and Tolling

On June 11, 2018, the Supreme Court issued another major decision
affecting the class action jurisprudence. In China Agritech v.
Resh, the Court held that American Pipe tolling did not apply to
successive class actions, instead limiting the prior holding to a
putative class members' ability to bring an individual suit after
class certification has been denied. Under American Pipe, the
timely filing of a class action tolls the applicable statute of
limitations for all persons encompassed by the class complaint. If
class certification is later denied, those would-be members can
intervene in the still-pending action. Later, in Crown, Cork & Seal
Co. v. Parker, the Court extended American Pipe tolling to allow
for the putative class members to bring an individual suit rather
than join the original lawsuit in which certification was sought.
The plaintiff (and the Ninth Circuit) in China Agritech attempted
to take Crown, Cork & Seal Co. one step further by filing a new
class action after class certification had been denied in two prior
cases. The Supreme Court, in its decision in China Agritech, held
this went too far. The Court explained that the justification for
American Pipe tolling -- the efficiency and economy of avoiding
multiple individual actions that may be swept up into a class while
the certification issue is being decided – does not apply to
successive class actions. Instead, the Court reasoned, efficiency
favors early assertion of competing class representative claims.
Otherwise, allowing tolling for successive class suits could allow
plaintiffs "limitless bites at the apple."

Looking Ahead

Cy Pres

Looking ahead to 2019, one key issue the Supreme Court may take up
is whether cy pres settlements that award substantial relief to a
fund that benefits the general public but little or none to actual
class members meet the "fair, reasonable, and adequate" threshold
set for settlements under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. The named plaintiffs in Frank v. Gaos, currently
on appeal to the Supreme Court, alleged that Google improperly
disclosed private information regarding their searches to third
parties, and ultimately entered into a settlement agreement that
awarded over $2 million to class counsel, $5,000 to the named
plaintiffs, and $6 million to several privacy advocacy groups –
but no payment to the estimated 129 million class members. The
Ninth Circuit approved the settlement, breaking with the decisions
of several circuits that have held class members must be
compensated prior to allocating funds to other uses, and the
Supreme Court granted certiorari. The reason the Supreme Court may
not resolve this split? Following oral argument, the Supreme Court
requested supplemental briefing on the issue of whether any named
plaintiff had standing under Spokeo to assert the claims in the
first place.

Nationwide Class Settlements

Another issue impacting class action settlements that has not wound
its way up to the Supreme Court yet, but may in 2019, is whether
and when the differences in the state laws that govern the
respective claims of class members across the country preclude
nationwide certification—and thus a nationwide settlement. Before
the Supreme Court can step into the fold, an 11-judge panel of the
Ninth Circuit will issue a ruling following its en banc review of
the prior decision of a three-judge panel to decertify the
settlement based on these state law variances. The case, In re
Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation, arises out of allegations
of automakers marketing artificially high fuel estimates for
certain vehicles. The complaint alleged violations of California
consumer protection laws, and certain objectors contended their
claims must be construed under the consumer protection laws of
their state of residence. Advocacy groups on both the consumer and
defense side of the class action bar have expressed support for
allowing settlement on a nationwide basis under these
circumstances, but only time will tell if that is sufficient to
turn the tide back to approval. [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 ***