CAR_Public/190213.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, February 13, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 32

                            Headlines

3662 BROADWAY RESTAURANT: Nico Lopez Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages
ABSOLUTE CLEANING: Ramirez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
AHOLD USA: NYLL Section 196-d Claim in Amended Belizaire Dismissed
AMP: Attempts to Address Dead Customers' Fees Issues Amid Suits
APPLE INC: Silence on AirPower May Prompt Class Actions

ARCHERS-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Court Narrows Claims in Berarov Suit
ARGO, AL: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Amended Jackson Suit
ARYZTA LLC: $28K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in J. Barnes' BIPA Suit
ASHLEY SERVICES: Reports Proposed Settlement in Class-Action
ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Faces Class Action Over VLTs

BOBCAT ENERGY: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in JLKX Suit
BRUNSWICK CORP: Faces Clark Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
CAFEPRESS INC: Website not Blind-friendly, Claims Garey
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS: Imhoff Moved to C.D. Cal.
CALIFORNIA: Court Denies Class Certification of Daniels Cases

CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: Sexual Abuse Survivor Can Sue, Court Rules
CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Court Certifies Class in Cunningham ERISA Suit
CREDIT CONTROL: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in Bryan Consumer Suit
CREDIT CONTROL: Watson Files Case Under FDCPA in Missouri
DAIRY FARMERS: Aubertine Appeals Order in Allen Suit to 2nd Cir.

DAMASON DESIGN: Cachago Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
DEARBORN MOTORS: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Williams Suit
DOUGLAS, CO: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Tillmon Suit
DR HORTON: Court Dismisses H. Winnie's Suit
DXC TECHNOLOGIES: US Lawyers Attempt to Launch Class Action

ENCLARITY INC: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Mussat TCPA Suit Denied
EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Berlanga Labor Suit Deal Has Final Approval
EXPERIAN INFO: Court Denies Filing of 2nd Amended Mainor FCRA Suit
FINISAR CORP: Bushansky Suit Seeks to Enjoin Sale to II-VI Inc.
FULL SPECTRUM: Workers Hit Misclassification, Seek Overtime Pay

FUN HOLDINGS LLC: Ross Hits Misclassification, Claims Overtime
GREECE: Attica Fire Victim's Family to File Suit
GREENWAY CHRYSLER-JEEP-DODGE: Picton Sues Over TCPA Violation
GYMBOREE GROUP: Faces Pocrass Class Action in Virginia
IDE PONTIAC: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Buehlman FLSA Suit

IMPINJ INC: Plymouth Cty. Retirement Files Securities Class Action
L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Gross Seeks to Halt Harris Merger Deal
LEFFOT NYC INC: Website not Blind-friendly, Garey Suit Says
LOGITECH INC: Files 9th Cir. Appeal v. USDC-CASF in Porath Suit
MARBLECAST OF MICHIGAN: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Fax Lawsuit

MARY JANE ELLIOTT: VanderKodde Appeals Ruling to Sixth Circuit
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Durant Hits Share Price Drop
MAYOR REALTY: Guzman Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MGM & J CORP: Garcia Action to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Pay
MICHIGAN: Changes in Sexual Offender Registration Law Challenged

MOTORCAR PARTS: Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Claims
MRI INT'L: Court Grants $525K Sale of Las Vegas Properties
NAMASTE TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Named Lead Counsel in Workman Suit
NATIONAL COLLE: Duda Files Suit for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Adams Files Personal Injury Case in Indiana

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Caviggia Sues Over Ex-Footballers' Injuries
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Conway Sues Over Student-Athletes' Injuries
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Disregarded Safety of Footballers, Crow Says
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Purdie Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Schultz Brings Claim for Personal Injury

NATIONAL CREDITORS: Glass Disputes Vague Collection Letter
NATURAL HEALTH: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit
NCAA: Phillips Sues over Safety of WVSU Student-Athletes
NCAA: Rizzo Sues over Safety of Iona College Student-Athletes
NCAA: Scott Sues over Safety of McMurry Student-Athletes

NCAA: Shadwick Sues over Safety of Quincy Student-Athletes
NORTHSTAR ALARM: California/FLSA Classes in Smothers Suit Certified
NUSRET NEW YORK: Fteja Hits Illegal Tip Pool
OHIO: Fire, Police Retirees Sue Pension Fund Over Benefit Changes
PREMIER FIRE: Ranieri Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages

QUALCOMM INC: Kessler Topaz Named Lead Counsel in Securities Suit
QUICKEN LOANS: Hill Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
RESOLUTE ENERGY CORP: Edge Files Class Action Over Cimarex Merger
RESOLUTE ENERGY: Mack Files Suit Over Cimarex Merger Deal
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: Shanahan Sues over Unauthorized Calls

RUSSELL CELLULAR: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Poblano Suit Says
SC CLEANING: Padilla Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
SEAGATE TECH: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in HDD AFR Suit Denied
SIMM ASSOCIATES: Taylor Files Suit for Violation of FDCPA
SPAIN INN INC: Dubon Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Pay

STEIN & STEIN: Torres Brings FDCPA Class Action in New York
STINE SEED: Black Farmers Head to Court in "Fake Seeds" Case
TEA POT 88: Hu Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
TERRA DIRECTIONAL: Sakas Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages & Damages
TIVITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Amended Lackawanna TCPA Suit Denied

TRUEACCORD CORP: Nunez Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
UNIFUND CCR: Faces Alvarado Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
UNIFUND CCR: Ohio App. Partly Affirms Judgment in Piaser FDCPA Suit
UNITED STATES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Casiano Suit
UNITED STATES: Sued Over Changes to Special Protection Program

VALE S.A.: Price of Securities Artificially Inflated, Rauch Says
VANVORST LAW FIRM: Faces Shank Suit in NY Asserting FDCPA Breach
VIRGINIA: DVM Commissioner Ordered to Reinstate Driver's Licenses
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Denial of Attys' Fees in Clean Diesel Suit Affirmed
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Denial of Autoports' Bid for Attorneys' Fees Upheld

WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Violates FDCPA, Marshall Suit Says
WALMART INC: Roach Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers
WAYFAIR INC: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
WAYFAIR INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
WESTERN UNION: Celestin Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation

WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Cert./Stay Bid Briefing Sched in Rushing Modified
YELP INC: Reconsideration of Bid to Dismiss Azar Suit Denial Nixed
YOGAWORKS INC: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action Lawsuit
YOUNIQUE LLC: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Schmitt Suit to 9th Cir
[*] Federal Gov't Urged to Take Action on PFAS Contamination

[*] GDPR Likely to Pick Up Momentum in 2019, Consumer Suits Filed
[*] Ill. Employers May Want to Address Class Action Waivers, BIPA

                            *********

3662 BROADWAY RESTAURANT: Nico Lopez Files Suit Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Antonio Nico Lopez (aka Jose), individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 3662 Broadway Restaurant
Corp. (d/b/a Taqueria San Pedro), John Doe Corp. (d/b/a El Patio
Mexicano), and Albertico Chavez, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00975
(S.D. N.Y., January 31, 2019) seeks unpaid minimum and overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of ("FLSA"), and for
violations of the N.Y. Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the "spread of
hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of
Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiff Nico and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours
per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime
compensation required by federal and state law and regulations,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Nico is a former employee of Defendants.

Defendants own, operate, or control two Mexican restaurants under
the names "Taqueria San Pedro" and "El Patio Mexicano".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200
     Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


ABSOLUTE CLEANING: Ramirez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor A. Ramirez and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. Absolute Cleaning Services & Systems Corp, USA
Sweeping Inc., Viviane Ioscote and William Fourment, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-20420-DPG (S.D. Fla., January 31,
2019) is an action seeking to recover money damages for unpaid
half-time overtime wages under the laws of the United States.

The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages at the rate
of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that he worked
in excess of 40, in violation of the the Fair Labor Standards Act,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Victor A. Ramirez is a resident of Broward County.

Absolute Cleaning Services & Systems Corp, and USA Sweeping Inc.
are Florida corporations, having common place of business in
Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Viviane Ioscote and William Fourment were and are now, the owners,
partners, officers and managers of Absolute Cleaning Services &
Systems Corp, USA Sweeping Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Phone: (305) 446-1500
     Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
     Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


AHOLD USA: NYLL Section 196-d Claim in Amended Belizaire Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANSY BELIZAIRE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AHOLD U.S.A.,
Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18 Civ. 5020 (LGS) (S.D. N.Y.),
Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (i) granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint as to the New York Labor Law ("NYLL")
Section 196-d claim; and (ii) converted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint as to the Wage Theft Prevention Act
("WTPA") NYLL Section 195-1 claim to a motion for summary judgment
and granted.

Belizaire and Anthony McAllister bring the putative class action
against Ahold U.S.A., Ahold Delhaize U.S.A., Inc., Peapod, LLC and
The Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC, alleging violations of NYLL
Section 196-d.  The Plaintiffs, who were employed as delivery
workers by Stop & Shop, allege that a delivery fee charged to Stop
& Shop customers was a gratuity under NYLL Section 196-d.
Plaintiff McAllister individually brings an action for the
Defendants' failure to provide proper wage notices in violation of
the NYLL Section 195-1.

The Plaintiffs were delivery drivers employed by Defendant Stop &
Shop in New York.  Belizaire worked as a delivery driver from about
-- to 2017, and McAllister worked as a delivery driver from about
2012 to April 2015.  Defendant Peapod operates warerooms, where
groceries are stored, within Stop & Shop stores.  The delivery
drivers generally pick up deliveries from Peapod warerooms.  Peapod
is a subsidiary of Ahold Delhaize U.S.A., Inc. (previously Ahold
U.S.A.).

The Defendants offer a grocery delivery service and charge their
customers a corresponding delivery fee.  When a customer places an
order on the Defendants' website, the virtual checkout cart informs
the customer that a "delivery fee" is added to the bill.  After
placing the order, the customer receives a receipt that also
itemizes the delivery fee.  Neither the virtual checkout cart nor
the receipt contains a disclaimer notifying the customer that the
delivery fee is not a gratuity.  The website does not contain a
place to add an additional tip, but under a section titled
"tipping," the website states "tipping" is optional.  It is not
expected but always appreciated.  The Defendants retain the
delivery fee and do not pass it on to the drivers.

The Defendants instituted a policy for WTPA compliance.  According
to the policy, hiring managers were required to ensure that all New
York employees hired during the relevant period reviewed and
executed a Wage Notice at the time of hire and annually using the
Human Resources application on the JobsExpress database
("XpressHR").  The Defendants have proffered Plaintiff McAllister's
wage notices from Dec. 4, 2012 (date of hire), Jan. 27, 2013, and
Jan. 24, 2014, all electronically signed by McAllister through
XpressHR.  Each notice states the employee's rate of pay and
overtime.  The Defendants have also submitted other documents that
McAllister electronically signed, including an employment
application, and required IRS and Department of Homeland Security
documents. McAllister filed an affirmation stating that he
continues to believe that he was never provided such documents by
the Defendants, nor did he provide any authorization for his
electronic signature.

To the extent the Wage Order can even be applied to grocery
deliveries, Judge Schofield opines that the term "delivery fee"
does not imply a payment to the delivery drivers, in the way that
"service" or "food service" might suggest a payment to food
servers.  On the contrary, the term "delivery fee" could be
construed as "other specified materials or services" to which the
presumption does not apply.  In short, nothing in the Wage Order
alters the conclusion that the Complaint fails to state a claim for
a violation of NYLL Section 196-d (Count I) regarding the payment
of gratuities.

He also finds that undisputed evidence shows that the Defendants
provided proper wage notices to McAllister.  The parties were
provided express notice of the Court's intention to convert the
motion to dismiss NYLL Section 195-1 claim to a motion for summary
judgment, and were provided a reasonable opportunity to present all
material pertinent to the claim.  The Defendants also filed three
fully completed wage notices from Dec. 4, 2012, Jan. 27, 2013 and
Jan. 24, 2014, all electronically signed by McAllister.  Each
notice states the employee's rate of pay and overtime in compliance
with Section 195(1)(a).  McAllister's W-4 and Union Authorization
Form were also digitally signed on Dec. 4, 2012.  The Defendants
have a policy in place for WTPA compliance and Belizaire, who was
employed at the same time as McAllister, does not allege a WTPA
violation.  Because no reasonable jury could find that that
Defendants failed to comply with the WTPA in providing wage
notices, summary judgment is granted on the NYLL Section 195-1
claim (Count II).

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Schofield granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss Count I (as to violations of NYLL Section 196-d)
and Count II (as to violations of NYLL Section 195-1) is converted
to a motion for summary judgment and granted.  The Clerk of Court
is respectfully requested to close the open motion at Docket Number
32.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/vJ6QPv from Leagle.com.

Ansy Belizaire, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated & Anthony McAllister, on behalf of themselves
and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented
by Jessica Lynne Lukasiewicz --
jlukasiewicz@theemploymentattorneys.com
-- Thomas & Solomon LLP & Michael James Lingle --
mlingle@theemploymentattorneys.com -- Thomas & Solomon LLP.

Ahold U.S.A., Inc., Ahold Delhaize U.S.A., Inc., Stop & Shop
Supermarket Company, LLC & Peapod, LLC., Defendants, represented by
Brendan Thomas Killeen -- brendan.killeen@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Christopher Alan Parlo --
chris.parlo@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Jason
David Burns -- jason.burns@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis &
Bockius, LLP.


AMP: Attempts to Address Dead Customers' Fees Issues Amid Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duncan Hughes, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that AMP is attempting to bury any chance of charging dead
customers' fees and premiums with new "hotlines" and specialist
advice services for brokers, lawyers, family members and friends.

It's the latest attempt by the blue-chip financial services giant
to get ahead of expected criticisms and recommendations from the
Hayne royal commission and follows evidence that staff knew the
company was charging thousands of dead customers.

Revelations about charging dead clients for life cover and other
services became a lightning rod for outrage on the treatment of
financial advice customers and deception of the corporate
regulator.

AMP's share price has more than halved to about $2.45, its
chairman, chief executive and other senior managers have been
replaced and a raft of new strategies unfolded to rebuild investor
and client confidence.

The nation's largest diversified financial conglomerate has
installed a telephone "deceased estate" hotline, dedicated email
address and a reply-paid postal service for brokers,
representatives and others involved with deceased estates.

"Dealing with deceased estates can be difficult and emotional," a
spokesman for the company said.

"This will help brokers and representatives of deceased estates."

She said the changes are in line with recommendations by the
Banking Code of Practice being introduced across the industry.

The new online service provides a detailed five-step guide for
managing a deceased estate's accounts and loans for administrators,
executors and legal representatives of the deceased.

Backdated refunds
It also sets out the documentation required by AMP to enable access
to information or transact on any deposit accounts or loans.

No fees will be charged upon receipt of notice of a death of a
customer with a deposit account or loan. Fee refunds will be
backdated to death and standard interest on loans continues to be
payable.

Fees will continue to apply for joint deposit accounts or loans.

There are no written details on fees and premium payments for
deceased life insurance customers.

AMP recently announced plans to sell its insurance division to
Resolution Life for $3.3 billion.

It has also been introducing credit policy and responsible lending
changes in response to industry reviews, prudential regulator
recommendations and anticipation of reform proposals by the royal
commission.

For example, it recently tightened lending criteria by raising
minimum deposits, no longer lending to borrowers with five or more
investment properties where related income represents more than 50
per cent of total income, cracking down on guarantors and asking
borrowers aged over 50 to provide loan exit strategies.

Interview guides
It has introduced borrower interview guides imposing
responsibilities on mortgage brokers and advisers to inquire about
a customer's requirements, objectives, financial situation and
product and loan preferences.

More changes are expected over coming months as new chief executive
Francesco De Ferrari reshapes his management team and unveils his
business strategy.

But major distractions include preparing a defence against a major
investor class action.

Five law firms are fighting to take on AMP's class action, which
promises to be one of Australia's largest shareholder actions after
the banking royal commission wiped $2 billion from the wealth
giant's market capitalisation in April.

Other financial giants, including CBA, the nation's largest bank,
are also scrambling to put in place new management, strategies and
practices intended to head off royal commission recommendations.

The bank's subsidiary, Count Financial, a financial advisory group,
was exposed for charging customers for advice fees after they had
died, with one planner charging a dead customer almost $1000 a year
for advice for more than a decade. [GN]


APPLE INC: Silence on AirPower May Prompt Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Horwitz, writing for Venture Beat, reports that obituaries
circulated for Apple's AirPower soon after Apple removed the
accessory from its website, and justifiably so. Originally promised
for 2018, the wireless charging mat certainly wasn't the first
Apple product to miss its expected release date, but as a general
statement, Apple explains and reschedules troubled products rather
than making them disappear and going silent. Scrubbing the site of
all AirPower mentions was an atypically bad sign.

According to Venture Beat's Horowitz "Based on evidence available
at the time, including insider claims of serious technical
problems, I strongly believed that AirPower had been canceled or
put on an indefinite re-engineering hold -- either reason should
have compelled Apple to tell customers that they wouldn't be
getting the product they expected in 2018. Only two reasons strike
me as plausible explanations for Apple's continued silence: It
doesn't actually know when AirPower's coming out, or it's concerned
about a massive class action lawsuit by lawyers representing iPhone
8, iPhone 8 Plus, iPhone X, AirPods, and Apple Watch Series 3
owners. "

"Absent any announcement from Apple, I'm inclined to believe the
latter explanation. There have been countless opportunities for
Apple to say something, including responding to journalists'
AirPower queries following big public events in September and
October, or issuing a brief statement through a representative at
any time before 2018 ended. The lack of any AirPower communication
explains why writers were ready with "AirPower misses 2018" tweets
and articles the moment the clock struck 2019 anywhere in the
world.

Canceling AirPower would present Apple with a unique problem: It
was prominently marketed alongside multiple 2017-2018 Apple
products as a way -- arguably the exclusive way -- to enjoy a major
new feature of the devices, intelligent wireless charging. The
iPhone 8, 8 Plus, and X were the first iPhones to support any type
of wireless charging, and AirPower went further, promising that
iPhone screens would offer live status updates on simultaneously
charging AirPods and Apple Watches. AirPower's charging system was
supposed to be so sophisticated that it required at least an Apple
Watch Series 3, and AirPods would require a new wireless charging
case, too."

This could be a legal disaster for Apple. iPhone, AirPods, and
Apple Watch customers who say they bought their devices
specifically to use with AirPower could be entitled to partial
refunds. When a product fails to deliver a marketed capability,
class action lawsuits tend to focus not on whether refunds are due,
but how much the refunds should be, and how many people are
entitled to them. If Apple explicitly confirms AirPower is dead,
you can be sure that class action lawsuits will follow, with tens
of millions of potential claimants in the pool.

Measuring damages could be interesting. Apple would likely argue
that its customers weren't harmed at all, since they never had to
purchase the multi-device charging mat or optional AirPods charging
case, neither of which would have been cheap. But class action
attorneys will say that the promised feature was marketed as a
convenience, and a way to get customers to buy new iPhones, Apple
Watches, and AirPods, all of which were supposed to be easy to
charge together.

In order to show damages, a customer might need to prove that she
bought both a new iPhone and either AirPods or a new Apple Watch
after AirPower was announced, then unsuccessfully sought other
wireless charging options. Apple may have never updated iOS with
the intelligent multi-charging feature, but it did offer new iPhone
and Apple Watch-compatible single-device wireless chargers through
its online store. Some third-party accessory makers have stepped up
with AirPower-esque alternatives, as well

Apple's website scrubbing was likely an attempt to mitigate
customers' damage claims. The company effectively stopped all
marketing of AirPower after a year, pulling all references from
existing pages, then omitting the accessory from newer iPhone and
Apple Watch pages when they debuted in September. Tiny AirPower
references have since been spotted in certain recent device
pamphlets and user guides, but apart from the speculation they've
caused -- namely, that AirPower hasn't been canceled -- they're not
marketing the accessory.

Even so, interest in AirPower has continued, and as long as Apple
says nothing on the record, it is allowing at least some customers
to keep believing that the accessory is still in the works. As
painful as it might be to make a final status update announcement
at this stage, doing so could limit the accrual of further customer
damages, and finally bring this long-unresolved issue to rest.
[GN]


ARCHERS-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Court Narrows Claims in Berarov Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, BETH BERAROV,
and ANNELISA BINDRA, Plaintiffs, v. ARCHERS-DANIELS-MIDLAND
COMPANY, and ADM ALLIANCE NUTRITION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 16
C 7355 (N.D. Ill.).

After the Plaintiffs' horses died from ingestion of monensin,
Berarov and Bindra filed against the Defendants, the manufacturer
of the horse feed the Plaintiffs allege contained monensin, a
six-count, purported class-action complaint asserting claims under
the Illinois Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, as well as claims for
negligent misrepresentation, product liability, unjust enrichment
and breach of express warranty.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant ADM Alliance, a subsidiary of
Defendant Archer-Daniels-Midland, is one of the world's largest
manufacturers of animal feed.  ADM produces feed for both cattle
and horses in the same facility, which is the crux of the
Plaintiffs' complaint.  An ingredient -- monensin -- used in cattle
feed to increase weight is poisonous to horses, and the Plaintiffs'
allege that using the same manufacturing lines to produce both
cattle and horse feed causes an extraordinarily high, unacceptable,
and undisclosed risk of cross-contamination to purchasers of the
Defendant's horse feed products.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
risk of cross-contamination from monensin can be reduced, but it
cannot be eliminated unless a manufacturer uses facilities
dedicated to equine feed. Plaintiffs allege that the horse feeds
ADM manufactures on the same lines as cattle feed (and that are,
thus, at risk for cross-contamination with monensin) include:
GROSTRONG, JUNIORGLO, PRIMEGLO, SENIORGLO, POWERGLO, ULTRA-FIBER,
PATRIOT, MOORGLO and HEALTHYGLO.

Monensin is toxic to humans, who must wear protective clothing and
a respirator while using monensin.  For horses, ingestion of
monensin can be fatal.  The Plaintiffs allege that the amount of
monensin horses can safely ingest is unclear, because controlled
studies to determine the exact amount would kill horses and, thus,
be unethical to conduct.  There is no cure or antidote for a horse
exposed to too much monensin.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have made misleading,
false, and deceptive statements in promotional materials and
packaging and failed to disclose that the Products are manufactured
using a process that creates an unacceptably high risk of monensin
contamination.  They also allege that, in response to press reports
about the death of Bindra's horse, ADM issued a press release.  In
it, ADM stated that when monensin-treated cattle feed is
manufactured in the same facilities as horse feed, trace residues
of monensin can be found in the horse feed.  These levels are far
below levels that are harmful to horses.  Studies show that a
1,000-pound horse can safely consume about 318 parts per million
(ppm) in 30 pounds of feed. At these levels, an average 1000-pound
horse would have to eat 893 pounds of feed a day to consume a
lethal level of monensin.

The Plaintiffs allege that when ADM made these statements, it knew
its manufacturing process left an unacceptably high risk of
monensin contamination and equine death and that purchasers did not
know about the potential for cross-contamination with monensin.
They allege that the Defendants intended for consumers to rely on
their false statements and that the Plaintiffs did, in fact, rely
on the statements to their detriment.  The Plaintiffs allege their
reliance was reasonable, because reasonable consumers do not expect
horse feed to contain monensin or to be manufactured using a
process that creates an unacceptable risk of cross-contamination.

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint in
which they assert the following claims: violation of the Illinois
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (Count I), violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Count II),
negligent misrepresentation (Count III), strict product liability
(Count IV), unjust enrichment (Count V) and breach of express
warranty (Count VI).  They bring these claims on behalf of
themselves and a class they define as all persons who purchased ADM
equine feeds and nutritional supplements within any applicable
limitations period until notice is provided.

The Defendants move to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it is
preempted by regulations promulgated under the Federal Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Act.

Judge Alonso granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.  He dismissed Count I with prejudice.  He
dismissed Counts II, III, V and VI without prejudice.  He dismissed
without prejudice Plaintiff Berarov's Count IV.  The Plaintiff
Bindra's Count IV remains.

Among other things, the Judge finds that (i) the Defendants have
not shown that they are entitled to judgment on the pleadings with
respect to their preemption affirmative defense; (ii) he does not
think the Illinois Supreme Court would imply a private right of
action in the Illinois Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; (iii) the
Plaintiffs have not alleged that the disputed transactions occurred
primarily and substantially in Illinois, and they have not stated a
claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act; (iv) Plaintiff Berarov has not stated a claim for
product liability in Count IV; and (v) the Plaintiffs have not
alleged a plausible claim for negligent misrepresentation.

The Judge granted the Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint
by Feb. 22, 2019, should they so choose.  The case is set for a
status hearing on March 12, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/b7NDTo from Leagle.com.

Beth Berarov, Individually, and on behalf of a ll others similarly
situated & Annelisa Bindra, Plaintiffs, represented by Eric Bruce
Snyder -- esnyder@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser, Llp,
Katherine Elizabeth Charonko -- kcharonko@baileyglasser.com --
Bailey & Glasser, Llp, Mary Patrice Statler --
mstatler@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser, Llp & Patrick Owen
Muench -- pmuench@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser, LLP.

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, Defendant, represented by Stephen
Victor D'Amore -- sdamore@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP,
Andrew Curtis Nichols -- anichols@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn
Llp & Patrick Robert O'meara -- pomeara@winston.com -- Winston &
Strawn LLP.

ADM Alliance Nutrition, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen
Victor D'Amore, Winston & Strawn LLP, Andrew Curtis Nichols,
Winston & Strawn Llp, pro hac vice & Patrick Robert O'meara,
Winston & Strawn LLP.


ARGO, AL: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Amended Jackson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JASON M. JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ARGO, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01241-JHE (N.D. Ala.), Magistrate
Judge John H. England, III of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, (i) granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and (ii)
denied as moot the Defendants' motion to strike portions of the
amended complaint.

The Plaintiff initiated the action on July 25, 2017, against the
City and Officer Glenn Wells.  On Aug. 18, 2017, the Defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint, and to strike portions of it.  On
Aug. 31, 2017, Jackson amended his complaint, and the undersigned
found both of the Defendants' motions moot in light of the amended
complaint.  As with the original complaint, the Defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and to strike portions of it.

The City of Argo is an Alabama municipality located partially in
Jefferson County and partially in St. Clair County.  It has fewer
than 19,000 inhabitants.  On the morning of Aug. 8, 2015, Jackson
was travelling northbound on Interstate 59.  Captain Wells, an Argo
police officer and the city's only officer on duty that day, was
running radar on Interstate 59.  Wells believed Jackson was
travelling at 26 miles per hour in excess of the speed limit.
Based on that belief, Captain Wells pursued Jackson in his patrol
car and, using his emergency equipment, stopped Jackson.  Captain
Wells issued Jackson a citation for reckless driving.

Jackson hired counsel to defend against the reckless driving
charge, and, after the City refused to dismiss the charge, the
matter proceeded to trial in Argo Municipal Court on Nov. 6, 2015.
Captain Wells testified that he has worked at the Argo Police
department since 2006 and runs radar on I-59 pretty much every
Saturday and Sunday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.  Captain Wells also
testified that he's aware of Code Section 32-5A-171(8), which
prohibits a municipality or town with fewer than 19,000 inhabitants
from enforcing the general prohibition on driving in excess of the
maximum speed limit on an interstate highway.

Following Captain Wells' testimony, Jackson moved for an acquittal
on the reckless driving charge, arguing reckless driving requires
the presence of another factor in addition to speeding, but the
municipal court denied the motion.  Jackson was found guilty of
reckless driving and was assessed a fine and court costs totaling
$362.  Jackson then appealed to the Circuit Court of St. Clair
County, posting a $250 appeal bond with the City.  A year after
receiving the citation, Jackson was acquitted of the reckless
driving charge; however, the City did not refund Jackson's appeal
bond.

Jackson's amended complaint asserts the following claims: (1) a 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 count against the City for illegal seizure in
violation of the Fourth Amendment; (2) a Section 1983 count against
Captain Wells in his individual capacity, also for illegal seizure;
(3) a Section 1983 count against the City for excessive fines in
violation of the Eighth Amendment; (4) a Section 1983 count against
the City for negligent training; (5) a Section 1983 count for
inadequate policies against the City; (6) a Section 1983 count
against the City, asserted in the alternative to his fourth count,
for customs and policies encouraging Argo officers to violate
motorists' constitutional rights; (7) a Section 1983 count against
the City for malicious prosecution; (8) a state law unjust
enrichment claim against the City; (9) a state law conversion claim
against the City; and (10) a state law fraudulent inducement claim
against the City.  Jackson also includes a number of class action
allegations.

Magistrate Judge England granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss,
and denied as moot their motion to strike.  Among other things, he
finds that (i) Captain Wells is entitled to qualified immunity
regardless of whether Jackson could demonstrate a constitutional
violation; (ii) Jackson cannot show the City lacked probable cause
to prosecute him for reckless driving based solely on his speed;
(iii) a $362 fine for a reckless driving conviction is not grossly
disproportionate to the offense such that it is unconstitutionally
excessive; (iv) Jackson has abandoned it by failing to respond to
the Defendants' arguments under state law to the extent it is
intended to be an unjust enrichment claim under state law; and (v)
Jackson cannot bring claims on behalf of the putative class to the
extent class claims could be appropriate in the case because he
asserts no viable claims.  A separate order will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/AeL4rz from Leagle.com.

Jason M Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Abbey Herrin Clarkson,
LLOYD & HOGAN, Gregory F. Yaghmai, YAGHMAI LAW LLC & Wesley L.
Phillips -- wlp@wphillipslaw.com -- PHILLIPS LAW GROUP LLC.

City of Argo & Officer Glenn Wells, in his individual capacity,
Defendants, represented by James W. Porter, II, PORTER PORTER &
HASSINGER PC, Jeffrey Williams Speegle, PORTER, PORTER & HASSINGER,
PC & Richard Warren Kinney, III, PORTER PORTER & HASSINGER PC.


ARYZTA LLC: $28K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in J. Barnes' BIPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMEL BARNES, Plaintiff, v. ARYZTA, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-7358 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Thomas M. Durkin of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, awarded Barnes' counsel a total of $28,236 in fees.

Plaintiff Barnes brought the case on behalf of himself and a class
of similarly situated individuals alleging that the Defendant
violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA").
Aryzta removed the case on Oct. 12, 2017.

After Aryzta removed the case to the Court, it filed a motion to
dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) on Nov. 2, 2017.  Under
Rule 12(b)(1), Aryzta argued that Barnes had not alleged a concrete
injury in fact sufficient for Article III standing.  Barnes'
counsel quickly e-mailed Aryzta's counsel to advise that a similar
motion had resulted in a remand -- with fees -- in Mocek v.
Allsaints USA Ltd.  Barnes' counsel offered an agreed remand
without fees.

Aryzta's counsel did not agree to the offer.  Instead, on Nov. 6,
2017, Aryzta moved to withdraw its motion to dismiss and sought
leave to file an amended version raising only Rule 12(b)(6)
arguments for dismissal.  The Court granted the motion to amend on
Nov. 8, 2017.

But Aryzta's amendment did not solve its jurisdictional problem,
and on Nov. 22, 2017, Barnes filed a motion to remand the case to
state court.  On Dec. 20, 2017, drawing heavily on Mocek, the Court
granted the motion to remand without deciding whether there was
Article III standing because Aryzta, who bore the burden of proof
on the matter, did not attempt to persuade the Court that federal
jurisdiction existed.  At that point, Barnes claims it had incurred
only $18,799.70 in fees.

Instead of paying Barnes' fees, Aryzta appealed the case to the
Seventh Circuit on Jan. 19, 2018.  But because the Court had not
quantified the amount of fees Aryzta was to pay, on Jan. 25, 2018
the Seventh Circuit questioned its jurisdiction and ordered Aryzta
to file an additional memorandum as to why the appeal should not be
dismissed.  Aryzta dismissed the appeal on Feb. 8, 2018.

While the appeal was pending, on Jan. 29, 2018, Aryzta filed a
motion before the Court, urging it to reconsider whether Aryzta had
a reasonably objective basis for removal under the Class Action
Fairness Act and accordingly reconsider its award of fees.  Two
weeks into the briefing schedule, on Feb. 16, 2018, Aryzta withdrew
its motion to reconsider in light of the risk that further
proceedings before the Court continue to increase the fee award if
affirmed and the Defendant's concerns that the Plaintiff's counsel
continues to engage in excessive and unnecessary work to inflate
its claim for fees and costs.

Unable to agree to a full resolution on Barnes' fees, the parties
filed the Joint Statement Pursuant to Local Rule 54.3(e) on May 2,
2018.

Barnes' fee petition seeks $48,420.20 for 128.8 hours of work
performed by six attorneys from Edelson, P.C. through the filing of
this petition.  Aryzta argues only $18,778.70 should be paid.  The
parties' disputes are relatively limited.  First, Aryzta disputes
the hourly rates of the two partners, Ryan D. Andrews and Roger
Perlstadt.  Second, Aryzta disputes several categories of time
entries.  Aryzta questions the counsel's entries spent litigating
the remand and its related briefings as excessive and duplicative.
Aryzta also questions the amount of time Barnes spent preparing
this fee petition.  Out of the total 128.8 hours claimed by Barnes'
counsel, 92.9 hours were spent litigating the merits, while 35.9
hours were spent litigating this fee petition.

Judge Durkin finds that the counsel's rates are reasonable given
the market rate that hourly clients are willing to pay, judicial
approval of their rates, and their level of reputation and
expertise in the area.  Accordingly, he will award the counsel
their requested rates.

Next, he finds that the amount of time spent by Barnes' counsel on
internal discussions (a total of 13 hours over the course of almost
four months) reasonable given the various stages the case has seen.
He has reviewed Aryzta's line by line objections and does not find
the challenged work unreasonable except for a few entries regarding
the status hearings.  He will award Mr. Logan 0.5 hours to prepare
for the hearing, but will reduce the remainder of the time.  The
Judge also deducts all the time Ms. Janzen spent preparing for the
hearing and attending the hearing, as it appears that her role was
more of a junior observer rather than a meaningful participant.
Mr. Logan's time thus is reduced by 1.1 hours and Ms. Janzen's time
is reduced by 2.5 hours.

The Judge also finds the time billed for the hearing on Feb. 1,
2018 excessive.  Mr. Perlstadt spent 2.2 hours preparing for the
hearing and 1.9 hours in court at the hearing. Mr. Wade-Scott spent
2.5 hours in total for the hearing, which included 0.6 hours
preparing for the hearing, 1.4 hours traveling to and from court
and appearing in court, and 0.5 hours debriefing with Mr. Andrews.
He holds that while the Court commends Edelson for allowing junior
attorneys to lead and manage cases as Mr. Wade-Scott did, it was
excessive for Mr. Perlstadt to have spent as much time as he did
preparing for the hearing when Mr. Wade-Scott only needed 0.6
hours.  Accordingly, the Court deducts 2.2 hours from Mr.
Perlstadt's time as excessive and duplicative of Mr. Wade-Scott's
work.

He will also deduct 1.3 hours for clerical work billed.
Accordingly, Ms. Janzen's time is reduced by 0.2 hours; Mr.
Wade-Scott's time is reduced by 0.5 hours; and Mr. Tievsky's time
is reduced by 0.6 hours.  This results in a reduction of 31.7 hours
for a total of 61.2 hours awarded for the time Edelson spent
litigating the remand petition up to Aryzta's withdrawal of its
motion to reconsider.

Finally, the Judge agrees that 35.9 hours is disproportionate to
the time spent on the merits of the case.  Accordingly, he will
reduce the requested hours spent litigating the fee petition by
60%.  With this reduction, Mr. Andrews is awarded 1 hour; Mr.
Tievsky is awarded 0.6 hours; and Mr. Wade-Scott is awarded 12.8
hours.  These 14.4 hours generously amount to 23% of the hours
spent litigating the merits.

After all of the above reductions are taken into account, the the
Judge will award the following:

          Lawyer        No. of Hours    Rate        Total

     Sydney Janzen           2          $270

      Todd Logan             8.6        $270        $2,322

   Alexander Tievsky        12.1        $350        $4,235

   J. Eli Wade-Scott      18.6/26.6   $295/$375  $5,487/$9,975

   Ryan D. Andrews         1.8/3.6    $610/$650  $1,098/$2,340

   Roger Perlstadt         1.9/2.4    $610/$675  $1,159/$1,620

        Total               75.63                   $28,236

On June 8, 2018, Aryzta filed a notice of supplemental authority
and request for oral argument in opposition to Barnes' petition for
fees.  The Judge finds that while Aryzta styles the notices as
pertinent to his Opinion, it is clear that Aryzta filed that notice
and the cases attached to it in an effort to convince the Court to
reconsider its opinion granting Barnes his request for attorney's
fees under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447.  Aryzta had its opportunity to
ask for reconsideration of that opinion, but it chose to withdraw
its motion to avoid incurring additional fees. He will not revisit
its decision now.  Accordingly, Aryzta's request for oral argument
on that issue is denied.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Durkin awarded Barnes' counsel a
total of $28,236 in fees.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/UAr71I from Leagle.com.

Jamel Barnes, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Harris Richman --
brichman@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, David J. Fish, The Fish Law
Firm, P.C., J. Eli Wade Scott -- ewadescott@edelson.com -- Edelson
PC, John C. Kunze -- kunze@fishlawfirm.com -- The Fish Law Firm,
Kimberly A. Hilton -- khilton@fishlawfirm.com -- The Fish Law Firm,
P.C., Roger J. Perlstadt -- rperlstadt@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C.,
Sydney M. Janzen -- sjanzen@edelson.com -- Edelson Pc & Todd Logan
-- tlogan@edelson.com -- Edelson Pc.

ARYZTA LLC, Defendant, represented by Kevin Michael O'Hagan, --
kohagan@ohaganmeyer.com -- O'Hagan Meyer, LLC, Jamie L. Filipovic
-- jfilipovic@ohaganmeyer.com -O'Hagan Meyer, LLC & Kristen Ann
Cemate -- kcemate@ohaganmeyer.com -- O'Hagan Meyer, LLC.


ASHLEY SERVICES: Reports Proposed Settlement in Class-Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Staffing Industry Analysts reports that labour hire firm Ashley
Services Group Limited last month announced it signed a head of
agreement recording a proposal to settle a class-action shareholder
lawsuit. The proposed settlement will not be binding until all
parties have signed the terms of the settlement deed and court
approval has been given.

The Sydney-based company also noted the settlement is expected to
have minimal impact on financial results and is expected to be
agreed without admission of liability by any party.

Ashley Services reported the class action was commenced against it
in December 2016 by Richard John Findlay Bradgate as Trustee of the
Bradgate Superannuation Fund.

Claims in the case arose from allegedly misleading statements and
omissions in Ashley's prospectuses issued prior to is listing,
according to IMF Bentham, a litigation funding provider.[GN]


ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Faces Class Action Over VLTs
----------------------------------------------
Ben Hamill, writing for Gaming Post, reports that most of us are
familiar with the term "cognitive distortion". Magicians refer to
its effects as sleight-of-hand and its generally accepted that this
kind of visual deception only works because of each person having a
number of cognitive "blind spots". This is all good and well when
visiting a magician's performance or looking on as someone performs
tricks on the streets. However, when it comes to video lottery
terminals, people do not remain quite as neutral on the subject.
Because now, suddenly there is money on the line. Money guaranteed
to be lost and not won.

But what does tricking the mind have to do with VLT's, you may ask?
More than you would think, according to a class action lawsuit
filed against the Atlantic Lottery Corp. (ALC), by one Douglas
Babstock and Fred Small.

VLT's Not Games Of Chance
Babstock and Small first instituted a grievance against ALC in
2012, when they filed papers with a local court arguing that VLT's,
unlike typical slot machines or Lottery games in general, did not
subscribe to the code of fair games of chance and were in actual
fact in contravention of the country's Criminal Code.

In their filed arguments, they described Video Lottery Terminals as
being deceptive by nature as well as inherently addictive and
therefore also dangerous. In fact, they went on to liken VLT's to
the familiar gambling game, Three Card Monte, which at first
appears to be a simple game testing one's memory, with the onlooker
having to visually track a card that is being moved around. In the
game of Three Card Monte, often presented by street-magicians and
even walk-about con artists, sleight-of-hand is used so that the
person following the card with his or her eyes never actually has a
winning chance.

It's all just trickery of the mind.

Class Action Next In Line
The two plaintiffs are now another step ahead of the game, thanks
to the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal having ruled that
the arguments brought before Court are valid and deserve to be
heard. In fact, so convinced is the Court of the possible merits of
the facts, that permission has been granted for a class action suit
to be filed.

Very good news for the plaintiffs, but very bad news for the
Atlantic Lottery Corp. According to Toronto lawyer Kirk Baert,
there is no malice involved on the part of the plaintiffs.

Mr. Baert pointed out that the very reason that sleight-of-hand
trickery aimed at tricking people out of their money is outlawed by
the Criminal Code is so that this kind of theft -- because that is
exactly what it comes down to -- may be curbed. There was no sense
in allowing technology to now assume the role of street con
artists.

The ALC insists that VLT outcomes are decided completely at random.
[GN]


BOBCAT ENERGY: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in JLKX Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JLKX CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOBCAT ENERGY
RESOURCES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:15CV1993 (N.D.
Ohio), Judge Benita A. Pearson of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denied Bobcat's Motion
for Summary Judgment.

Resource Land Holdings, LLC ("RLH") participated in the Chapter 11
bankruptcy proceedings of D&L Energy, Inc. and its affiliate,
Petroflow, Inc.  The parties refer to the two companies
collectively as "D&L Energy" because the bankruptcy court ordered
the two entities' Chapter 11 proceedings substantively
consolidated.  The proceedings were filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, being Case No. 13-40813.

In response to a D&L Energy solicitation, RLH tendered a "stalking
horse" bid for the purchase of certain of D&L Energy's assets.  The
assets that were the subject of that bid and the APA included the
rights to operate and manage certain joint ventures D&L Energy had
created and managed.  On Oct. 30, 2014, the bankruptcy court
entered the Public Sale Order, approving the proposed sale.  D&L
Energy and RLH scheduled the closing of the Public Sale to be Nov.
30, 2014.

In its capacity as Buyer and RLH's assignee, Bobcat took title to
the various well and pipeline assets that were the subject of the
bankruptcy court's Public Sale Order.  It assigned its rights to
operate and manage the joint ventures, and to operate the various
wells in which the joint ventures hold working interests and
certain pipelines to Bobcat Well and Pipeline, LLC ("BW&P").

The Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants (or "JV Investors") are
non-operator joint venturers of the joint ventures for which BW&P
has been and is today the operator.  The JV Investors invested,
through a number of joint ventures, to own working interests in oil
and gas wells that were sponsored and operated by D&L Energy.

In the Plaintiffs' Aug. 23, 2017 Motion for Class Certification,
they advised the Court that the non-operator joint venturers
entered into a contractual relationship with D&L Energy for the
creation of the DL-JVs.  D&L structured all of the DL-JV Agreements
based on standard form templates, with D&L to serve as the
Manager/Operator of the oil and gas wells.  
The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification was granted without
opposition on Oct. 25, 2017.  On March 21, 2018, the Plaintiffs
produced a group of representative statements D&L Energy had
historically provided to several of the Class Members, which
documents they marked as JLKX00172-479.

Effective Dec. 31, 2016, BW&P reversed the charges it previously
assessed the Class Representatives as working interest owners for
attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the D&L Energy Chapter 11
bankruptcy proceedings while pursuing administrative expense claims
and an unsecured proof of claim.  BW&P has not assessed the Class
Representatives for attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the D&L
Energy Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings at any time from Jan. 1,
2017 to the present.

The Class Representatives have not paid the joint interest billing
statements Bobcat issued from Dec. 1, 2014 to the present because
they do not believe that those amounts are owed.  The JV Investors
did not make payments to BW&P in response to invoices it issued to
them because the amounts allegedly owed are in dispute for the
reasons discussed in the First Amended Complaint With Class Action
Allegations.

BW&P seeks to recoup from the Plaintiffs the deficiency amounts in
various JIB accounts, and previously sought to include plugging
reserve deficiencies in the amounts owed.

The class action was filed on Sept. 25, 2015.  On Oct. 16, 2015,
the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint With Class Action
Allegations.  Count One is for breach of contract.  Count Two
alleges breach of fiduciary duty.  Count Three is for gross
negligence and misconduct.  Count Four requests a constructive
trust. Count Five is for declaratory judgment.  Count Six requests
an accounting.

On March 9, 2018, Bobcat filed an Amended Answer and Counterclaim.
The Counterclaim is for damages against the Plaintiffs for their
refusal to pay the amounts Bobcat has invoiced them under the same
contracts for the same amounts that are the subject of the
Plaintiffs' declaratory judgment claim.

Pending is the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.  Bobcat
argues that the Court should grant summary judgment in favor of RLH
because it was never the manager of the Plaintiffs' joint ventures
nor was it the operator of any of the wells that the Plaintiffs'
own.

Judge Pearson finds that there is a sufficient nexus between RLH
and Bobcat Energy Resources, LLC and Bobcat Well & Pipeline LLC's
because RLH is the owner and financier of the Bobcat entities.
Moreover, RLH financed the purchase of D&L Energy's assets, was a
party to the DL-JV Agreements, and then assigned its rights to
operate the DL-JV Wells to Bobcat.  Finally, RLH assigned and
transferred its Operator interests in the DL-JV Wells to Bobcat
without giving proper notice to the Class Members as required by
Paragraph 12 of the Operating Agreements.  According to the
Plaintiffs, RLH is the genesis of the dispute because its
unauthorized actions resulted in an assignment of D&L Energy's
assets to RLH-controlled entities, causing the resultant
mismanagement of the DL-JV Wells and violations of the various
DL-JV Agreements.

The Defendants move the Court for summary judgment on the
Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims while admitting that they
have failed to pay distributions owed to the Class Members under
the DL-JV Agreements.  The Judge finds that while the Defendants
argue in a conclusory fashion that they have appropriately charged
third-party maintenance fees, they do not identify these
third-party expenses.  Moreover, the Operating Statements for each
well apparently identify numerous third-party expenses for the
DL-JV Wells that are listed separately from the well maintenance
charges.

The Defendants argue the Court should grant summary judgment on
Counts Two and Three in favor of Bobcat Energy Resources, LLC and
BW&P because the relationship between them and the Class Members
arises solely from the contracts between D&L Energy and the Class
Members and to which Bobcat Energy Resources LLC and BW&P became
D&L Energy's successor.  The Judge finds that the Class Members are
seeking punitive damages on their breach of fiduciary duty claim,
so the economic loss doctrine does not apply.  The economic loss
doctrine does not bar Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claim
because the Defendants' fiduciary duty owed to the Class Members
exists for reasons other than the DL-JV Agreements.

Finally, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have incurred no
damages because Bobcat backed out the plugging expenses in an
accounting entry.  The Plaintiffs contend this argument is
untenable considering that Bobcat has expressly stated that it will
re-allocate these expenses against the DL-JV Wells, warranting
declaratory judgment on the issue.  The Defendants acknowledge as
much in the memorandum in support when they state that the issues
about plugging expenses are now reduced to declaratory relief with
respect to Bobcat's future efforts to collect them.

Viewing the Plaintiffs' probative evidence and all reasonable
inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to them,
Judge Pearson denied the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
She reminded the counsel that the case is set for a jury trial on
Feb. 11, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Memorandum of Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/MZEean from Leagle.com.

JLKX Corporation, EJ Esposito Investments, LLC, Helen Esposito
Properties, LLC, Janet Hazboun Investments, LLC, Ed Hazboun
Holdings, LLC, Espo Energy I, LLC, Travaglini Energy Group, LLC,
Michael J Miladore, Diane Miladore, Fred Knox Revocable Trust, Fred
Knox Irrevocable Trust, Jeffrey Nekrutman, Susan Nekrutman & JKT
Trucking, Inc, Plaintiffs, represented by Kevin P. Murphy --
kmurphy@hhmlaw.com -- Harrington, Hoppe & Mitchell & Matthew M.
Ries -- mries@hhmlaw.com -- Harrington, Hoppe & Mitchell.

Bobcat Energy Resources, LLC & Resource Land Holdings, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Bruce E. Smith -- bes@ramlaw.com --
Geiger Teeple Robinson & McElwee, Andrew J. Petrie --
petriea@ballardspahr.com -- Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, pro
hac vice, Sarah B. Wallace -- wallaces@ballardspahr.com -- Ballard
Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll & Brent A. Barnes -- bb@ramlaw.com --
Geiger Teeple Robinson & McElwee.

Bobcat Well & Pipeline, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew J.
Petrie, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, pro hac vice, Brent A.
Barnes, Geiger Teeple Robinson & McElwee & Sarah B. Wallace,
Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll.

Resource Land Holdings, LLC & Bobcat Energy Resources, LLC,
Counter-Claimants, represented by Bruce E. Smith, Geiger Teeple
Robinson & McElwee, Andrew J. Petrie, Ballard Spahr Andrews &
Ingersoll, Sarah B. Wallace, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll &
Brent A. Barnes, Geiger Teeple Robinson & McElwee.

Bobcat Well & Pipeline, LLC, Counter-Claimant, represented by
Andrew J. Petrie, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, Brent A.
Barnes, Geiger Teeple Robinson & McElwee & Sarah B. Wallace,
Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll.

EJ Esposito Investments, LLC, Ed Hazboun Holdings, LLC, Espo Energy
I, LLC, Fred Knox Irrevocable Trust, Fred Knox Revocable Trust,
Helen Esposito Properties, LLC, JKT Trucking, Inc, JLKX
Corporation, Janet Hazboun Investments, LLC, Diane Miladore,
Michael J Miladore, Jeffrey Nekrutman, Susan Nekrutman & Travaglini
Energy Group, LLC, Counter-Defendants, represented by Kevin P.
Murphy, Harrington, Hoppe & Mitchell & Matthew M. Ries, Harrington,
Hoppe & Mitchell.


BRUNSWICK CORP: Faces Clark Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
LENORE CLARK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. BRUNSWICK CORPORATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-00141-WCG (E.D.
Wisc., January 25, 2019), is brought pursuant to the Family and
Medical Leave Act of 1993 and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
for alleged unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief.

Brunswick Corporation is an Illinois-based company with a principal
office in Mettawa, Illinois.  The Defendant designs, manufactures,
and markets marine, fitness, billiards, and recreational
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, 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


CAFEPRESS INC: Website not Blind-friendly, Claims Garey
-------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Garey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cafepress Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-00375 (S.D. N.Y., January 14, 2019), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.

Defendant operates a commercial website, www.cafepress.com which
serves as an online retailer wherein Garey browsed and intended to
make a purchase. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that
Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     SHALOM LAW, PLLC.
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11415
     Tel: (718) 971-9474
     Fax: (718) 865-0943
     Email: Jshalom@JonathanShalomLaw.com


CALIFORNIA TEACHERS: Imhoff Moved to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------
Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California transferred the case, JAMES IMHOFF;
et al., Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION; et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02934-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal.), to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

Pending before the Court is Defendants California Teachers
Association ("CTA") and Colusa Educators Association's ("CEA")
("Union Defendants") motion to transfer venue to the Central
District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).  The
Union Defendants contend that the case is similar to several other
putative statewide class action cases now pending in the Central
District of California brought by public school teachers seeking to
enjoin the collection of "fair-share" union fees.  On Jan. 10,
2018, Plaintiffs James Imhoff and Lucille Imhoff filed a response,
providing that they did not oppose the Union Defendants' transfer
motion.

Given the Plaintiffs' non-opposition to transfer, and good cause
appearing therefor, Judge England granted the Union Defendants'
motion to transfer venue.  The Clerk of Court is ordered to close
the file once the transfer has been effectuated.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/UfZxwf from Leagle.com.

James Imhoff, as an individual, and on behalf of others & Lucille
Imhoff, as an individual, and on behalf of others, Plaintiffs,
represented by Bradley A. Benbrook -- brad@benbrooklawgroup.com --
Benbrook Law Group & Jonathan F. Mitchell, Mitchell Law, PLLC, pro
hac vice.

California Teachers Association, as representative of the class of
all chapters and affiliates of the California Teachers Association
& Colusa Educators Association, as representative of the class of
all chapters and affiliates of the California Teachers Association,
Defendants, represented by Scott A. Kronland --
skronland@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP.


CALIFORNIA: Court Denies Class Certification of Daniels Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NORMAN GERALD DANIELS, III, Plaintiff, v. STU SHERMAN,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01499-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California (i) denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Submit
Multiple Requests for Class Certification Under Rule; and (ii)
denied without prejudice his request for appointment of pro bono
counsel.

The Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se.  On Dec. 17,
2018, he filed a Motion to Submit Multiple Requests for Class
Certification Under Rule.  He asks the Court merges his cases into
a class action.  

The Plaintiff states that he is a legally blind inmate incarnated
at California Statement Prison, CSATF.  He alleges that his civil
rights are being violated by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, as it has continually denied him
the ability to read and write in an effective manner, and has
denied him the ability to purchase and own ADA items that are not
considered medical equipment.  The Plaintiff further alleges that
he has difficulty accessing the courts due to his disability.  He
asks the Court to merge his cases as a class action.

Magistrate Judge Grosjean denied the Motion.  She explains that pro
se plaintiffs may not pursue claims on behalf of others in a
representative capacity.  Accordingly, the action may not proceed
as a class action.  While the Plaintiff may have requested
appointment counsel in order to remedy this defect, the Magistrtate
denied that request without prejudice.  She will not order
appointment of pro bono counsel at this time.  She has reviewed the
record in the case, and at this tim, she is unable to make a
determination that the Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits
of his claims.  Moreover, based on the filings in the case, it
appears that the Plaintiff can adequately articulate his claims and
communicate with the Court.  The Magistrate advised the Plaintiff
hat he is not precluded from renewing his motion for appointment of
pro bono counsel at a later stage of the proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/wU9aYZ from Leagle.com.

Norman Gerald Daniels, III, Plaintiff, pro se.


CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: Sexual Abuse Survivor Can Sue, Court Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Clarke, writing for The West Australian, reports that a
survivor of historic sexual abuse inflicted by several Christian
Brothers has won the right to sue, despite having received two
financial settlements over his treatment at two orphanages in the
1960s.

In a precedent-setting judgment, WA District Court Chief Judge
Kevin Sleight ruled the 64-year-old man, who cannot be named for
legal reasons, could launch fresh legal action against The Trustees
of the Christian Brothers and their leader Brother Peter Clinch.

It is another legal first prompted by changes in WA laws last year,
which removed the statute of limitations on how long after being
abused a victim could sue.

The Civil Liability Legislation Amendment (Child Sexual Abuse
Actions) Act 2018 also provided a pathway for those who had
previously received a settlement to have it set aside, depending on
a number of criteria.

In November, Judge Sleight heard an application from the man's
lawyers that he met all those criteria, after being abused at
Castledare Junior Orphanage and St Vincent's Orphanage Clontarf
between 1962 and 1968.

In 1998, the Brothers offered him a settlement of $2000 -- the
amount awarded to others who had sued the Catholic Church in a
class action, with the caveat that the money "satisfies fully any
claim . . . against the Christian Brothers".

In 2015 -- when time limits meant he was barred from launching
legal action -- he received another payment, this time $100,000.

But on the back of the new legislation, he applied to the court to
be able to begin further legal action.

"He was left with no real choice but to accept whatever amount was
offered by the Christian Brothers without it being necessarily a
reflection of his proper entitlement if he was successful in an
action against the Christian Brothers," Judge Sleight said, in
ruling he could sue.

This comes after another historic ruling in August, when Paul
Bradshaw became the first victim of historic sex abuse to
successfully sue the Church under WA's new laws.

Mr Bradshaw's case was fast-tracked because prostate cancer had
left him with just weeks to live. His damages were settled at $1
million, which set the bar for hundreds of cases to come.

Mr Bradshaw died on October 30 last year, aged 74. [GN]


CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Court Certifies Class in Cunningham ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CASEY CUNNINGHAM, CHARLES E. LANCE, STANLEY T. MARCUS,
LYDIA PETTIS, and JOY VERONNEAU, individually and as
representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on
behalf of the Cornell University Retirement Plan for the Employees
of the Endowed Colleges at Ithaca and the Cornell University Tax
Deferred Annuity Plan, Plaintiffs, v. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, THE
RETIREMENT PLAN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, MARY G. OPPERMAN, and
CAPFINANCIAL PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a/CAPTRUST FINANCIAL ADVISORS,
Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-6525 (PKC) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge P. Kevin
Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs move to certify a class of participants and
beneficiaries of the Cornell University Retirement Plan for the
Employees of the Endowed Colleges at Ithaca and the Cornell
University Tax Deferred Annuity Plan pursuant to Rule 23, Fed. R.
Civ. P.  They assert that the fiduciaries of these plans have not
managed the Plans prudently and have allowed the plans to
underperform and accrue excessive administrative fees.  The
Plaintiffs allege violations of sections 404 and 406 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA").

The five named Plaintiffs in the action are current or former
employees at Cornell University.  Three of the five Plaintiffs are
participants in the TDA Plan and all the five Plaintiffs are
participants in the Retirement Plan.  The Plans are defined
contribution, individual account, employee pension benefit plans
sponsored by Cornell for eligible employees.  The Retirement Plan
is funded by contributions from Cornell on behalf of its employees,
while the TDA plan is funded by employees' pre-tax deferrals of
compensation.  The plans are referred to as "jumbo plans" for their
large size (each well over $1 billion), which the Plaintiffs claim
affords them tremendous bargaining power in the market for
retirement plan services.  TIAA-CREF2 and Fidelity are the two
recordkeepers for both plans.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants are the fiduciaries of
the Plans.  Cornell is the administrator of the Plans.  Cornell
formed co-Defendant the Retirement Plan Oversight Committee, headed
by co-Defendant Mary G. Opperman, to oversee the Plans' investment
options.  Capfinancial Partners, LLC, doing business as CAPTRUST
Financial Advisors, is an investment advisory firm hired by the
Committee.  While the Plans' fiduciaries choose the investment
options included in the Plans, participants may designate in which
of the Plans' funds to invest their individual accounts.  As of
Dec. 31, 2014, the Retirement Plan offered a total of 299
investment options (68 TIAA-CREF and 231 Fidelity investments), and
the TDA Plan offered a total of 301 investment options (70
TIAA-CREF and 231 Fidelity investments).  The Plaintiffs have
invested in many, but not all, of the funds in the Plans.

As the Court discussed in its decision denying in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Amended Complaint plausibly
alleged that all the Defendants except CAPTRUST failed to monitor
and control the Plans' recordkeeping fees, solicit bids from
competing recordkeeping providers on a flat per-participant fee
basis, and determine in a timely manner whether the Plans would
benefit from moving to a single recordkeeper.  It further plausibly
alleged that all the Defendants unreasonably continued to offer as
a fund option the CREF Stock Account and TIAA Real Estate Account
despite high fees and poor performance, selected and retained funds
with high fees and poor performance relative to other available
options, and selected and retained high-cost mutual funds instead
of identical lower-cost funds.  Finally, the Amended Complaint
plausibly alleged that Cornell and Mary G. Opperman failed to
monitor the performance of their appointees to the Committee and
failed to remove appointees whose performance was inadequate as
related to the abovementioned failures of selecting and retaining
funds.

The named Plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class defined as
all participants and beneficiaries of the Plans from Aug. 17, 2010,
through the date of judgment, excluding the Defendants and any
participant who is a fiduciary to the Plans.

The Court noted in its Order granting in part and denying in part
the Defendants' motion to dismiss that the action is one of several
filed by the same counsel in federal courts across the country
against different university pension plans alleging breaches of the
fiduciary duties imposed by ERISA.  The class certification in all
cases in which a motion for certification has been decided has been
granted.  In addition, the class counsel has filed cases with
similar complaints in the Middle District of Tennessee and the
District of Massachusetts that have reached and granted class
certification.

Cornell, the Committee, and Ms. Opperman ("Cornell Defendants") do
not oppose the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on Count
III, the claim that the Cornell Defendants breached a duty of
prudence by allowing the Plans to pay unreasonable administrative
fees.  But the Defendants oppose class certification as to the
remaining claims brought in Counts V and VII.  The Plaintiffs
request the appointment of Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP as the
class counsel.

Judge Castel concludes that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
requirements of Rule 23(a).  And because the management of the
Plans has an effect on all the Plan-participants, the class is
properly certified under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(1)(A) or
23(b)(1)(B).

As to the appointment of the class counsel, the Judge finds that
the firm has provided competent representation for the Plaintiffs
since the action's commencement.  It has successfully defended
against the Defendants' motion to dismiss, conducted discovery, and
amended the complaint to assert new causes of action and new
defendants in response to evidence uncovered.  The counsel's
submissions reflect knowledge of the law governing the Plaintiffs'
claims and familiarity with class action procedures.  Their
performance in the present case demonstrates competence to protect
the interests of the class.  The Plaintiffs' counsel also has
significant prior experience litigating ERISA class actions
involving similar claims for breach of fiduciary duties.
Accordingly, he will appoint Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP as the
class counsel in the case.

Finally, CAPTRUST and the Cornell Defendants argue that the
Plaintiffs have forfeited the right to bring claims or seek damages
for breach of fiduciary duties concerning any funds other than the
CREF Stock Account and the TIAA Real Estate Account, because the
Plaintiffs' initial Rule 26(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. disclosures do not
allege damages stemming from breaches with respect to any other
funds.

As an initial matter, the Judge notes that the Plaintiffs' Rule
26(a)(1) disclosures identify damages with respect to the 92
alleged higher-cost share class mutual funds but do not identify
damages for the alleged historically underperforming investment
options beyond the CREF and TIAA funds.  The Defendants do not show
how an alleged failure to identify damages specific to individual
funds within the Plans would defeat any of the requirements for
class certification under Rule 23.  And CAPTRUST's argument asking
for the Court to sanction the Plaintiffs for failures to disclose
pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1) is not appropriately filed in a response
to a motion for class certification.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Castel granteed the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  He certified the class of all
participants and beneficiaries of the Cornell University Retirement
Plan for the Employees of the Endowed Colleges at Ithaca and the
Cornell University Tax Deferred Annuity Plan from Aug. 17, 2010
through Aug. 17, 2016, excluding the Defendants and any participant
who is a fiduciary to the Plans.  

The law firm of Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP is appointed to act
as the class counsel.  Within 21 days, the class counsel will
submit a proposed form of notice to the class members and a
proposed plan for distributing the notice.

The Clerk is directed to terminate the motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/cPp3rF from Leagle.com.

Casey Cunningham, individually and as representative of a class of
participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Cornell University
Retirement Plan for the Employees of the Endowed Colleges at Ithaca
and the Cornell University Tax Deferred Annuity Plan, Plaintiff,
represented by Jerome J. Schlichter -- jschlichter@uselaws.com --
Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, Alexander L. Braitberg, Schlichter
Bogard & Denton, LLP, Heather Lea -- hlea@uselaws.com -- Schlichter
Bogard & Denton, LLP, Joel D. Rohlf, Schlichter Bogard & Denton,
LLP, Michael A. Wolff -- mwolff@uselaws.com -- Schlichter Bogard &
Denton, LLP, Scott Apking , Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, Scott
A. Bumb, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, Troy A. Doles --
tdoles@uselaws.com -- Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP & Andrew
Dickens Schlichter -- aschlichter@uselaws.com -- Schlichter Bogard
& Denton, LLP.

Charles E. Lance, Stanley T. Marcus, Joy Veronneau & Lydia Pettis,
Plaintiffs, represented by Alexander L. Braitberg, Schlichter
Bogard & Denton, LLP, Joel D. Rohlf, Schlichter Bogard & Denton,
LLP, Michael A. Wolff, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, Scott
Apking, Schlichter Bogard & Denton, LLP, Scott A. Bumb, Schlichter
Bogard & Denton, LLP & Jerome J. Schlichter, Schlichter Bogard &
Denton, LLP.

Cornell University & The Retirement Plan Oversight Committee,
Defendants, represented by Brian D. Netter --
bnetter@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Ankur Mandhania --
amandhania@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Jean-Marie L. Atamian
-- jatamian@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Matthew A. Waring --
mwaring@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Michelle N. Webster --
mwebster@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Nancy G. Ross --
nross@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP & Samuel P. Myler --
smyler@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP.

CapFinancial Partners, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew W.
Stern -- ASTERN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Eric S. Mattson --
EMATTSON@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin, LLP, Joel S. Feldman --
EMATTSON@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP & Joseph Ryan Dosch --
JDOSCH@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin, LLP.

Mary G. Opperman, Defendant, represented by Brian D. Netter, Mayer
Brown LLP, Jean-Marie L. Atamian, Mayer Brown LLP, Matthew A.
Waring, Mayer Brown LLP, Michelle N. Webster, Mayer Brown LLP,
Nancy G. Ross, Mayer Brown LLP & Samuel P. Myler, Mayer Brown LLP.


CREDIT CONTROL: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in Bryan Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Michael Bryan filed an appeal from the District Court's
order dated January 9, 2019, and judgment dated January 15, 2019,
issued in the lawsuit entitled Bryan v. Credit Control, LLC, Case
No. 18-cv-865, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the putative
class action lawsuit was filed on February 8, 2018.

The appellate case is captioned as Bryan v. Credit Control, LLC,
Case No. 19-244, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Bryan, on behalf of plaintiff and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
          EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 917-4507
          E-mail: thardy@edcombs.com

Defendant-Appellee Credit Control, LLC, is represented by:

          Patrick A. Watts, Esq.
          WATTS LAW GROUP LLC
          212 South Bemiston Avenue
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 669-5490
          E-mail: pwatts@swattslaw.com


CREDIT CONTROL: Watson Files Case Under FDCPA in Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control, LLC.
The case is styled as Shanequa Watson, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit Control, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00137-PLC (E.D. Mo., 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.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel Zemel, Esq.
   ZEMEL LAW LLC
   1373 Broad St., Suite 203-C
   Clifton, NJ 07013
   Tel: (862) 227-3106 x1
   Email: dz@zemellawllc.com


DAIRY FARMERS: Aubertine Appeals Order in Allen Suit to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intervenors Darrel J. Aubertine and Stephen H. Taylor, Richard
Thomas Cassidy and Daniel Smith filed an appeal from a court order
dated December 18, 2018, in the lawsuit titled Allen, et al. v.
Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-230, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont (Rutland).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
alleged that the Defendants violated the Sherman Act by conspiring
to control the supply of raw Grade A milk in Federal Milk Market
Order 1, which had the effect of suppressing certain premiums paid
to dairy farmers for their milk.

The appellate case is captioned as Allen, et al. v. Dairy Farmers
of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-179, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Alice H. Allen, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, DBA Al-Lens Farms; and Laurance E.
Allen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, DBA
Al-Lens Farms, are represented by:

          Gregory James Commins, Jr., Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 861-1536
          E-mail: gcommins@bakerlaw.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Jonathan Haar, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Claudia Haar, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Peter Southway, Marilyn Southway,
Reynard Hunt and Robert Fulper are represented by:

          Kit A. Pierson, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: kpierson@cohenmilstein.com

Appellants Richard Thomas Cassidy and Daniel Smith, and
Intervenors-Appellants Stephen H. Taylor and Darrel J. Aubertine
are represented by:

          Richard Thomas Cassidy , Esq.
          RICH CASSIDY LAW P.C.
          100 Main Street
          Burlington, VT 05401
          Telephone: (802) 864-8144
          E-mail: rcassidy@hoffcurtis.com

               - and -

          Daniel Smith, Esq.
          P.O. Box 801
          16 State Street
          Montpelier, VT 05601
          Telephone: (802) 229-6661


DAMASON DESIGN: Cachago Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Santiago Cachago, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Damason Design, Inc., and Ciro B. Mercado, Case No.
1:18-cv-07338 (E.D. N.Y., December 24, 2018), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff filed the case against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages.

The Plaintiff resides in the County of Queens in the State of New
York. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
construction employee for about seven months, from February through
August 2018.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company based out of
Queens, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Harrison, Esq.
      HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES
      110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Tel: (718) 799-9111
      Fax: (718) 799-9171
      E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com


DEARBORN MOTORS: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Williams Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN P. WILLIAMS and JAY HOWARD, Plaintiffs, v.
DEARBORN MOTORS 1, LLC, d/b/a ALL PRO NISSAN OF DEARBORN,
Defendant, Case No. 17-12724 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Nancy G. Edmunds
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, (i) denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment, and (ii) granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment.

The Defendant is a car dealership located in Dearborn, Michigan.
According to the First Amended Complaint, Williams began working
for the Defendant as a porter in May 2015.  Howard began working
for the Defendant as a mechanic in June 2015.  In December 2015,
the Defendant advised the Plaintiffs and all other employees that
they were required to sign an arbitration agreement in order to
remain employed.  After returning from sick leave for neuropathy,
epilepsy, sickle cell disease, and depression, Williams refused to
sign the arbitration agreement, and the Defendant terminated his
employment in January 2016 as a result.  Howard, on the other hand,
did sign the arbitration agreement to keep his job.

In January 2016, Williams filed charges of discrimination with the
EEOC.  In October 2016, the EEOC determined that there was
reasonable cause to believe that the Defendant violated Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the Equal Pay Act, and the Genetic
Information Non-Disclosure Act.  In January 2017, the State of
Michigan denied Williams unemployment benefits because, according
to the Defendant, Williams had been fired for misconduct in
violation of company policy.  In March 2017, the EEOC issued
Williams Notice of Right to Sue letters.

The Plaintiff originally filed the lawsuit in August 2017.  In
their First Amended Complaint, in addition to the Plaintiffs'
individual claims, the Plaintiffs brought class claims of
discrimination in violation of Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA on
behalf of themselves and a class of the Defendant's employees and
former employees who were similarly required to sign an arbitration
agreement.

The Defendant brought a motion to dismiss the class claims and to
compel arbitration of Howard's individual claims.  The Plaintiffs
responded by arguing that both the class action waiver and out-out
provisions of the arbitration agreement were unenforceable.  The
Court rejected those arguments and granted the Defendant's motion.
The Court also considered and denied a motion for reconsideration
of that decision.

Plaintiff Williams now brings a motion for a judgment on the
pleadings or, in the alternative, for partial summary judgment on
his individual retaliation claims, and the Defendant brings a
cross-motion for a judgment on the pleadings on those same claims.
The Court heard oral arguments on the motions on Jan. 16, 2019.

The Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to a judgment on the
pleadings because he engaged in protected activity when he refused
to sign the arbitration agreement he believed was unlawful, the
Defendant knew that he engaged in that protected activity, an
adverse employment action was taken against him when he was
terminated, and his termination was admittedly a result of his
refusal to sign the arbitration agreement.

The Defendant disputes elements one, two, and four of the
Plaintiff's prima facie case of retaliation.  It argues that
because the arbitration agreement was lawful, as the Court has
already held, the Plaintiff cannot establish the protected activity
element of his prima facie case.  The Defendant further argues that
the Plaintiff cannot establish but-for causation and that it is
entitled to a judgment on the pleadings.

Judge Edmunds concludes that the Plaintiff's refusal to sign a
lawful arbitration agreement was not protected activity because his
belief that the arbitration agreement was unlawful was not
objectively reasonable nor was his act of opposition related to a
violation of or an unlawful employment practice under Title VII,
the ADEA, or the ADA.  Therefore, he has not alleged a prima facie
case of retaliation and the Defendant is entitled to a judgment on
the pleadings.  For these reasons, she denied Plaintiff Williams'
motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for
partial summary judgment on his individual retaliation claims
(Title VII (Count IV), ADEA (Count V), and ADA (Count VI)), and
granted the Defendant's motion for a judgment on the pleadings on
those same claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/QtLoNq from Leagle.com.

Jay Howard, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Shereef Abu-Akeel, Akeel
& Valentine, PLC & Shereef H. Akeel, Akeel & Valentine.

DEARBORN MOTORS 1, LLC, Defendant, represented by Susan D. Koval --
skoval@nemethlawpc.com -- Nemeth Law, P.C.


DOUGLAS, CO: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Tillmon Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado recommended that the Court grants the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the case, JAMES TILLMON, Plaintiff,
v. COUNTY OF DOUGLAS, in its official capacity, TONY G. SPURLOCK,
Douglas County Sheriff, in his official and individual capacities,
J. YOUNG, Sergeant in Douglas County, in his official and
individual capacities, PENRY KIETH, of the Douglas County Sheriff's
Office, in his official and individual capacities, JOHN DOE(S), of
the Douglas County Sheriff, in his individual capacity, and JOHN
AND/OR JANE DOES, of the Douglas County Deputy Sheriff Medical
Department, in his, her, or their individual and official
capacities, Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-cv-00492-RBJ-KLM (D.
Colo.).

At all times relevant to the lawsuit, the Plaintiff was confined at
the Douglas County Detention Center ("DCDC") in Castle Rock,
Colorado.  He generally asserts that Defendant Spurlock operates
racial discriminant practices and customs within the Douglas County
Sheriff Department, and was aware that the Plaintiff was being
harassed based on his race and ethnicity as a Black man.  

The Plaintiff further states that, initially, after arriving at
DCDC, he would regularly attend the Med-line expecting to receive
his already prescribed mental-health medication: Trazadone.  He
believed the Trazadone prescription would have automatically
followed him from other facilities where he had been held, as it
had in the past, but, despite his repeated inquiries and attempts
to obtain his medication, the various unidentified medical
personnel wholly refused and failed to attend to or treat his
mental health needs the entire time he was housed in DCDC.  As a
result, the Plaintiff regularly suffered from anxiety and panic
attacks.

On Nov. 26, 2015, the Plaintiff's hand was broken in an altercation
with another inmate.  Despite his injury, his pain, and his
repeated requests to unidentified deputies for medical care, he was
placed in segregation for eight hours before a nurse saw him and
determined he needed to be sent to Castle Rock Adventist Hospital
for proper treatment.  The Plaintiff incorporates into the
Complaint a list of disciplinary actions he incurred prior to Dec.
8, 2015, which covers most of his time at DCDC, although no
specific dates are provided for these incidents.

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Young was a Sergeant Deputy
who was the hearing and sanctioning Officer in his multiple and
repeated disciplinary hearings, and that in each hearing, she was
aware that he was the victim of racial discrimination and was being
targeted, provoked and attacked by the white inmates because he was
regularly placed in pods that consisted of 22 or 23 prisoners and
was the only African-American in each.

On Feb. 24, 2016, the Plaintiff was sentenced in the criminal case
for which he had been held at DCDC.  In imposing the sentence, the
Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for a downward variance from
the federal minimum sentence, in part due to the harshness of the
time spent in pretrial confinement.  He was shortly thereafter
transferred from DCDC.

As a result of these incidents, the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on
Feb. 27, 2018, against the Defendants.  He asserts three claims:
(1) Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection
violations on the basis of racial discrimination; (2) Fourteenth
Amendment and Eighth Amendment violations on the basis of lack of
adequate medical care; and (3) Fourteenth Amendment due process and
equal protection violations in connection with the disciplinary
proceedings against him.  He seeks damages and an order enjoining
the Defendants from future violations of his civil rights.

In the present Motion, the Defendants seek dismissal of all of the
Plaintiff's claims.  Defendant County of Douglas moves to dismiss
all claims against it, arguing that the Court lacks jurisdiction
over it.

Magistrate Judge Mix first addresses the Plaintiff's brief
assertion that he brings the lawsuit so that the Defendants be
enjoined from future violations of his and other similarly situated
Protected Class Members' rights under the First, Sixth, Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments.  She finds that to the extent the Plaintiff
is asserting class claims in the action, she recommends that those
class claims be dismissed without prejudice.  A litigant may bring
his own claims to federal court without counsel, but not the claims
of others.

She next addresses the Plaintiff's brief assertion that he brings
the lawsuit so that the Defendants be enjoined from future
violations of the Plaintiff's rights under the First, Sixth, Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments.  Because the Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief from prison officials only located at DCDC, and because
there is no indication that he is likely to ever be returned to
DCDC, she finds that the Plaintiff's claims are moot to the extent
he seeks injunctive relief.  Accordingly, she recommends that the
Plaintiff's claims be dismissed without prejudice to the extent he
seeks injunctive relief.

Next, because the Plaintiff improperly brings his claims against
"County of Douglas" and not the board of county commissioners, the
Magistrate finds that the Court lacks jurisdiction to make any
determination of the merits of the claims with respect to this
Defendant.  Accordingly, she Court recommends that the Motion be
granted to the extent that all claims asserted by the Plaintiff
against Defendant County of Douglas be dismissed without prejudice.


The Plaintiff asserts that he endured racial discrimination while
detained at DCDC in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981.  In the
Tenth Circuit, the action interfered with must be based on a
contract.  This must involve actual loss of a contractual interest
and not merely the possible loss of future contractual
opportunities.  However, the Magistrate finds that the Plaintiff
provides no allegations supporting the actual loss of any private
contractual interest.  In the absence of such, his claims under 42
U.S.C. Section 1981 must be dismissed.  Accordingly, she recommends
that the Plaintiff's claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981
be dismissed with prejudice.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the Plaintiff asserts
violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal
protection rights and Fourteenth Amendment and Eighth Amendment
rights to have adequate medical care.  Colorado's general two-year
statute of limitations applies to actions arising under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983.  The Magistrate finds that it is clear that the
Plaintiff gave his Complaint to prison officials for mailing on
Feb. 23, 2018.  Thus, in the absence of some exception, the
Magistrate finds that any claim based on conduct which occurred
prior to Feb. 23, 2016, is time-barred.

Finally, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Penry failed to
preserve and to produce video footage showing incidents occurring
in DCDC which caused him to be disciplined.  The Magistrate holds
that same two-year statute of limitations that applies to claims
asserted under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 also applies to claims
asserted under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985.  Accordingly, for the same
reasons discussed in the Court's analysis regarding the Plaintiff's
claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, his claims under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1985 are also barred by the statute of limitations.
Accordingly, the Judge recommends that the Plaintiff's claims under
42 U.S.C. Section 1985 be dismissed with prejudice.

For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Mix recommended that
the Motion be granted and that all claims be dismissed as outlined.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, the parties will have 14 days
after service of the Recommendation to serve and file any written
objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge
to whom the case is assigned.  A party's failure to serve and file
specific, written objections waives de novo review of the
Recommendation by the District Judge, and also waives appellate
review of both factual and legal questions.  A party's objections
to the Recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve
an issue for de novo review by the District Court or for appellate
review.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Recommendation is
available at https://is.gd/tdG5gH from Leagle.com.

James Tillmon, Plaintiff, pro se.

County of Douglas, in its official capacity, Tony G. Spurlock,
Douglas County Sheriff in his official capacity, Tony (I) G.
Spurlock, in his individual capacity, J. Young, Sergeant in Douglas
County, in her official capacity, J. (I) Young, in her individual
capacity, Penry Kieth, of the Douglas County Sheriff's Office, in
his official capacity & Penry (I) Kieth, in his individual
capacity; John Doe(s) of the Douglas County Sheriff, in his
individual capacity; John and / or Jane Doe(s) of the Douglas
County Deputy Sheriff Medical Dept., in his, her or their
individual and official capacities, Defendants, represented by
Megan Leigh Taggart, Douglas County Attorney's Office.


DR HORTON: Court Dismisses H. Winnie's Suit
-------------------------------------------
Judge R. Bryan Harwell of the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina, Florence Division, granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the case, Hyland Winnie, Jr., on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. D.R. Horton,
Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-01023-RBH (D. S.C.), and
remanded the case to the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas for
Horry County.

The Defendant is a builder and seller of new homes in South
Carolina.  In 2015, the Plaintiff purchased a new home in Horry
County, South Carolina from the Defendant.  The Defendant requires
home buyers, including the Plaintiff, to execute its Home Purchase
Agreement.  The Home Purchase Agreement contains a purported waiver
of the warranty of habitability, which is implied by South Carolina
law, and instead provides a limited warranty through a third party.


Despite requiring purchasers of unequal sophistication and
bargaining power -- including the Plaintiff -- to waive the implied
warranty of habitability as a condition of buying a new home, the
Defendant provides no consideration in exchange, such as a
reduction in price or other benefit.  The Plaintiff contends that
the Defendant's Home Purchase Agreement is unlawful and unfair,
entitling the Plaintiff to money damages and injunctive relief.
Notably, he does not allege any defect with the home he purchased.
This is a proposed class action that includes all persons,
excluding the Defendant's agents or principals, who have purchased
a new home from Defendant or any of its related companies using the
Home Purchase Agreement or materially similar sales contracts.

On March 13, 2018, the Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendant
in the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas for Horry County,
asserting claims for: (1) breach of contract/breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (2) unjust enrichment; and
(3) declaratory relief.

On April 13, 2018, the Defendant timely removed the case to the
Court under diversity jurisdiction.  On the same date, it filed the
instant motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6).  On
May 4, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a response, and on May 11, 2018,
the Defendant filed a reply thereto.

Judge Harwell finds that the Plaintiff alleges no defect with the
house he purchased from the Defendant.  Rather, he complains of the
Defendant's purported waiver/disclaimer of the implied warranty of
habitability.  It appears that tje Plaintiff's theory of recovery
is novel, and he does not cite a case where a home buyer was able
to receive money damages for a purportedly disclaimed warranty of
habitability when there was no defect alleged.  To allow the
Plaintiff's claim to proceed would create a theory of recovery in
the absence of an alleged latent defect.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiff's claim fails as a matter of law because he has not
suffered an injury in fact, which, in the context of the implied
warranty of habitability, is a home defect.  If such an injury
existed, then the Judge would be able to determine the validity of
the Home Purchase Agreement's purported waiver/disclaimer.  For the
Court to analyze and explain the legal implications of a situation
that has not arisen here would lead the Court to issue an advisory
opinion, which is constitutionally prohibited.

Moreover, Judge finds that to the extent the Plaintiff seeks to
reform the Home Purchase Agreement to include the implied warranty
of habitability, such a claim is not ripe because he has not
alleged a home defect, so the issue he raises with respect to the
purported waiver is not currently fit for judicial resolution.
Therefore, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because the
Plaintiff lacks standing and his claim is not ripe.  However,
instead of outright dismissing the case, the Judge must remand the
case per 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c).

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Harwell granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint.  Accordingly, he
remanded the case to the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas for
Horry County.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/hb0LYr from Leagle.com.

Hyland Winnie, Jr, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Harry McDonald --
chuck@belserpa.com -- Belser and Belser, Beth B. Richardson --
brichardson@robinsongray.com -- Robinson Gray Stepp and Laffitte
LLC, Brady R. Thomas -- ‎bthomas@rpwb.com -- RPWB, LLC, Matthew
Anderson Nickles -- mnickles@rpwb.com -- Richardson Patrick
Westbrook and Brickman, Terry Edward Richardson, Jr. --
trichardson@rpwb.com -- Richardson Patrick Westbrook and Brickman &
Thornwell Forrest Sowell, III -- BSOWELL@SOWELLDURANT.COM -- Sowell
and DuRant LLC.

D.R. Horton Inc, Defendant, represented by James E. Weatherholtz --
james.weatherholtz@wbd-us.com -- Womble Bond Dickinson US LLP &
Kathryn Susan Mansfield -- kathryn.mansfield@wbd-us.com -- Womble
Bond Dickinson US LLP.


DXC TECHNOLOGIES: US Lawyers Attempt to Launch Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gareth Corfield, writing for The Register, reports that El Reg's
revelations of layoffs at DXC Technologies over the last year were
mentioned as US lawyers attempt to launch a class-action lawsuit
against the slash-happy tech biz.

US law firm Robbins Geller has been looking for a lead plaintiff in
a class-action suit it wants to bring against DXC, which was formed
out of a merger between CSC and HP Enterprise's former enterprise
services business.

In a 27 December filing in the Eastern District of Virginia, the
lawyers alleged that DXC and its top execs "failed to disclose that
the Company had changed or planned to change the operations of its
sales teams", having replaced some of its specialist salesmen with
jacks-of-all-trades.

The complaint pointed to revelations in an earnings call following
the release of the firm's Q2 '19 results on 6 November last year,
where CEO Mike Lawrie spoke of a move to a more "general" sales
model in the US for two quarters, following which a move was made
back to the specialist model.

Back in October we exclusively revealed that Karan Puri, chief of
DXC's Americas operation, had been invited to walk the plank after
spending just 10 months working for the company. Insiders told us
the reason for his exit was the US sales operation missing revenue
targets.

Our exclusive revelation of this prompted a 19 per cent crash in
the company's share price as investors started asking what was
going on. Like most of the tech industry, DXC has struggled with
the rise of AWS and other cloud vendors, who are busily eating the
lunches of traditional IT outsourcers.

Robbins Geller alleged in a US court filing against DXC (PDF, 34
pages) that its shares "traded at artificially inflated prices"
prior to Puri's departure becoming public knowledge "and the
individual defendants were able to sell a total of 215,549 shares
of their DXC stock for proceeds of more than $19.8m at artificially
inflated prices".

The Register has asked DXC for comment and will update this article
if we hear back.

Had investors been reading The Register, they'd have known that
2018 was DXC's Year of the Layoff (part 2), with execs and ordinary
working folk being dropped like warm dog turds. "Individual
consultations" on redundancies are due to begin in just a
fortnight, according to DXC UKI veep Peter Hands, who passed the
cheery news around the firm's Deliver division in late November.

Having begun its existence in April 2017 with 170,000 staff
worldwide (PDF), DXC has lost a remarkable 40,000 people from its
headcount since then as execs tried to cut the business's costs. By
March 2018 (page 7), the firm had just 150,000 staffers. The firm's
own website currently says it employs 130,000. Just 10 weeks ago
that page said 134,000. [GN]


ENCLARITY INC: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Mussat TCPA Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FLORENCE MUSSAT, M.D., S.C., individually and on
behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. ENCLARITY,
INC. and CORPORATE DOES 1-3. Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-07643 (N.D.
Ill.), Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied Enclarity's
motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c).

Mussat is an Illinois corporation and medical practice operating in
Chicago.  Enclarity is a health care data company incorporated in
Delaware with its principal place of business in Minnesota.  

In 2016, Mussat filed a putative nation-wide class action against
Enclarity in this District, alleging that Enclarity violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005, by sending unsolicited fax
advertisements to healthcare providers.  

In October 2016, Enclarity moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim; it did not object to personal jurisdiction at that time.  On
June 19, 2017, after that motion was fully briefed, but before the
Court had ruled on it, the Supreme Court issued its decision in
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, holding that a
California state court lacked specific personal jurisdiction over
the Defendant as to claims filed in a mass action by the
non-California Plaintiffs because those claims were not linked to
the forum.

On March 3, 2018, the Court denied Enclarity's motion to dismiss
and directed it to file a response to Mussat's complaint.
Enclarity filed an answer on March 26, 2018 in which it challenged
personal jurisdiction for the first time.  Relying on
Bristol-Myers, it asserted that the Court lacked personal
jurisdiction over it as to claims brought by putative class members
residing outside of Illinois.

Two months later, Enclarity moved for judgment on the pleadings
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), again asserting
a lack of personal jurisdiction defense.  It challenges specific
personal jurisdiction only as to claims brought by the out of state
Plaintiffs.  It argues that because those Plaintiffs did not
receive faxes in Illinois and were not otherwise injured in
Illinois, their claims do not relate to Enclarity's connection to
Illinois and must be dismissed.

Mussat rejoins that specific jurisdiction need not be established
for claims brought by absent class members, and that in any case,
Enclarity waived its personal jurisdiction defense by failing to
raise it earlier.

Judge Tharp agrees with the latter of Mussat's arguments, and also
finds that Enclarity's motion is untimely.  He finds that asserting
a personal jurisdiction defense in a Rule 12(c) motion is improper.
Accordingly, Enclarity can neither make a timely Rule 12(b)(2)
motion, nor bypass the 12(b) timing requirements by invoking Rule
12(c).  And while some courts routinely forgive untimely Rule 12
motions, the Judge is not inclined to do so because Enclarity
should have asserted its personal jurisdiction defense well before
it answered Mussat's complaint.

Next, even if he were to conclude that a personal jurisdiction
defense as to claims of non-Illinois residents was not "available"
until Bristol-Myers was decided, moreover, the Judge finds that
Enclarity would still be deemed to have waived the defense because
it did not assert the defense over the course of the next eight
months while its 12(b)(6) motion remained pending.  The motion was
not decided until March 2018; until that time, nothing precluded
Enclarity from seeking leave to amend or supplement its pending
motion to dismiss to add a personal jurisdiction defense when
Bristol-Myers was decided.  Instead, Enclarity sat on its hands and
in doing so waived the defense.

Finally, Enclarity argues that waiver should nevertheless be
excused, noting that the Greene v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd. court
considered the defendant's personal jurisdiction argument even
though it had technically been forfeited.  The Judge holds that
Enclarity's inaction suggests either that for months after
Bristol-Myers was decided it still did not realize it had a
personal jurisdiction defense to assert or, more likely, that
Enclarity opted to hold that arrow in its quiver to use in the
event its 12(b)(6) motion did not carry the day as filed.  Neither
explanation warrants relief from the operation of Rules 12(g)(2)
and 12(h)(1).

Further, after finally asserting a lack of personal jurisdiction in
its answer, Enclarity did not mention this new defense in the joint
status report filed on April 3, 2018 or at the status hearing held
before the Court the next day.  Such conduct gave the Plaintiff a
reasonable expectation that it would defend the suit, i.e., all of
the claims, on the merits.  It also risked squandering judicial
resources by engaging in piecemeal litigation. The purpose of Rule
12(h)'s waiver rule is to avoid such waste, and it is appropriately
applied in the case.

For all these reasons, Judge Tharp denied Enclarity's motion for
judgment on the pleadings.  The parties should resume discovery
under the supervision of Magistrate Judge Weisman.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/FI0Bzj from Leagle.com.

Florence Mussat, M.D. S.C., individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Cathleen M. Combs,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Curtis Charles Warner --
cwarner@warnerlawllc.com -- Warner Law Firm, LLC, Daniel A.
Edelman, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Dulijaza Clark,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC & Heather A. Kolbus,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC.

Enclarity, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tiffany Cheung --
tcheung@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster Llp, Benjamin F. Patterson
-- bpatterson@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster Llp, James F. McCabe
-- jmccabe@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & John C. Ellis --
JELLIS@FWHB.COM -- Ellis Legal P.C..


EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Berlanga Labor Suit Deal Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID BERLANGA, BRANDON EHRESMAN, CHARLES GAETH,
MICHAEL GONZALEZ, JOHN LANGLITZ, and CHRISTOPHER PALACIO,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated current and
former employees, Plaintiffs, v. EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC dba SHELL
OIL PRODUCTS US, CRI U.S. LP, CRI CATALYST COMPANY LP, and SHELL
PIPELINE COMPANY LP, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-00282-MMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Maxine M. Chesney of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement and Plan Allocation.

The Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action came on
for hearing on Jan. 18, 2019.  The Court granted preliminary
approval of the Settlement on Sept. 21, 2018.  Among other things,
Judge Chesney finds that (i) the Settlement, including the
Settlement Amount, is fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the
Class, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants; (ii) the Notice of
Settlement, as mailed to all Class Members on October 22, 2018,
fairly and adequately described the proposed Settlement; (iii) the
response of the Class to the Settlement supports final approval of
the Settlement; and (iv) the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
standards and applicable requirements for final approval of this
class action settlement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.  She ordered the
Parties to implement, and comply with, the terms of the Settlement

The Judge certified the class of current and former employees of
any Defendant or any affiliate of a Defendant who worked as
Operators at one or more of the following facilities: (a) Shell
Pipeline Co. LP's terminal facility in Carson, California ("Carson
Terminal facility"); (b) Equilon Enterprises LLC, doing business as
Shell Oil Products US' oil refinery in Martinez, California
("Martinez Refinery"); (c) CRI Catalyst Co. LP's catalyst
production facilities in Martinez and Pittsburg, California
("Criterion Catalyst plants"), during the period beginning Jan. 19,
2013 and ending Sept. 21, 2018.

The Judge approved (i) the Plan of Allocation as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement; and (ii) the settlement of the Released
Claims as defined in the Settlement.  The Class Counsel, Hadsell
Stormer & Renick, LLP and Gilbert & Sackman, will continue to serve
as the Class Counsel and will oversee and perform the duties
necessary to effectuate the settlement.

The Plaintiffs' Counsel is awarded attorney's fees in the amount of
$1,937,500, and reimbursement of reasonable costs and expenses in
the amount of $19,971.25.  These awards will be paid from the
Settlement Fund.  The Class Representatives are each awarded an
incentive, as follows: (1) Christopher Palacio is awarded $7,500;
(2) David Berlanga is awarded $6,000; and (3) Brandon Ehresman,
Charles Gaeth, Michael Gonzalez, and John Langlitz are each awarded
$5,000.  These payments will be made from the Settlement Fund and
are in addition to the Class Representatives' respective shares as
Class Members.  The Plaintiffs will also set aside $35,587.82 from
the Settlement Fund to be paid to the court-appointed Claims
Administrator, CAC Services Group, LLC.

The Judge allocated $50,000 of the Settlement Fund to penalties
under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), with 75% of the
PAGA penalties ($37,500) to be paid to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") and 25% of the PAGA penalties
($12,500) being paid to Settlement Class Members who do not opt
out.

The Defendants will have no further liability for costs, expenses,
interest, attorneys' fees, or for any other charge, expense, or
liability, in connection with the above-captioned action except as
provided in the Settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/kYBk7n from Leagle.com.

David Berlanga, Brandon Ehresman, Charles Gaeth, Michael Gonzalez,
John Langlitz & Christopher Palacio, Plaintiffs, represented by
Cornelia Dai -- cdai@hadsellstormer.com -- Hadsell Stormer &
Renick, LLP, Jay Edward Smith -- jsmith@steptoe.com -- Gilbert &
Sackman, A Law Corporation, Randy R. Renick, Hadsell Stormer &
Renick, LLP & Joshua Finley Young -- jyoung@gslaw.org -- Gilbert &
Sackman, A Law Corporation.  

Equilon Enterprises LLC, doing business as, CRI U.S. LP, Shell
Pipeline Company LP & CRI Catalyst Company LP, Defendants,
represented by Rebecca Kim Kimura -- lkimura@lkclaw.com --
Lafayette & Kumagai LLP & Gary T. Lafayette --
glafayette@lkclaw.com -- Lafayette & Kumagai LLP.


EXPERIAN INFO: Court Denies Filing of 2nd Amended Mainor FCRA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAROL MAINOR, Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00183-RFB-PAL (D.
Nev.), Judge Richard F. Boulware, II of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada denied the Plaintiff's Motion For Leave To
File Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint.

The Plaintiff filed an individual action against the Defendant on
Jan. 29, 2016.  Her current motion is based upon a document -- the
Feb. 29, 2016 ACDV -- that was produced on June 6, 2016.  The
discovery was initially scheduled to close on Dec. 8, 2016.

The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental or
Amended Complaint on Dec. 5, 2016.  The Motion sought to expand the
Plaintiff's claim to include an additional claim(s) and convert it
into a class action.

On Sept. 29, 2017, the Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion.  On
Nov. 9, 2017, the Court upon motion of the Plaintiff reopened
discovery as to the class claims only.  The class discovery closed
on June 13, 2018.

On Aug. 16, 2018, the Court granted Experian's Motion to Dismiss
the individual and class claims added in the Plaintiff's
Supplemental Complaint.  This order allowed only the Plaintiff's
original claim as to a violation of Section 1681i of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") for failing to conduct a reasonable
reinvestigation.

On Aug. 26, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File
Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint.  This second Motion
seeks add an additional individual and class action claim regarding
the violation of Section 1681e(a) of FCRA.


Judge Boulware denied the Plaintiff's Motion as she has failed to
establish good cause.  Moreover, even if the Court were to apply to
the more liberal standard under Rule 15, the Judge finds that there
has been undue delay and that unfair prejudice to the Defendant
would result from amendment.  He notes that the Court had granted
the Plaintiff leave to file a second motion to amend and establish
good cause for such an amendment.  The Plaintiff has had the
information and documents to amend her Complaint as suggested in
the instant motion since at least June 6, 2016 when the ACDV from
February 2016 was produced.  This was more than a month before the
July 26, 2016 deadline for amendment.  Indeed, despite having this
information, the Plaintiff still did not seek to add the instant
claims in her first Supplemental Complaint filed on Oct. 13, 2017.
Based upon these facts and the totality of the record, the Judge
finds that the Plaintiff unreasonably and unduly delayed seeking
amendment of her Complaint for the claims in the instant motion.

Moreover, even if the he were to apply the more liberal standard,
the Judge still finds that amendment at this juncture would be
unduly prejudicial to the Defendant.  There has been extensive
discovery in the case.  Allowing the Plaintiff to yet again amend
her Complaint would be tantamount to allowing a revolving door of
theories of liability in this case.  It must stop.

Accordingly, Judge Boulware (i) denied the Plaintiff's Motion for
Leave to File Second Amended Complaint; (ii) denied the Motion to
Extend Time; and (iii) granted the Motion to Seal.  The dispositive
motions are due by Feb. 11, 2019 with responses due March 4, 2019
and replies due March 25, 2019.  All briefs, excluding exhibits,
will be limited to 15 pages with the possibility of sanctions, up
to and including dispositive sanctions for violation of this
limitation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/kN6Emv from Leagle.com.

Carol Mainor, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew I. Knepper --
matthew.knepper@knepperclark.com -- Knepper & Clark, LLC, Allison
R. Schmidt, Allison R Schmidt Esq. LLC, Miles N. Clark --
miles.clark@knepperclark.com -- Knepper & Clark LLC & David H.
Krieger, Haines & Krieger, LLC.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Brianne J. Kendall -- bkendall@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac
vice, Andrew J. Sharples -- asharples@naylorandbrasterlaw.com --
Naylor & Braster Attorneys at Law, PLLC, Cheryl L. O'Connor --
coconnor@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice, Edward San Chang
-- chang@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, pro hac vice & Jennifer L.
Braster -- jbraster@naylorandbrasterlaw.com -- Naylor & Braster.

David Leoni, Intervenor, represented by Matthew I. Knepper, Knepper
& Clark, LLC, Allison R. Schmidt, Allison R Schmidt Esq. LLC, Miles
N. Clark, Knepper & Clark LLC & David H. Krieger, Haines & Krieger,
LLC.


FINISAR CORP: Bushansky Suit Seeks to Enjoin Sale to II-VI Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. FINISAR CORPORATION, ROBERT N. STEPHENS, MICHAEL
HURLSTON, MICHAEL C. CHILD, ROGER C. FERGUSON, THOMAS E. PARDUN,
JERRY S. RAWLS, MICHAEL L. DREYER, and HELENE SIMONET, Case No.
5:19-cv-00446-EJD (N.D. Cal., January 25, 2019), seeks to enjoin
the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Finisar will
be acquired by II-VI Incorporated through its wholly owned
subsidiary, Mutation Merger Sub Inc.

On November 9, 2018, Finisar and II-VI issued a joint press release
announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated November 8, 2018, to sell Finisar to II-VI.  Under the terms
of the Merger Agreement, for each share of Finisar common stock
they own, Finisar stockholders may elect to receive, subject to
proration: (i) $26 in cash; (ii) 0.5546 shares of II-VI common
stock; or (iii) a combination of $15.60 in cash and 0.2218 shares
of II-VI common stock.  The Merger Consideration is subject to
proration so that the aggregate consideration paid consists of
approximately 60% cash and 40% II-VI common stock.  The Proposed
Transaction has an equity value of approximately $3.2 billion.

According to the complaint, Finisar's Preliminary Proxy Statement
filed with the SEC in line with the transaction recommending that
stockholders vote in favor of the merger, omits and/or
misinterprets material information concerning, among others things,
the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses
prepared by the Company's financial advisor, Barclays Capital Inc.,
in connection  with the rendering of its fairness opinion.

Finisar is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Sunnyvale, California.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Finisar is a global technology player in optical communications,
providing components and subsystems to networking equipment
manufacturers, data center operators, telecom service providers,
consumer electronics and automotive companies.  The Company designs
products that meet the demands for network bandwidth, data storage
and 3D sensing subsystems.  Finisar's optical subsystems consist
primarily of transmitters, receivers, transceivers, transponders
and active optical cables, which provide optical-electrical
interface for interconnecting the electronic equipment used in
these networks.

II-VI is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Saxonburg, Pennsylvania.  Merger Sub is a
Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of II-VI.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 208-2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
          E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
          E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com

FULL SPECTRUM: Workers Hit Misclassification, Seek Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michaelle Leger, Barbara Divino, Elena Divino, Zaida Torres and
Alivia Campbell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Full Spectrum Behavior Analysis LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00101, (M.D. Fla., January 14, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Full Spectrum Behavior Analysis (FSBA) is engaged in the business
of providing applied behavior analysis services to clients with
developmental disabilities and impairments. Leger worked as a
Registered Behavior Technician, Elena Divino as a behavior services
assistant, Barbara Divino as a behavior analyst while Torres worked
as a clinical director. They are all hourly-paid employees and FSBA
treat them as independent contractors rather than employees.
Despite working more than forty hours per week, FSBA failed to pay
them overtime compensation at a rate of time and a half their
regular rate of pay for hours worked over forty in a workweek,
asserts the complaint.  [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Erin R. Whitmore, Esq.
      Matthew T. Jackson, Esq.
      BRENNAN MANNA DIAMOND
      800 West Monroe Street
      Jacksonville, FL 32202
      Tel: (904) 366-1500
      Fax: (904) 366-1501
      Email: mtjackson@bmdpl.com
             erwhitmore@bmdpl.com
             memattocks@bmdpl.com
             jdejager@bmdpl.com

             - and -

      Amanda Levy-Reis, Esq.
      BRENNAN MANNA DIAMOND
      27200 Riverview Center Blvd., Ste. 310
      Bonita Springs, FL 34134
      Tel: (239) 992-6578
      Fax: (239) 992-9328
      Email: alreis@bmdpl.com
             bonitaservice@bmdpl.com


FUN HOLDINGS LLC: Ross Hits Misclassification, Claims Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roslyn Ross, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff(s), vs. Fun Holdings, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-00038 (W.D. Tex., January 15, 2019), seeks unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, costs of suit and
reasonable attorney's fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest
and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Fun Holdings operates as Perfect 10 Cabaret, where Ross worked as a
dancer. Ross claims to be misclassified as an independent
contractor, and was thus, denied minimum and overtime wages. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      G. Scott Fiddler, Esq.
      FIDDLER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      1004 Congress, 2nd Floor
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: 713-228-0070
      Fax: 713-228-0078
      Email: scott@fiddlerlaw.com


GREECE: Attica Fire Victim's Family to File Suit
------------------------------------------------
Ekathimerini.com reports that the family of a victim who died in a
deadly blaze that destroyed eastern Attica last summer was set to
submit on Jan. 3 a lawsuit against state entities seeking damages
for emotional distress, the lawfirm that represents the family said
Jan. 2.

The lawsuit is naming the Greek state, the Region of Attica and the
Municipality of Marathonas, claiming serious omissions on their
part. The victim, whose name has not been disclosed, died in the
village of Neos Voutzas.

The family is also included in a class action targeting those who
were in charge of the above entities which is being pursued by the
prosecutor in an ongoing investigation into the causes of the
disaster.

The lawfirm said in its statement that relatives of other fire
victims are also preparing to file lawsuits.

The blaze on July 23 killed 100 victims and scorched thousands of
properties and businesses. Neos Voutsas neighbours Mati, the
coastal town that was mostly affected by the fire. [GN]


GREENWAY CHRYSLER-JEEP-DODGE: Picton Sues Over TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clifton Picton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Greenway Chrysler-Jeep-Dodge, Inc. d/b/a
Greenway Dodge Chrysler Jeep, Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-00196
(M.D. Fla., January 31, 2019) is a putative class action under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), arising from
Defendant's knowing and willful violations of the TCPA.

The Defendant caused thousands of pre-recorded messages to be sent
to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members, causing
them injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Orange County,
Florida.

Defendant owns and operates an automotive dealership in Orlando,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
     HIRALDO P.A.
     401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954.400.4713
     Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

          - and -

     Michael Eisenband, Esq.
     EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
     515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954.533.4092
     Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

          - and -

     Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
     IJH LAW
     14 NE First Ave. 10th Floor
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: 786.351.8709
     Email: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com

          - and -

     Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
     EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
     Biscayne Blvd. #607
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: 305.975.3320
     Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

          - and -

     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Ave #1205
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: 305.479.2299
     Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


GYMBOREE GROUP: Faces Pocrass Class Action in Virginia
------------------------------------------------------
A class action and adversary proceeding has been filed against
Gymboree Group, Inc., et al.  The case is styled as Katherine
Pocrass, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
Gymboree Group, Inc., Gymboree Intermediate Corporation, Gymboree
Holding Corporation, Gymboree Wholesale, Inc., Gym-Mark, Inc.,
Gymboree Operations, Inc., Gymboree Distribution, Inc., Gymboree
Manufacturing, Inc., Gymboree Retail Stores, LLC, Gym-Card, LLC,
and Gymboree Island, LLC, Case No. 19-03010-KLP (Bankr. E.D. Va.,
January 26, 2019).  The lawsuit is assigned to the Hon. Keith L.
Phillips.

The lawsuit seeks recovery of money/property.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haig V. Kalbian, Esq.
          KALBIAN HAGERTY LLP
          The Brawner Building
          888 17th St. N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 223-5600
          E-mail: hkalbian@kalbianhagerty.com


IDE PONTIAC: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Buehlman FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jeff Buehlman filed an appeal from the District Court's
decision and order issued on December 17, 2018, in his lawsuit
entitled Buehlman v. Ide Pontiac, Inc., et al., Case No.
15-cv-6745, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
New York (Rochester).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 18, 2019, the
District Court issued the Decision and Order granting Defendant's
Motion for Reconsideration.

Plaintiff Jeff Buehlman commenced this action against Defendants
Ide Pontiac, Inc. and Anne Ide, asserting causes of action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York State Labor
Law (NYLL). The Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated individuals, unpaid overtime compensation from
the Defendants under Section 207(a)(1) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.
Section 207(a)(1). The Plaintiff individually seeks unpaid overtime
under New York law.

The Defendants sought reconsideration of that portion of the
November 2016 Decision denying their motion for summary judgment as
to the Plaintiff's claims for unpaid overtime compensation, arguing
that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Encino Motorcars, LLC
v. Navarro, U.S. 138 S.Ct. 1134 (2018) represents an intervening
change in controlling law that undermines the Court's earlier
determination.

The appellate case is captioned as Buehlman v. Ide Pontiac, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 19-167, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Jeff Buehlman, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Robert Mullin, Jr.,, Esq.
          FERR & MULLIN, P.C.
          7635 Main Street
          P.O. Box 440
          Fishers, NY 14453
          Telephone: (585) 869-0210
          E-mail: rlmullin@ferrmullinlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Ide Pontiac, Inc., and Anne Ide, individually,
are represented by:

          Jeffrey J. Calabrese, Esq.
          HARTER SECREST & EMERY LLP
          1600 Bausch & Lomb Place
          Rochester, NY 14604
          Telephone: (585) 231-1280
          E-mail: jcalabrese@hselaw.com


IMPINJ INC: Plymouth Cty. Retirement Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plymouth County Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Impinj, Inc., Cris
Diorio, Ph.D., Evan Fein, Peter Van Oppen, Tom A. Alberg, Clinton
Bybee, Gregory Sessler, Theresa Wise, RBC Capital Markets, LLC,
Pacific Crest Securities, Inc., Piper Jaffray & Co., Needham &
Company, 41. LLC, Canaccord Genuity Inc., and Morgan Stanley & Co.
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 650629/2019 filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of New York on January 31, 2019, is a
securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Impinj common stock pursuant or traceable to
substantially similar Registration Statements and Prospectuses
issued in connection with Impinj's July 2016 initial public stock
offering ("IPO") and December 2016 secondary public offering
("SPO").

In July 2016, Defendants commenced the IPO, issuing approximately
4.8 million shares of Impinj common stock to the investing public
at $14 per share, all pursuant to the IPO Registration Statement. A
few months later, in December 2016, Defendants commenced the SPO,
issuing another approximately 3.5 million shares of Impinj common
stock to the investing public at $27 per share, all pursuant to the
SPO Registration Statement.

The IPO and SPO Registration Statements contained identically
untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state material
facts both required by governing regulations and necessary to make
the statements made not misleading, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff Plymouth County purchased Impinj common stock pursuant
and traceable to both the SPO and the IPO and was damaged thereby.

Impinj is a manufacturer and provider of "RAIN RFID" hardware and
software solutions used by commercial and industrial clients to
track and identify products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
     Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq.
     The Helmsley Building
     230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
     New York, NY 10169
     Phone: (212) 233-6444
     Facsimile: (212) 233-6334
     Email: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
            rswartz@scott-scott.com

          - and -

     Guillaume Buell, Esq.
     THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP
     1 Lincoln Street
     Boston, MA 02111
     Phone: (617) 720-1333
     Facsimile: (617) 720-2445
     Email: gbuell@tenlaw.com

          - and -

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


L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Gross Seeks to Halt Harris Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
Melvin Gross, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. L3 Technologies, Inc., Christopher E.
Kubasik, Robert B. Millard, Claude R. Canizares, Thomas A.
Corcoran, Ann E. Dunwoody, Lewis Kramer, Rita S. Lane, Lloyd W.
Newton, Vincent Pagano, Jr. and H. Hugh Shelton, Defendants, Case
No. 19-cv-00420, (S.D. Tex., January 15, 2019), seeks to enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of L3 by
Harris Corporation through its wholly owned subsidiary Leopard
Merger Sub Inc., or rescinding it in the event defendants
consummate the merger. The Plaintiff also seeks rescissory damages,
costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys'
and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Under the terms of the merger agreement, each issued and
outstanding share of L3 common stock will be converted into the
right to receive 1.30 shares of Harris common stock with the
implied value of $200.49 per share. The transaction is valued at
approximately $15.7 billion.

The complaint asserts that the proxy statement filed with respect
the transaction omitted the financial projections performed by the
company's financial advisers, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC; the
valuation analyses prepared by Goldman in connection with the
rendering of its fairness opinion; and Goldman's potential
conflicts of interest, specifically, Goldman's and its core team
members' past relationships with Harris Corporation.

L3 is a prime contractor in intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance, communications and electronics systems for
military, homeland security and commercial aviation customers.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 682-3025
      Fax: (212) 682-3010
      Email: racocelli@weisslawllp.com

             - and -

      Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
      BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE P.C.
      885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 308-5858
      Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
      Email: fortunato@bespc.com


LEFFOT NYC INC: Website not Blind-friendly, Garey Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Garey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Leffot NYC Incorporated, Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-00386 (S.D. N.Y., January 14, 2019), seeks preliminary
and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive
damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs
and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.

Defendant operates a store in New York, which is located at 10
Christopher Street, New York, NY 10014 offering shoes and
accessories such as, boots, loafers, belts, gloves, scarves,
wallets, watch straps and sunglasses from various designers. It
also operates a commercial website, www.leffot.com which serves as
an online retailer wherein Garey browsed and intended to make a
purchase. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that Defendant's
website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     SHALOM LAW, PLLC.
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11415
     Tel: (718) 971-9474
     Fax: (718) 865-0943
     Email: Jshalom@JonathanShalomLaw.com


LOGITECH INC: Files 9th Cir. Appeal v. USDC-CASF in Porath Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Logitech, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled JAMES PORATH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LOGITECH, INC., Case No.
3:18-cv-03091-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

The appellate case is captioned as Logitech, Inc. v. USDC-CASF,
Case No. 19-70248, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, Logitech previously filed
an appeal from a court decision.  That appellate case is titled IN
RE LOGITECH INC., Petitioner v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent,
JAMES PORATH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Real Party in Interest, Case No. 18-72732.

According to the previous petition to appeal, both parties to this
false-advertising class action agreed that it should be settled.
Logitech said it has already begun the process of revising the
advertisements that gave rise to the lawsuit, and has told
Plaintiff James Porath that it is committed to finalizing a class
settlement that will make all similarly affected purchasers
whole.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner LOGITECH, INC., is represented by:

          Keri Elizabeth Borders, Esq.
          Dale Joseph Giali, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-5143
          E-mail: kborders@mayerbrown.com
                  dgiali@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Donald Manwell Falk, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          3000 El Camino Real
          Two Palo Alto Square
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
          Telephone: (650) 331-2000
          E-mail: dfalk@mayerbrown.com

Plaintiff-Real Party in Interest JAMES PORATH, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated individuals, is represented by:

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON P.C.
          350 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


MARBLECAST OF MICHIGAN: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Fax Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael P. Daly, Esq. -- michael.daly@dbr.com -- and John S. Yi,
Esq. -- john.yi@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, report that recently, an
Eastern District of Michigan court entered summary judgment in
favor of a defendant upon finding that it had neither transmitted
nor caused the transmission of the fax at issue. In Garner
Properties & Management, LLC v. Marblecast of Michigan, Inc.,the
plaintiff alleged that it had received an unsolicited fax that
referenced the products of two companies: Marblecast of Michigan
and American Woodmark. The plaintiff sued both companies in a
putative class action. American Woodmark eventually moved for
summary judgment and argued that the plaintiff had failed to offer
evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that it had
"sent" the fax at issue. See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(1)(C) ("It shall
be unlawful for any . . . to use any telephone facsimile machine,
computer, or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile
machine, an unsolicited advertisement, unless. . . .") (emphasis
added). In opposition, the plaintiff argued that American Woodmark
was strictly liable as a sender under the TCPA because the fax had
referenced its products.

In granting the defendant's summary judgment motion, the court
followed the Sixth Circuit's recent decision in Health One Medical
Center v. Mohawk, Inc., which found that "an innocent party cannot
be held liable under the TCPA just because its goods were
advertised or promoted in an unsolicited fax advertisement." We
previously reported on the district court decision here. In light
of the Sixth Circuit's decision, the Eastern District of Michigan
rejected the argument that American Woodmark was strictly liable
merely because some third party had transmitted a fax that
advertised its goods. Indeed, if that were the standard, businesses
could be bankrupted simply because -- entirely unbeknownst to them,
and perhaps even with the intent to do them harm -- a third party
transmitted a fax that mentioned their goods or services.

The court then found that there was no genuine issue of material
fact regarding whether American Woodmark had sent or caused the
transmission of the fax at issue. First, while American Woodmark
had entered into a distributorship agreement with Marblecast that
imposed on Marblecast a duty to promote and increase sales of
American Woodmark's products, the agreement did not authorize
Marblecast to promote American Woodmark's products via fax. Second,
Marblecast did not discuss a fax campaign with American Woodmark or
obtain American Woodmark's consent to the hiring of a fax
broadcaster. And third, a representative for Marblecast testified
that the fax at issue was sent to promote Marblecast's business and
the fax would have been sent notwithstanding the distributorship
agreement with American Woodmark. In light of those facts, the
court concluded that American Woodmark could not be held liable for
sending the fax at issue.

This decision highlights that plaintiffs should not be able to
bring a TCPA action against a business simply because that
business's goods or services happen to be advertised in an
unsolicited fax. Rather, plaintiffs must allege -- and eventually
prove -- that a party either transmitted or caused the transmission
of a fax. [GN]


MARY JANE ELLIOTT: VanderKodde Appeals Ruling to Sixth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Anita Beckley, Susan Buck, Ruby Robinson, Ritchie
Swagerty and Daniel VanderKodde filed an appeal from a court ruling
in their lawsuit styled Daniel VanderKodde, et al. v. Mary Jane
Elliott, P.C., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00203, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
have moved for an order certifying classes and Subclasses:

Elliott Class:

   "(a) every natural person; (b) against whom a money judgment,
   in a civil action to collect a debt incurred for personal,
   family, or household purposes, was entered by a Michigan
   court; (c) based on a claim for account stated, open account,
   and/or unjust enrichment, and not to enforce a written
   instrument or promissory note; (d) from whom Mary Jane M.
   Elliott, P.C. collected or attempted to collect a judgment
   balance, by communicating to any person that the judgment
   debtor owed an amount that included postjudgment interest,
   calculated at a rate greater than 1% plus the average interest
   rate paid at auctions of 5-year United States Treasury notes
   during the immediately preceding six months";

Berndt Class:

   "(a) every natural person; (b) against whom a money judgment,
   in a civil action to collect a debt incurred for personal,
   family, or household purposes, was entered by a Michigan
   court; (c) based on a claim for account stated, open account,
   and/or unjust enrichment, and not to enforce a written
   instrument or promissory note; (d) from whom Berndt &
   Associates, P.C. collected or attempted to collect a judgment
   balance, by communicating to any person that the judgment
   debtor owed an amount that included postjudgment interest,
   calculated at a rate greater than 1% plus the average interest
   rate paid at auctions of 5-year United States Treasury notes
   during the immediately preceding six months";

Midland Subclass

   "(a) every natural person; (b) against whom a money judgment,
   in a civil action to collection a debt incurred for personal,
   family, or household purposes, was entered by a Michigan court
   in favor of Midland Funding LLC; (c) based on a claim for
   account stated, open account, and/or unjust enrichment, and
   not to enforce a written instrument or promissory note; (d)
   from whom Mary Jane M. Elliott, P.C. or Berndt & Associates,
   P.C. collected or attempted to collect a judgment balance, by
   communicating to any person that the judgment debtor owed an
   amount that included postjudgment interest, calculated at a
   rate greater than 1% plus the average interest rate paid at
   auctions of 5-year United States Treasury notes during the
   immediately preceding six months; and

LVNV Subclass:

   "(a) every natural person; (b) against whom a money judgment,
   in a civil action to collection a debt incurred for personal,
   family, or household purposes, was entered by a Michigan court
   in favor of LVNV Funding LLC; (c) based on a claim for account
   stated, open account, and/or unjust enrichment, and not to
   enforce a written instrument or promissory note; (d) from
   whom Mary Jane M. Elliott, P.C. or Berndt & Associates, P.C.
   collected or attempted to collect a judgment balance, by
   communicating to any person that the judgment debtor owed an
   amount that included postjudgment interest, calculated at a
   rate greater than 1% plus the average interest rate paid at
   auctions of 5-year United States Treasury notes during the
   immediately preceding six months".

The appellate case is captioned as Daniel VanderKodde, et al. v.
Mary Jane Elliott, P.C., et al., Case No. 19-1091, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellant DANIEL VANDERKODDE, SUSAN BUCK, RUBY ROBINSON,
ANITA BECKLEY and RITCHIE SWAGERTY, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Theodore James Westbrook, Esq.
          WESTBROOK LAW PLLC
          6140 28th Street, S.E., Suite 115
          Grand Rapids, MI 49546-6938
          Telephone: (616) 288-9548
          E-mail: twestbrook@westbrook-law.net

Defendant-Appellee MARY JANE ELLIOTT, P.C., is represented by:

          Theresa Michele Asoklis, Esq.
          COLLINS, EINHORN, FARRELL & ULANOFF, PC
          4000 Town Center, Suite 909
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 355-4141
          E-mail: Theresa.Asoklis@ceflawyers.com

Defendant-Appellee LVNV FUNDING, LLC, is represented by:

          Nabil Gallo Foster, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          151 N. Franklin Street, Suite 2500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 704-3262
          E-mail: nfoster@hinshawlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee BERNDT & ASSOCIATES, P.C., is represented by:

          Karen Ann Smyth, Esq.
          LIPSON NEILSON, P.C.
          3910 Telegraph Road, Suite 200
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
          Telephone: (248) 593-5000
          E-mail: ksmyth@lipsonneilson.com

Defendants-Appellees MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC., and ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., are represented
by:

          Theodore W. Seitz, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          201 Townsend Street, Suite 900
          Lansing, MI 48933
          Telephone: (517) 374-9100
          E-mail: tseitz@dykema.com


MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Durant Hits Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------
Logan Durant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Maxar Technologies Inc., Howard L. Lance,
Biggs Porter and Michael B. Wirasekara, Jr., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00124 (D. Colo., January 14, 2019), seeks to recover damages
caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Maxar is a provider of advanced space technology solutions for
commercial and government markets including satellites, earth
imagery, geospatial data and analytics.

It allegedly failed to disclose to its investors that it improperly
inflated the value of its intangible assets, among other accounting
improprieties and that its highly anticipated WorldView-4 was
equipped with defective control moment gyros.

On this news, the company's stock price fell $5.69 per share, or
48.5%, to close at $6.03 per share on January 8, 2019. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


MAYOR REALTY: Guzman Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Guzman and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Mayor Realty, Inc. and Sergio Concepcion, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-20193 (S.D. Fla., January 14, 2019), requests double damages
and reasonable attorney fees, jointly and severally, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing
along with court costs, interest and any other relief.

Guzman worked for Defendants as a maintenance man from September 2,
2016, through December 24, 2018. He claims to have worked over 40
hours a week and was not paid the extra half time rate for any
hours worked over 40 hours per work week. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: zabogado@aol.com

MGM & J CORP: Garcia Action to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Garcia, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. MGM & J Corp. and Jaeseung Kim,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00376 (S.D. N.Y., January 14, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and redress for
failure to provide itemized wage statements pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a laundry service, located at
1779 First Avenue, New York, NY 10128 under the name "East River
Cleaners" where Garcia currently works as a delivery worker. He
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum
wage, spread-of-hours and overtime compensation for the hours that
they worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MICHIGAN: Changes in Sexual Offender Registration Law Challenged
----------------------------------------------------------------
Don Reid, writing for The Daily Reporter, reports that a Branch
County man, Mario Rubio Hernandez, 55, has joined dozens of those
convicted of Criminal Sexual Conduct before 2006 in challenging the
state sexual offender registration law changes in 2006 and 2011
which were held unconstitutional in federal court.

Fourteen months after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an
appeal of a U.S. Sixth Court of Appeals decision in Does vs.
Snyder, the law remains in place, unchanged, with the state
defending it in dozens of lawsuits -- losing them.

The position of the office of Attorney General Bill Schuette was to
require each individual affected to file suit against the state. He
claimed the Does vs. Snyder suit was not a class action, therefore,
it did not apply to all.

The state legislature also failed to make changes in the law.

Attorneys J. Thomas Schaeffer and Aaron Bartell filed the local
Circuit Court action in November against the Branch County
Prosecutor and the Director of the Michigan State Police. MSP
handles the registration, and the prosecutor charges those who fail
to comply. Hernandez was convicted of CSC third degree in May 1993,
served his time and has no further offenses.

The suit for declaratory judgment notes law "increases not
decreases the risk for recidivism" because it can lead to failure
to comply with the strict provisions with "no assessment as to the
dangerousness of the registrant."

The Michigan law was found unconstitutional by the Cincinnati court
as an ex-post facto law -- applied to offenders convicted before
the 2006 and 2010 changes -- that violates constitutional
protections against increasing punishments after-the-fact.

The new rules, some of the strictest in the nation, prohibit
offenders from legally living, working or even standing within
1,000 feet of a school.

This is a violation the registrant's right of familia association,
the suit charges, as well as a violation of the rights of the
families.

That regulation, they claim, also makes it hard for registrants to
work, to pick up or see their kids at school, and has forced some
to give up jobs and homes.

The rules also require offenders to immediately register email
addresses or vehicles and report to police as often as four times a
year, in some cases, for the rest of their lives. Claims further
argue it prevents them from working jobs close to schools, and if
they use a company vehicle it requires them to report each one to
police; a burden on employers and commerce.

Mr. Schaeffer claimed the rules "brands the plaintiff as a moral
leper . . . and consigns the plaintiff to a lifetime of existence
on the margins of society."

The suit also states that requiring the registration of the family
address violates the family's rights of privacy and "exposes the
plaintiff and his family to private acts of vigilante justice,"
while not common, sufficiently frequent enough to cause concern.
Hernandez has complied with the new rules because he was reportedly
forced to do so. Schaeffer claims, "He was coerced into signing the
registration without due process as to his constitutional rights,
with no valid waiver of those rights."

No one is certain how many of the more than 43,500 people on the
Michigan Sex Offender Registry will be affected by the court
ruling.

Michigan has the fourth largest registry in the nation.

The Hernandez case will be heard in the next few months. [GN]


MOTORCAR PARTS: Law Firm Investigates Potential Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is investigating potential
claims on behalf of purchasers Motorcar Parts of America, Inc.
("Motorcar " or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MPAA). Such investors are
encouraged to obtain additional information and assist the
investigation by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/mpaa.

The investigation concerns whether Motorcar and certain of its
officers and/or directors have violated federal securities laws.

On November 9, 2018, Motorcar revealed that it was evaluating its
accounting policies for new business contracts and therefore
delaying filing Form 10-Q for its fiscal second quarter. Following
this news, Motorcar stock dropped $4.58 per share, or 21%, to close
at $17.20 on November 9, 2018.

If you are aware of any facts relating to this investigation, or
purchased Motorcar shares, you can assist this investigation by
visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/mpaa. You can also contact
Peretz Bronstein or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC: 212-697-6484.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. [GN]


MRI INT'L: Court Grants $525K Sale of Las Vegas Properties
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHIGE TAKIGUCHI, FUMI NONAKA, MITSUAKI TAKITA, TATSURO
SAKAI, SHIZUKO ISHIMORI, YUKO NAKAMURA, MASAAKI MORIYA, HATSUNE
HATANO, and HIDENAO TAKAMA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarity situated, Plaintiff, v. MRI INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
EDWIN J. FUJINAGA, JUNZO SUZUKI, PAUL MUSASHI SUZUKI, LVT, INC.,
dba STERLING ESCROW, and DOES 1-500, Defendants, Case No.
2:13-cv-01183-HDM-NJK (D. NEv.), Judge Howard D. McKibben of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada authorized the sale
of 145 E. Harmon Avenue, Units 2702 and 2704, Las Vegas, Nevada
89109 for $525,000 and pursuant to the terms of the Purchase and
Sale Agreement.

The parties submitted the stipulation and proposed order
authorizing the sale of the Las Vegas Real Properties.

On May 22, 2018 the Court granted final approval of the class
action settlement with the Suzuki Defendants.  Pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement, the parties listed for sale of the
Properties.  

On Feb. 20, 2018, a buyer agreed to purchase the Properties for
$585,000 but they ultimately cancelled the sale in August 2018 and
the Properties were listed back on the market at $579,888.

The parties have received an all cash offer to purchase the
Properties for $525,000 with an escrow period of less than 30 days.
They believe that given the terms of the offer, it is in the best
interest of the Parties to sell the Properties for this price and
the agreed upon terms.

A copy of the executed Purchase and Sale Agreement is attached to
the Order as Exhibit A.

Based on the foregoing, Judge McKibben granted the stipulated
order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/nLC1t8 from Leagle.com.

Shige Takiguchi, Fumi Nonaka, Kaoruko Koizumi, Tatsuro Sakai,
Mitsuaki Takita & Naomi Ukei, Plaintiffs, represented by James
Edwin Gibbons -- jeg@manningllp.com -- Manning & Kass Ellrod,
Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson, Olson, Cannon, Gormley,
Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen,
Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen, APC & Steven Jeff
Renick -- sjrnull@nullmanningllp.com -- Manning & Kass, Ellrod,
Ramirez, Trester LLP.

Shizuuko Ishimori, Yoko Hatano, Yuko Nakamura, Hidehito Miura,
Yoshiko Tazaki, Masaaki Moriya, Hatsune Hatano, Satoru Moriya,
Hidenao Takama, Shigeru Kurisu, Saka Ono, Kazuhiro Matsumoto, Kaya
Hatanaka, Hiroka Yamajiri, Kiyoharu Yamamoto, Junko Yamamoto,
Koichi Inoue, Akiko Naruse, Toshimasa Nomura & Ritsu Yurikusa,
Plaintiffs, represented by James Edwin Gibbons, Manning & Kass
Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, James R. Olson, Olson, Cannon,
Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski, Mariko Taenaka, Law Offices of Robert
W. Cohen, Robert W. Cohen, Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen, APC &
Steven Jeff Renick, Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP,
pro hac vice.

Kazuya Fujimura, Plaintiff, represented by James Edwin Gibbons,
Manning & Kass Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP.

MRI International, Inc. & Edwin J Fujinaga, Defendants, represented
by Daniel L. Hitzke, Hitzke & Associates & Erick M. Ferran.

Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert, Interested Party, represented by
Paul D. Alston -- PAlston@ahfi.com -- Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing &
Nickolas A. Kacprowski, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing.

Mary Luszczyk, Material Witness, represented by Mark S. Dzarnoski,
Gentile Cristalli Miller Armeni Savares.


NAMASTE TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Named Lead Counsel in Workman Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLARD WORKMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NAMASTE TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.; SEAN DOLLINGER; PHILIP VAN DEN BERG; and KENNETH NGO,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10830-GHW (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Gregory
H. Woods of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York appointed (i) Janita Holgate, Linda M. Rich (individually
and on behalf of the Linda M Rich Trust UA Aug 29, 1997), and
Minako Caddeo as the Lead Plaintiffs, and (ii) Pomerantz LLP as the
Lead Counsel.

On Dec. 5, 2018 and Dec. 6, 2018, the members of the putative class
in the case filed motions to serve as the Lead Plaintiffs and for
approval of their respective choices of counsel.  The Court ordered
that any oppositions to the Motions be filed no later than Dec. 14,
2018, and that any replies be filed no later than Dec. 21, 2018.

On Dec. 12, 2018, James Taylor withdrew his motion to appoint him
to serve as the Lead Plaintiff and stated his non-opposition to the
motion of Holgate, Rich, and Caddeo ("Unopposed Motion").  With the
withdrawal of Taylor's motion, the only remaining motion is the
Unopposed Motion.  No opposition to the Unopposed Motion has been
filed, and the deadline for any such opposition has passed.

As a result, Judge Woods granted the Unopposed Motion, and
appointed (i) Holgate, Rich, and Caddeo as the Lead Plaintiffs, and
(ii) Pomerantz LLP as the Lead Counsel.  The Clerk of Court is
directed to close the motions pending at ECF Nos. 7 and 10.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ibL1B8 from Leagle.com.

Janita Holgate, Linda M. Rich & Minako Caddeo, Lead Plaintiffs,
represented by Brenda F. Szydlo -- bszydlo@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
LLP.

Willard Workman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brenda F. Szydlo, Pomerantz
LLP, Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP & Joseph Alexander Hood,
II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

James Taylor, Movant, represented by Joseph R. Seidman --
Seidman@bernlieb.com -- Bernstein Liebhard, LLP.


NATIONAL COLLE: Duda Files Suit for Personal Injury
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Mark Duda, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association and Lenoir-Rhyne
University, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00490-RLY-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: Adams Files Personal Injury Case in Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Keenan Adams,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Furman
University, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00489-JRS-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: Caviggia Sues Over Ex-Footballers' Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN CAVIGGIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, and SAINT
FRANCIS UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:19-cv-00329-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind.,
January 26, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained as a result
of the Defendants' alleged reckless disregard for the health and
safety of generations of SFU student-athletes.

As a direct result of Defendants' acts and omissions, the Plaintiff
and countless former SFU football players suffered and continue to
suffer brain and other neurocognitive injuries, the Plaintiff
contends.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located in Indianapolis, Indiana.  NCAA is not organized
under the laws of any State, but is registered as a tax-exempt
organization with the Internal Revenue Service.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees 23 college sports and over 400,000 students, who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at SFU.  According to the NCAA, more than 1,200 schools,
conferences and affiliate organizations collectively invest in
improving the experiences of athletes -- on the field, in the
classroom, and in life.

Saint Francis University is a private university located at 117
Evergreen Drive, in Loretto, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Conway Sues Over Student-Athletes' Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------
ATCHESON CONWAY IV, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00258-SEB-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019), seeks
redress for injuries sustained a result of the Defendant's alleged
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
Bowie State University ("BSU") student-athletes, including football
players.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located in Indianapolis, Indiana.  NCAA is not organized
under the laws of any State, but is registered as a tax-exempt
organization with the Internal Revenue Service.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees 23 college sports and over 400,000 students, who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at BSU.  According to the NCAA, more than 1,200 schools,
conferences and affiliate organizations collectively invest in
improving the experiences of athletes -- on the field, in the
classroom, and in life.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Disregarded Safety of Footballers, Crow Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO LASHAUN CROW, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00256-JRS-MJD (S.D. Ind., January 25, 2019), seeks
to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of the
Defendant's alleged reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of Louisiana Tech University ("LTU") student-athletes.

Mr. Crow alleges that despite knowing for decades of a vast body of
scientific research describing the danger of traumatic brain
injuries ("TBIs") like those he experienced, the Defendant failed
to implement adequate procedures to protect him and other LTU
football players from the long-term dangers associated with them.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located in Indianapolis, Indiana.  NCAA is not organized
under the laws of any State, but is registered as a tax-exempt
organization with the Internal Revenue Service.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees 23 college sports and over 400,000 students, who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at BSU.  According to the NCAA, more than 1,200 schools,
conferences and affiliate organizations collectively invest in
improving the experiences of athletes -- on the field, in the
classroom, and in life.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Purdie Asserts Claim for Personal Injury
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Robert Purdie,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and William
Penn University, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00491-JMS-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: Schultz Brings Claim for Personal Injury
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Scott Schultz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and Concordia
University, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00492-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 CREDITORS: Glass Disputes Vague Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------
Karl Glass, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Creditors Connection, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00139, (S.D. Ind., January 15, 2019),
seeks actual and statutory damages, costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendants operate a nationwide debt collection business and
attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every state,
including consumers in the State of Indiana.

Glass was unable to pay his mortgage and Defendants sent him a
collection letter that failed to state effectively the name of the
creditor to whom the debt was then owned, the complaint notes.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


NATURAL HEALTH: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on January 8, 2019, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California against Natural Health Trends
Corp. (NASDAQ: NHTC). The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is April 27, 2016 through
January 5, 2019.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Natural Health
Trends Corp. shareholders who purchased common stock during the
Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described
above. You may move the Court no later than Monday, March 11, 2019
to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in
order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights please;

         Robin Hester, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]


NCAA: Phillips Sues over Safety of WVSU Student-Athletes
--------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00429-JMS-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 West Virginia State University ("WVSU")
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, WVSU 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 WVSU 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 WVSU 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: Rizzo Sues over Safety of Iona College Student-Athletes
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY RIZZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, and IONA COLLEGE, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00418-TWP-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 Iona College
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, Iona 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 Iona 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 Iona 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: Scott Sues over Safety of McMurry Student-Athletes
--------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, and MCMURRY UNIVERSITY, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00427-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 McMurry University
("McMurry") 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, McMurry 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 McMurry 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 McMurry 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: Shadwick Sues over Safety of Quincy Student-Athletes
----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SHADWICK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, and QUINCY UNIVERSITY CORPORATION, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00428-JRS-MPB (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 Quincy
University ("QU") 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, QU 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 QU 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 QU 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

NORTHSTAR ALARM: California/FLSA Classes in Smothers Suit Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JULIAN SMOTHERS; ASA DHADDA, Plaintiffs, v. NORTHSTAR
ALARM SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00548-KJM-KJN
(E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiffs' unopposed motions for leave to file a
second amended complaint, preliminary approval of a class action
settlement, preliminary certification of proposed classes under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and conditional certification of
the proposed class under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Smothers and Dhadda allege that NorthStar violated California and
federal law by not properly compensating the Plaintiffs or
providing them with mandatory wages, meal periods, rest periods,
reimbursements and accurate wage statements.  The named Plaintiffs
are former NorthStar employees.  

NorthStar specializes in home security and automation, selling,
installing and servicing alarm systems throughout the United
States.  To establish operations in a city, NorthStar typically
establishes a base of operations in a central apartment complex for
its team of Alarm Installation Technicians.  NorthStar compensates
technicians in part through a piece rate based on alarm
installations.  The Plaintiffs contend the compensation scheme
deprives technicians of a separate hourly compensation for time
spent in non-productive tasks, such as attending morning meetings,
traveling out into the field, waiting in the field between
installation jobs, correcting installations, or turning in forms
and accounting for inventory at the end of the day.

The Plaintiffs filed the putative wage and hour class action
complaint in state court alleging NorthStar violated various
provisions of the California Labor Code and the federal FLSA.
NorthStar removed the action to the Court, and, following
discovery, the Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint, and then
moved for preliminary certification of their FLSA collective
action.

Before the Court decided the Plaintiffs' motion to amend, which was
fully briefed and taken under submission, and before the motion for
conditional certification was fully briefed, the parties reached a
settlement agreement.  Upon the parties' request, the Court
continued the pending FLSA certification motion in anticipation of
the instant motion.  At hearing, both parties agreed the instant
motion moots the Plaintiffs' motion to amend and motion for
conditional certification.

Given significant differences between Rule 23 class actions and
FLSA collective actions, the parties' settlement agreement proposes
two settlement classes with separate settlement funds, though both
classes span the same February 3, 2013 through December 31, 2017
class period. See Settlement §§ I.4 & I.9; Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a)-(b), (e); 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

The parties propose the following class definitions:

     a. California Class: All current and former non-exempt Alarm
Installation Technicians and Lead Alarm Installation Technicians
who performed compensable work for Defendant in the State of
California at any time from Feb. 3, 2013 through Dec. 31, 2017, as
defined therein.

     b. FLSA Group: All current and former non-exempt Alarm
Installation Technicians and Lead Alarm Installation Technicians
who performed compensable work for Defendant in the United States
at any time from Feb. 3, 2014 through Dec. 31, 2017, as defined
therein, and who affirmatively opt in to the Settlement by cashing,
depositing, or otherwise negotiating a Settlement Payment Check.

NorthStar has identified all the putative class members through its
records, and confirms there are 94 individuals in the California
Class and 285 individuals in the FLSA Group.

Under the Agreement, NorthStar will make a $1.8 million gross
settlement payment to the settlement administrator.  The parties
propose the following allocation of the gross settlement amount:

     (1) Up to $600,000, one-third of the gross settlement, for the
class counsel as attorneys' fees, and up to $20,000 for costs and
expenses.  Any difference in the amount actually awarded will
revert to the net settlement fund for distribution to the class
members.
     (2) Up to $10,000 in enhancement payments for each named
Plaintiff.  Any difference in the amount actually awarded will
revert to the net settlement fund for distribution to the class
members.

     (3) An anticipated $40,000 in administrative expenses paid to
the claims administrators.  Additional expenses will be deducted
from the gross settlement amount, with the net settlement and the
class members' awards recalculated accordingly, upon approval from
the court.  If expenses are less than $40,000, the excess will be
added to the net settlement amount prior to distribution to the
class members.

     (5) A $50,000 California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
penalty, 75% ($37,500) of which will be paid to the California
Labor and Workforce Development Agency and 25% ($12,500) of which
will be paid to the class.

     (6) Any applicable tax withholding required.

Accounting for all proposed distributions described, the Plaintiffs
estimate a $1,082,500 net settlement available for distribution to
the class members.  The parties propose allocation of the net
settlement amount as follows:

     a. California Class Settlement Amounts: The California Class
will receive an allocation of 44 4/9 percent ($481,111) of the net
settlement amount.  This amount will be divided by 1,275, the total
number of the California Class Members' workweeks, resulting in a
"pay period rate."  Each California Class member who does not
opt-out of the settlement will receive a settlement amount equal to
the number of his or her individual weeks worked between Feb. 3,
2013 and Dec. 31, 2017, multiplied by the pay period rate.  If more
than 30% of the California Class members opt-out, however, the
parties agree the portion of the net settlement amount allocated to
the California Class that would have been paid to the excluded
individuals be returned to NorthStar.  Should fewer than 30% of the
California Class opt out of the settlement, the net settlement
amount will not be reduced.

     b. FLSA Group Settlement Amounts: The FLSA Group will receive
an allocation of 55 5/9 percent ($601,389) of the net settlement
amount.  The FLSA Group's share of the net settlement amount will
be divided by 5,769, the FLSA Group members' total number of
workweeks, resulting in a pay period rate.  Each FLSA Group member
will receive a settlement amount equal to the number of his or her
individual weeks worked between Feb. 3, 2014 and Dec. 31, 2017,
multiplied by the pay period rate.  Should a member of the FLSA
Group decline to opt-in to the settlement, the administrator will
return the member's settlement funds to NorthStar.  But NorthStar
guarantees payment of at least 50% of the FLSA Group allocation to
FLSA Group members and, if necessary to meet that 50% commitment, a
cy pres recipient.  The parties propose the Justice Gap Fund of the
State Bar of California as a cy pres recipient.

The settlement also includes non-monetary terms, including
NorthStar's agreement to make changes to its compensation
practices.  These changes include requiring NorthStar to record the
daily hours worked by the class members to ensure correct wage
payments; paying Alarm and Lead Alarm Installation Technicians at
least California minimum wage and overtime wages for all hours
worked; posting and distributing meal and rest period bulletins;
modifying on-call policies applicable to California Alarm and Lead
Alarm Installation Technicians so those employees are not required
to monitor their phones during off-duty hours or during meal and
rest periods; and Reimbursing California Alarm and Lead Alarm
Installation Technicians for reasonable business expenses,
including reimbursement for required tools and for work-related
travel conducted in personal vehicles at the IRS mileage rate.

On March 19, 2018, as required under the parties' settlement terms,
NorthStar filed a declaration confirming it has taken all
non-monetary action required under the Settlement.

The Plaintiffs seek preliminary certification of the proposed
California Class for settlement purposes and preliminary settlement
approval under Rule 23.  Judge Mueller finds that at this
preliminary stage, the Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(a) and
23(b)(3)'s requirements and the motion to preliminarily certify the
California Class is granted.  And under Rule 23(g), a court that
certifies a class must appoint class counsel.  She finds that the
Plaintiffs' counsel has experience litigating wage and hour class
actions and their request to be appointed class counsel is granted
as well.

Next, the FLSA establishes an opt-in collective action procedure
for employees allegedly denied wages and overtime pay.  At this
preliminary stage, the Judge finds there is sufficient evidence
that the putative party Plaintiffs are alike in ways that matter to
the disposition of their FLSA claims, as they held similar jobs
with similar functions and were uniformly subject to NorthStar's
compensation policies that led to the alleged FLSA violations,
presenting similar issues of law or fact material to the
disposition of their FLSA claims.  She granted the motion to
preliminarily certify the FLSA Group.

The Judge next finds that the Plaintiffs provide no justification
for distributing settlement funds before the settlement has been
finally approved.  While the parties anticipate issuing a second
check to each FLSA Group Member should the Court's final approval
result in a higher than estimated net settlement, they have no plan
in place should the court withhold final approval, and thus appear
to take for granted the Court's final approval is guaranteed.  But
it cannot be if the court is to do its job, as it will.  Because
the Court must approve of or reject the settlement in its entirety,
this defect requires her to deny the motions to approve both the
Rule 23 and FLSA settlements.  In the event the Plaintiffs renew
their motion with a proposed cure to the FLSA opt-in problem, the
Judge reviews certain remaining factors based on the current
record.

Finally, the Judge holds that when a settlement is negotiated
before formal class certification, the Court must carefully review
the settlement for subtle signs that class counsel have allowed
pursuit of their own self-interests and that of certain class
members to infect the negotiations.  These "subtle signs" include:
(1) a disproportionate award to counsel, (2) a "clear sailing"
arrangement for attorneys' fees, and (3) arrangements where fees
not awarded revert to the Defendant rather than the class fund.
She finds that each sign is present in the case.

In light of her foregoing analysis, Judge Mueller mooted the
Plaintiffs' motion to amend, and motion to certify class.  She
resolves Motion for Preliminary Approval as follows: she granted
the Plaintiffs' motions for preliminary certification of the Rule
23 Class, to appoint class counsel, and for preliminary
certification of the FLSA Group; but denied their motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement.  The Judge is mindful of
the strong judicial policy favoring settlements and the denial is
without prejudice to the Plaintiffs renewing their motion and
addressing the issues identified.

Finally, the Court initially scheduled a further status conference
to schedule the balance of the case once class certification is
decided, and has since rescheduled that conference multiple times
while these motions were pending.  The Judge vacated the status
conference set for Jan. 25, 2019.  The parties are ordered to meet
and confer as to further motions and/or scheduling necessary in
this case and will file a joint status report within 21 days of the
Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/UdpRIa from Leagle.com.

Julian Smothers, Plaintiff, represented by Jared Hague Jared Hague
-- jared@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation, PC, S.
Brett Sutton -- brett@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law
Corporation, PC & Anthony Eugene Guzman -- anthony@suttonhague.com
-- Sutton Hague Law Corporation.

Asa Dhadda, Plaintiff, represented by Jared Hague, Sutton Hague Law
Corporation, PC & S. Brett Sutton, Sutton Hague Law Corporation,
PC.

NorthStar Alarm Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew V.
Collins -- inquiries@mbmlawyers.com -- Mitchell Barlow & Mansfield,
P.C., pro hac vice, J. Ryan Mitchell, Mitchell Barlow & Mansfield,
PC, pro hac vice & Claire Yvonne Dossier, Mitchell Barlow &
Mansfield, P.C.


NUSRET NEW YORK: Fteja Hits Illegal Tip Pool
--------------------------------------------
Mustafa Fteja, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nusret New York LLC and Nusret
Gokce, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00429
(S.D. N.Y. January 15, 2019), seeks redress for Defendant's failure
to pay minimum wage and overtime premium pay, and redress for
unlawfully retaining gratuities and failing to provide wage notices
under New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate as "Nusr-et Steakhouse" and "The Salt Bae"
where Fteja worked as a waiter from January 18, 2018 to December 6,
2018 at their steakhouse located at 60 W. 53rd Street, New York, NY
10019. Defendants paid Fteja below the minimum wage because he is a
tipped employee. However, Fteja claims that his employers took out
a portion of his tips to add to a tip pool without his knowledge.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
      Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
      LIPSKY LOWE LLP
      630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
      New York, NY 10017-6705
      Tel: (212) 392-4772
      Fax: (212) 444-1030
      Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
             chris@lipskylowe.com


OHIO: Fire, Police Retirees Sue Pension Fund Over Benefit Changes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Orlousky, writing for Cleveland 19 News, reports that there is
a dramatic development in the battle to regain healthcare for
police and fire retirees.

from all over the state, members have now banded together and filed
a class action lawsuit.

One of them is retired Willoughby Fire Chief Alan Zwegat, who says,
"The reason I got involved was firefighters and police officers,
they made a living out of helping people. Well, now I'm trying to
help all of us."

The fire gear in Zwegat's study memorializes his 40 years in fire
service; the last 11 years as chief in Willoughby. He retired in
2016 with a serious medical condition.

A single sentence in the lawsuit he is part of sums up the effect
changes have made on 8,000 retirees saying, "Many retirees having
to accept lesser coverage for greater premium costs or greater
deductibles."

He and wife Connie learned of planned changes in their coverage and
so, like many others, they went to a meeting and were encouraged.
That is, until they tried to get coverage, saying, "It didn't play
out the way it was portrayed. They made it seem like it was going
to be equal. Yes."

What was pitched as cheaper, comparable, and maybe better was more
expensive and not comparable at all. Plus, Zwegat's medical history
disqualified him.

Zwegat says, "They forced us into going for our own coverage and
because my wife and I sought other alternatives, we don't even get
the stipend."

The stipend is a cash payment from the pension plan to retirees to
offset premium costs.

It gets worse for the Zwegat family. If they travel outside of
greater Cleveland, their HMO doesn't cover them.

So for something as simple as going out of town to visit family or
friends, they've got to buy travel insurance to be covered.

Alan was asked "It's almost like the answer is don't get sick?"

He said, "That's a great point. Firefighters and police officers
they sacrifice a lot of their safety and well being. It's a young
person's job and when you need insurance most is when you get to
the retirees."[GN]


PREMIER FIRE: Ranieri Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
A case, THOMAS RANIERI, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiffs, vs. PREMIER FIRE ALARMS AND
INTEGRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 0:19-cv-60229-DPG (S.D. Fla., Jan. 28, 2019), seeks to
recover monetary damages in the form of unpaid minimum wages and
overtime wages, and to redress the deprivation of rights secured to
Plaintiff by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant sells fire alarm systems.  According to the
complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Sales
Representative from approximately January 21, 2017, through April
11, 2017.  During the time period Plaintiff was employed, there
were periods for which he was not paid. The Plaintiff is owed
$3,300, plus reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately January
21, 2017, through April 11, 2017. The work performed by the
Plaintiff was directly essential to the business performed by the
Defendant. The Plaintiff was not paid at all for periods of his
employment and is owed $3,300 for wages that were not paid. The
Plaintiffs were paid less than the applicable federal minimum wage
and the Florida Minimum wage for hours worked, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Martin E. Leach, Esq.
          FEILER & LEACH, P.L.
          The American Airlines Building
          901 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite No. 300
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone (305) 441-8818
          Facsimile (305) 441-8081
          E-mail: mel@flmlegal.com
                  erodriguez@flmlegal.com

QUALCOMM INC: Kessler Topaz Named Lead Counsel in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Carey Camp, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Qualcomm Inc., Steven K.
Mollenkopf, and George S. Davis, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-1208-AJB-BLM (S.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (i)
granted Gatubhai Mistry's motions for Consolidation of Related
Actions, Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and Approval of Selection
of Counsel; (ii) denied both Daljit Singh's and Bradley Leech's
competing motions for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff represents a class of those who purchased Qualcomm
stock between Jan. 31, 2018, and March 12, 2018 and who are suing
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  They allege that on
Jan. 29, 2018, Qualcomm secretly filed a voluntary request for The
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to investigate
Broadcom Ltd., in an attempt to frustrate Broadcam's attempt to
acquire Qualcomm.  The scheme was eventually revealed on March 5,
2018, causing Qualcomm's stock to decline.  The Plaintiffs allege
Qualcomm made materially false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose the scheme to investors, resulting in the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities.

Before the Court are competing motions to appoint the Lead
Plaintiff and the Lead Counsel in the case.  Plaintiffs Mistry and
Singh move to be appointed as the Lead Plaintiff, while Plaintiff
Leach, who originally moved as well, filed a non-opposition to the
competing motions.

Singh alleges he has the largest financial interest because he lost
$340,877.48 on his purchases of Qualcomm securities.  Mistry claims
he has the largest financial interest because he suffered a loss of
approximately $75,565 under a LIFO [last in, first out] analysis in
connection with his Class Period purchases of Qualcomm securities.
Thus, it is easily ascertained that Singh has the largest financial
interest.

Judge Battaglia finds that although Singh has the largest financial
interest, Singh fails the third requirement as he does not meet the
Rule 23 requirements, which at this early stage requires only a
preliminary showing of typicality and adequate interest protection.
  Singh failed to include any basic details about himself,
including where he lives or who he is specifically in his motion.
Due to these errors, the Judge finds it difficult to determine
whether Singh would indeed be a typical Plaintiff for the class.
Because Mistry has included such details, however, he finds he
would be the better choice for the Lead Plaintiff.

The Judge also finds that due to these errors in Singh's pleadings,
and the questions surrounding whether he is a typical Plaintiff, he
finds these questions underscore the reliability of Singh's
representations.  Thus, he finds that Singh does not meet the final
requirements to be appointed the Lead Plaintiff under Rule 23,
leading him to assign the Lead Plaintiff to Mistry.

Mistry wishes to appoint Kessler Topaz and Robbins Geller to serve
as the Lead Counsel for the class.  Kessler Topaz specializes in
prosecuting complex class actions and is currently serving as lead
or co-lead counsel in several securities class actions.  The second
firm the Plaintiff requests to appoint, Robbins Geller, also has
experience with class actions and is actively engaged in complex
litigation, particularly securities litigation.  With a history of
working collaboratively as lead counsel in securities class
actions, the Judge finds the two firms have the resources and
experience to effectively manage the class litigation.  Thus,
Kessler Topaz and Robbins Geller are appointed as the Lead
Counsel.

Finally, there are two actions which the Plaintiffs request to
consolidate: Camp v. Qualcomm, 18-cv-1208-AJB-BLM, and Jadhav v.
Qualcomm, 18-cv-1457-AJB-BLM.  Because both cases involve similar
factual and legal issues surrounding the same alleged misconduct by
Qualcomm -- between Jan. 31, 2018, and March 12, 2018 -- the Judge
will grant the motions to consolidate.

For the reasons stated above, Judge Battaglia (i) granted Mistry's
motions for Consolidation of Related Actions, Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff, and Approval of Selection of Counsel; and (ii) denied
both Singh's and Leech's competing motions.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), Camp v. QUALCOMM
Incorporated, No. 3:18-cv-01208, and Jadhav v. QUALCOMM
Incorporated, No. 3:18-cv-1457, and all related actions are
consolidated for all purposes.  The Order will apply to the
Consolidated Action and to each case that relates to the same
subject matter that is subsequently filed in the District or is
transferred to the District, and is consolidated with the
Consolidated Action.

A Master File is established for the proceeding.  It will be Case
No. 3:18-cv-01208-AJB-BLM.  The Clerk will file all pleadings in
the Master File and note such filings on the Master Docket.  

An original of the Order will be filed by the Clerk in the Master
File.  The Clerk will mail a copy of the Order to the counsel of
record in the Consolidated Action.

Every pleading in the Consolidated Action must have the following
caption: IN RE QUALCOMM/BROADCOM No. 3:18-cv-01208-AJB-BLM MERGER
SECURITIES LITIGATION

The Judge requests the assistance of the counsel in calling to the
attention of the Clerk of the Court the filing or transfer of any
case that may properly be consolidated as part of the Consolidated
Action.  

When a case that arises out of the same subject matter as the
Consolidated Action is hereinafter filed in the Court or
transferred from another court, the Clerk of this Court will: (a)
file a copy of the Order in the separate file for such action; and
(b) make the appropriate entry in the Master Docket for the
Consolidated Action.

Each new case that arises out of the subject matter of the
Consolidated Action will be consolidated with the Consolidated
Action.  The Order will apply thereto, unless a party objects to
consolidation, or to any provision of the Order, within 10 days
after the date upon which a copy of the Order is served on the
counsel for such party by filing an application for relief, and the
Court deems it appropriate to grant such application.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B), Judge Battaglia
appointed Gatubhai Mistry to serve as the Lead Plaintiff in the
Consolidated Action; and pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v), Gatubhai Mistry's selection of Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as the
Lead Counsel for the class is approved.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/IGaTmc from Leagle.com.

Carey Camp, Individually and on Behalf of All others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Spencer Alan Burkholz --
spenceb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Sandesh Jadhav, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy A. Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice.

Gatubhai Mistry, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan Thomas Degnan --
rdegnan@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac
vice, Danielle Suzanne Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Robert R. Henssler, Jr. -- bhenssler@rgrdlaw.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Tricia L. McCormick --
TriciaM@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Qualcomm Incorporated, Steven M. Mollenkopf & George S. Davis,
Defendants, represented by Koji F. Fukumura -- kfukumura@cooley.com
-- Cooley Godward Kronish, Peter M. Adams -- padams@cooley.com --
Cooley Godward Kronish & Steven M. Strauss -- sms@cooley.com --
Cooley, LLP.

Bradley Leach, Movant, represented by Adam C. McCall --
amccall@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

Daljit Singh, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & Phillip Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice.

Nancy Nga Nguyen & Anh Luu, Movants, represented by Jennifer
Pafiti, Pomerantz LLP.


QUICKEN LOANS: Hill Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------
A case, AMANDA HILL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. QUICKEN LOANS INC., the
Defendant, Case No.: 5:19-cv-00163 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 28, 2019),
alleges that Quicken Loans Inc. sent 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, for over at least the past year,
continuing through the present, Defendant transmitted or caused to
be transmitted, by itself or through an intermediary or
intermediaries, numerous SMS or MMS text messages to the 9785
Number without Plaintiff's prior express written consent.  The
Plaintiff has on several occasions attempted to put a stop to
Defendant's invasive text messages by responding "STOP," to no
avail. For instance, over a week before receiving the text messages
depicted in the screenshot above, Plaintiff had texted "STOP" in an
attempt to end the onslaught of Defendant's digital junk mail, as
shown in the screenshot below, also extracted from Plaintiff's
cellular device. Despite these clear instructions to STOP, the
Defendant is nonetheless undeterred. Its texts to the 9785 Number
persist, the lawsuit says.

Quicken Loans Inc., is a mortgage lending company headquartered in
the One Campus Martius building in the heart of the financial
district of downtown Detroit, Michigan.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Classes:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          David W. Hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 357-2107
          Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
          E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
                  dhall@hedinhall.com

RESOLUTE ENERGY CORP: Edge Files Class Action Over Cimarex Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eddy Edge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Resolute Energy Corporation, Richard F.
Betz, Tod C. Benton, Joseph Citarrella, Wilkie S. Colyer Jr., James
E. Duffy, Thomas O. Hicks, Jr., Gary L. Hultquist, Janet W. Pasque,
Robert J. Raymond, Nicholas J. Sutton, William K. White, CR Sub 1
Inc., CR Sub 2 LLC and Cimarex Energy Co., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00086, (D. Del., January 15, 2019), seeks to enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating or closing the proposed merger of
Resolute with Cimarex Energy Company, or rescinding it in the event
defendants consummate the merger.  The complaint further seeks
rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable
allowance for Plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Under the proposed merger transaction, Resolute shareholders will
have the right to receive 0.3943 shares of Cimarex common stock,
$35 per share in cash, or a combination of $14 per share in cash
and 0.2366 share of common stock subject to proration.

Edge claims that the merger consideration appears inadequate in
light of Resolute's recent financial performance and future
prospects. The company reported a 47 percent increase in oil
roduction for the third quarter of 2018 as compared to that of the
second quarter while its EBITDA of $33.7 million was up 58 percent
from the prior year quarter, of which the proxy statement failed to
disclose the line items used to calculated EBITDA.

Resolute is an oil and natural gas exploration company that
operates in the southern and western regions of the United States.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
      Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq.
      ROWLEY LAW PLLC
      50 Main Street, Suite 1000
      White Plains, NY 10606
      Tel: (914) 400-1920
      Fax: (914) 301-3514
      Email: info@rowleylawpllc.com

             - and -

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


RESOLUTE ENERGY: Mack Files Suit Over Cimarex Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
Steven Mack, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Resolute Energy Corporation, Nicholas J.
Sutton, James E. Duffy, William K. White, Gary L. Hultquist, Tod C.
Benton, Thomas O. Hicks, Jr., Robert J. Raymond, Janet W. Pasque,
Richard F. Betz, Joseph Citarrella, And Wilkie S. Colyer, Jr.,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00077, (D. Del., January 14, 2019),
seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with
them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the proposed
merger of Resolute with Cimarex Energy Company, or rescinding it in
the event defendants consummate the merger.  The Plaintiff also
seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees
and other further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Under the transaction, Resolute shareholders will have the right to
receive 0.3943 shares of Cimarex common stock, $35 per share in
cash, or a combination of $14 per share in cash and 0.2366 share of
common stock subject to proration.

Mack claims that the merger consideration appears inadequate in
light of the Resolute's recent financial performance and future
prospects. The company reported a 47% increase in oil roduction for
the third quarter of 2018 as compared to that of the second quarter
while its EBITDA of $33.7 million is up 58% from the prior year
quarter. The proxy statement also failed to disclose the line items
used to calculated EBITDA, notes the complaint.

Resolute is an oil and natural gas exploration company that
operates in the southern and western regions of the United States.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
      James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
      New Yor006B, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
             jwilson@faruqilaw.com

             - and -

      Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Tel: (302) 482-3182
      Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com


RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: Shanahan Sues over Unauthorized Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
TERRENCE SHANAHAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GROUP,
INC., a Kansas corporation, and PAUL M. GUNZELMAN, an individual,
the Defendants, Case No.: 8:19-cv-00040-JMG-MDN (D. Neb. Jan. 28.
2019), seeks to stop Defendants' illegal practice of making
unauthorized calls that play prerecorded voice messages to the
cellular telephones of consumers nationwide, and to obtain redress
for all persons injured by their conduct, pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendants are debt collectors. As a primary part of their debt
collection efforts, the Defendants and their agents place thousands
of automated calls employing a prerecorded voice message to
consumers' cell phones nationwide. Unfortunately, Defendants do not
obtain prior express written consent to place these calls and,
therefore, are in violation of TCPA, the lawsuit says.

The TCPA targets unauthorized calls exactly like the ones alleged
in this case, based on Defendants' use of a prerecorded voice
called to consumers' cell phones without their consent. By placing
the calls, Defendants have violated the privacy and statutory
rights of Plaintiff and the Class.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff and the Class:

          Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
          210 S Ellsworth Ave No. 486
          San Mateo, CA 94401
          Telephone: 402-301-5544
          Facsimile: 402-396-7131
          E-mail: javitchm@gmail.com

RUSSELL CELLULAR: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Poblano Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Poblano and Nathan Bartlett, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Russell Cellular,
Inc., a foreign Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
8:19-cv-00265-MSS-AAS (M.D. Fla., January 31, 2019) seeks all
relief available under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
("FLSA") on behalf of Plaintiffs and all current and former
overtime exempt-classified Store Managers who worked at any of
Defendant's locations in the United States.

Pursuant to the Defendant's policy and pattern or practice, the
Defendant did not pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated SMs
proper overtime wages for hours they worked for its benefit in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint.

Poblano was employed by Defendant as an SM from October 2015 until
June 2016.

Bartlett was employed by Defendant as an SM from October 2016 to
July 2018.

Russell Cellular, Inc. is an exclusive Verizon Authorized Retailer
specializing in wireless communication services and is one of the
nation's largest Verizon Wireless Retailers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
     Camar R. Jones, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
     951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
     Boca Raton, FL 33431
     Phone: (561) 447-8888
     Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
     Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
            cjones@shavitzlaw.com


SC CLEANING: Padilla Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------
Hilma Padilla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SC Cleaning Service LLC, and Olival Correa, Case No.
7:18-cv-12157 (S.D. N.Y., December 24, 2018), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff asserts that she is entitled to unpaid wages from the
Defendants for working more than 40 hours in a week and not being
paid an overtime rate.

The Plaintiff worked as a cleaner for the Defendants from March 24,
2018 to November 4, 2018.

The Defendants were engaged in the business of providing cleaning
services in the New York Tri-State Area. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Tel: (718) 740-1000
      Fax: (718) 740-2000
      E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


SEAGATE TECH: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in HDD AFR Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC LITIGATION. CONSOLIDATED
ACTION, Case No. 16-cv-00523-JCS (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge
Joseph C. Spero of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied the Plaintiffs' renewed action motion
for class certification.

After the Court denied a previous motion for class certification
without prejudice, the Plaintiffs, eight individuals who purchased
hard drive products sold by Seagate, now move for certification of
eight classes of consumers who purchased certain Seagate hard
drives manufactured on or before Jan. 1, 2015 in California,
Florida, Massachusetts, New York, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, and Texas.

The case concerns certain three-terabyte hard drives produced by
Seagate and designated as model number ST3000DM001.  Seagate sold
these drives for both internal use (i.e., to be installed within a
computer or other device), and external use (i.e., to be attached
to a computer or other device with a cable).  The names for
products that consisted of or included these drives include
"Barracuda," "Grenada," "Grenada BP," "Grenada BP PL," "Grenada
BP2," and the "Desktop HDD Internal Kit," as well as a large number
of external drive products.  The currently proposed class excludes
external drives and Grenada BP2 drives.  The parties agree that the
internal drives at issue in the currently proposed class were sold
at least primarily through the "disty" distribution channel.

On July 5, 2018, the Court denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
first motion for class certification.  It held that the Plaintiffs
could not take their preferred approach of certifying a nationwide
class for claims under California consumer protection laws, but
that subclasses based on the laws of eight states would likely be
manageable and any distinctions among those laws would not likely
predominate if the Plaintiffs could show common factual questions.
The Court also held that the Plaintiffs had not presented evidence
by which a jury could determine on a classwide basis that the
drives' suitability (or lack thereof) for RAID configurations was
material to consumers.

In an effort to cure the defects identified in the Court's previous
order, the Plaintiffs have narrowed the scope of proposed
certification to eight state-based subclasses of consumers who
purchased internal ST3000DM001 hard drives manufactured on or
before Jan. 1, 2015, excluding external drives and all drives
designated "Grenada BP2" (the last iteration of the product family
at issue).  The Plaintiffs no longer cite Hospodor's declarations,
instead relying primarily on internal Seagate documents, many of
which formed the basis for Hospodor's opinions.

In its opposition brief, Seagate contends that the Plaintiffs
cannot rely on Seagate's public representations regarding
annualized failure rate ("AFR") because such representations varied
over time and across different pages of Seagate's website, and
because there were some periods where Seagate made no
representations of its drives' AFR.  Seagate also faults the
Plaintiffs for relying on evidence related to external drives and
Grenada BP2 drives not at issue in the proposed class, as well as
drives used in commercial rather than consumer settings.

The Plaintiffs argue in their reply brief that whether Seagate
knowingly understated the AFR of its drives is an issue common to
the class because undisputed evidence proves that Seagate did in
fact misrepresent the AFR of its drives from at least to 2011 to
2013.  They also argue that the true failure rate may have been as
high as 30% because Seagate questioned its own AFR testing model
for the drives as evidenced by Andrei Khurshudov's 2012 report, and
that whether commercial customers' experience is indicative of the
drives' AFR in consumer use is a question of fact for the jury, as
is the question of whether drives originally produced for OEM
customers were instead downgraded and sold to consumers.

The Court held a hearing on Jan. 18, 2019.

Magistrate Judge Spero concludes that the wide variety of evidence
on which the Plaintiffs rely for the key issue in the case -- AFR
-- and the undisputed variance of that metric across the class
period predominate over any common theoretical question of whether,
at any given time and for any given the class member, Seagate
failed to disclose true AFR materially higher than its
advertisements or reasonable consumer expectations, and the
Plaintiffs have once again failed to present any workable plan for
resolving their claims on a classwide basis.

For these reasons, the Magistrate denied the Plaintiffs' renewed
motion for class certification.  The parties are instructed to meet
and confer regarding a plan to resolve or try the Plaintiffs'
individual claims.  A case management conference will be held on
March 1, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., with a joint case management statement
to be filed no later than Feb. 22, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/NxvyrU from Leagle.com.

Christopher A. Nelson, Dudley Lane Dortch IV, Dennis Crawford &
David Schechner, Plaintiffs, represented by Marc Adam Goldich,
Axler Goldich LLC, Ashley A. Bede, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
pro hac vice, Bryan L. Clobes -- bclobes@caffertyclobes.com --
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice, Noah
Axler, Axler Goldich, Nyran Rose Rasche --
nrasche@caffertyclobes.com -- Cafferty Clobes Meriwether Sprengel
LLP, pro hac vice, Shana E. Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com --
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice
& Jeff D. Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Seagate Technology LLC, Defendant, represented by Anna S. McLean --
amclean@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Daniel R. Fong -- dfong@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richter and Hampton LLP, David Edward Snyder, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Joy O. Siu -- jsiu@sheppardmullin.com --
Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Lien Hoang Payne, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Mukund Hari Sharma, Sheppard Mullin
Richter Hampton, LLP, Neil A. Friedman Popovic --
npopovic@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP & Tenaya M. Rodewald -- trodewald@sheppardmullin.com --
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.


SIMM ASSOCIATES: Taylor Files Suit for Violation of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SIMM Associates, Inc.
The case is styled as Rozell Taylor, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIMM Associates, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00581 (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.

Simm Associates, Inc was founded in 1991. The company's line of
business includes collection and adjustment services on claims and
other insurance related issues.[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





SPAIN INN INC: Dubon Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Dubon, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Spain Inn, Inc., Luis Rodriguez,
individually and Jose Rodriguez, individually, Case No. 19-cv-00452
(D. N.J., January 14, 2019), seeks to recover to recover minimum
wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

Spain Inn is a Spanish-Portuguese restaurant located as 1707 W 7th
St, Piscataway Township, NJ 08854 where Dubon worked as a cook. He
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum
wage, spread-of-hours and overtime compensation for the hours that
he worked, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STEIN & STEIN: Torres Brings FDCPA Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stein & Stein, LLP.
The case is styled as Migdalia Torres, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Stein & Stein, LLP,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00582 (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.

Stein & Stein is an experienced commercial law firm specializing in
Collection Practice.[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


STINE SEED: Black Farmers Head to Court in "Fake Seeds" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeane Franseen, writing for localmemphis.com, reports that the
organization, Black Farmers, and Stine Seed Company, will be in
federal court.

This stems from a class action lawsuit filed by the Black Farmers
back in April.

Black Farmers claim the distributor for Stine Seed Company
purposely switched soybean seeds, in an effort to wipe out
African-American Farmers.

The Farmers bought the seeds at a convention in Memphis last year.
They say the alleged "fake" seeds failed to make them a profit,
which cost them millions of dollars.

The Farmers say they want the law on their side.

"It has laws in place. It has criminal statutes in place, making it
a crime for any individual to alter seeds, to tamper with seeds,"
says Thomas Burrell, President of the Black Farmers and
Agriculturalists Association (BFAA).

"We'll be exploring the avenues, whether it's civil, it's criminal,
dealing with fraud those issues which have negatively impacted our
black farmers," says TN State Representative G. A. Hardaway.

Stine Seed Company tells Local 24 News that this lawsuit has no
merit, and they have filed a motion to dismiss the case. [GN]


TEA POT 88: Hu Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
----------------------------------------------------
Hsin Fang Hu, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Tea Pot 88 Inc. dba Tea Pot Bubbl Tea & Wheel Pie; and
Jen 127 Inc. dba Jen 127 and Jennifer Kuei-Ying Lu, Case No.
1:18-cv-12158 (S.D. N.Y., December 24, 2018), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay its
employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked
and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek.

The Plaintiff Hsin Fang Hu was employed by the Defendants to work
as a cashier and food preparer at 127A Walker Street, New York, NY
10013.

The Defendants Tea Pot 88 Inc. dba Tea Pot Bubble Tea & Wheel Pie
is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the
State of New York with a principal address at 127A Walker Street,
New York, NY 10013. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Blvd. Ste 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Tel: (718) 762-1324


TERRA DIRECTIONAL: Sakas Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages & Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE SAKAS, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TERRA DIRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00292 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 28, 2019), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act from Terra
Directional Services.

According to the complaint, Terra failed to compensate Sakas and
all other similarly situated employees using an overtime rate
derived from a formula based on all renumeration received. Instead
of using all renumeration received to calculate Sakas' regular and
overtime rates of pay, Terra improperly excluded certain
non-discretionary bonuses from the calculations, thereby depriving
Sakas and all those similarly situated of overtime pay at an
appropriate rate in violation of the FLSA and the NMMWA.

Sakas worked for Terra as an MWD Field Engineer in Texas and New
Mexico during the relevant statutory time period. Terra paid Sakas
by the hour and, in addition to his hourly rate, Sakas received
bonuses from Terra.Although Sakas regularly worked in excess of 40
hours in a week, Terra did not pay Sakas overtime based on a
regular rate that included all renumeration Sakas received, as
required under the FLSA and NMMWA, the lawsuit says.

Terra is a company that provides directional drilling services
throughout the United State, including in Texas and New Mexico. In
order to create the goods and provide the services it markets to
its customers, Terra employed oilfield personnel like Sakas and the
Putative Class Members on an hourly basis.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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

TIVITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Amended Lackawanna TCPA Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LACKAWANNA CHIROPRACTIC P.C., Plaintiff, v. TRIVITY
HEALTH SUPPORT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-649 (W.D. N.Y.),
Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.

On June 7, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), alleging that
Trivity sent unauthorized and unwanted fax advertisements in
violation of the TCPA.  On Aug. 16, 2018, Tivity filed its first
motion to dismiss the case, and on Sept. 6, 2018, Lackawanna
Chiropractic filed an amended complaint.  Tivity filed its second
motion to dismiss on Oct. 22, 2018; Lackawanna Chiropractic
responded on Nov. 6, 2018; and Tivity replied on Nov. 16, 2018.

The amended complaint alleges that on March 2, 2018, Tivity sent an
unsolicited fax to Lackawanna Chiropractic.  According to the
amended complaint, the fax promoted the commercial availability of
Tivity's SilverSneakers, PrimeFitness, and WholeHealth Living
program networks and a new and exciting network similar to the
WholeHealth Living Network for which targeted members are ages 50+.
The fax also solicited provider recipients to join Tivity's
networks, make use of its marketing and patient matching services,
and compensate Trivity in return.  This compensation came in the
form of effectively paying Trivity a $20 new patient finder fee, by
offering an ongoing discount to Tivity network members for which
members compensate Trivity, and by delaying the reimbursement of
network providers and otherwise retaining the benefit of members'
funds during that delay.

Lackawanna Chiropractic filed a class action law suit on behalf of
all persons and entities similarly injured by Tivity's conduct,
alleging that it violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited faxes to
businesses and other consumers with which it had no relationship
advertising its networks.  According to the complaint, the fax was
an unsolicited advertisement because it advertised the commercial
availability and quality of Tivity's goods and services and was
commercial in nature.  Lackawanna Chiropractic alleges that by
sending these unsolicited advertisements to the prospective class
Plaintiffs without their prior express invitation or permission,
Tivity violated 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(C).

To support its motion to dismiss, Tivity argues that the fax was
not an "unsolicited advertisement" because its purpose was not to
promote the commercial availability and quality of its referral and
discount network.  Rather, the purpose of the fax, according to
Tivity, was to recruit healthcare providers like Lackawanna
Chiropractic to its network.  It moves to dismiss because, it
argues, the Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege that the fax
was an unsolicited advertisement or that it was commercial in
nature and promoted property, goods, or services.

Judge Vilardo concludes that the complaint alleges that Tivity is
in the business of connecting healthcare providers such as
Lackawanna Chiropractic to the members of its network for a fee,
and the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that that is exactly what
Tivity sought to do with its fax.  Because providers would
compensate Tivity for its services, Tivity's argument that the
purpose of the fax was recruitment is unavailing. On its face,
Trivity's fax is more than an offer of employment or noncommercial
information.  Instead, at least based on the facts alleged in the
complaint, it is an unsolicited advertisement for Tivity's
patient-matching services.  For these reasons, the Judge denied
Tivity's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/ra3LCt from Leagle.com.

Lackawanna Chiropractic P.C., a New York professional corporation,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Avi R. Kaufman -- kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
-- Kaufman P.A., pro hac vice & Stefan Louis Coleman --
law@stefancoleman.com -- Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, P.A.

Tivity Health Support, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Sharon M. Porcellio -- sporcellio@bsk.com
-- Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC.


TRUEACCORD CORP: Nunez Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TrueAccord Corp. The
case is styled as Aisha Nunez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TrueAccord Corp.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00583 (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.

TrueAccord Corp. provides an automated platform for debt recovery.
Its platform uses an automated system, behavioral analytics, and a
humanistic approach to help businesses recover outstanding
payments, while maintaining a positive relationship with their
customer. The company was founded in 2013 and is based in San
Francisco, California.[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



UNIFUND CCR: Faces Alvarado Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifund CCR, LLC. The
case is styled as Maritza Alvarado, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Unifund CCR, LLC and
Distressed Asset Portfolio III, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00585 (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.

Unifund CCR, LLC is a debt collector.[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



UNIFUND CCR: Ohio App. Partly Affirms Judgment in Piaser FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
LISA R. PIASER, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 2016-A-0076 (Ohio
App.), Judge Cynthia Westcott Rice of the Court of Appeals of Ohio
for the Eleventh District, Ashtabula County, affirmed in part and
reversed in part the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of
Common Pleas in favor of Unifund, denying in part her motion for
class certification on her counterclaim for violations of the
federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").

At issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in
denying class-action certification to the "Time-Bar Class"
identified in Ms. Piaser's motion.

On Oct. 15, 2009, Unifund filed a complaint against the Appellant
in the Ashtabula County Municipal Court to collect an alleged
credit card debt.  The account was opened in April 2000, and the
last payment she made was on July 5, 2000, leaving a balance of
$267.  Unifund alleged that Providian National Bank was the
original creditor and that Unifund purchased the account from
Providian.

In her first amended answer and counterclaim, the Appellant denied
the material allegations of the complaint.  She also asserted
individual and the class counterclaims, alleging Unifund violated
the FDCPA, and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act ("CSPA") and
committed various common law torts.  The Appellant alleged Unifund
is a debt collector under the FDCPA, and is in the business of
acquiring and collecting defaulted consumer credit card debt.  She
alleged that Unifund violated the FDCPA by filing actions against
her and others that were barred by the statute of limitations and
without obtaining an assignment of their accounts.  The Appellant
prayed for damages and injunctive relief.  Upon assertion of her
counterclaims, the municipal court transferred the case to the
common pleas court.

The Appellant admitted in deposition that she opened a credit card
account with Providian in April 2000 during a telephone
solicitation and that after the card was sent to her, she received
monthly statements at the address she provided to Providian.  She
admitted she incurred several charges on the account.  She made
payments between April and July 2000, when she sent her last
payment.

Jeffrey Shaffer, Unifund's VP of Operations, stated via affidavit
that in 2004, Unifund purchased the Appellant's account from
Providian.  He said that, based on the April 6, 2000 date on which
the Appellant opened her account and further based on the time
period during which the account agreement applied, the account
agreement Providian provided applied to her account.  He said that
Unifund attached to the complaint a true and accurate copy of the
account agreement.

On Sept. 1, 2010, Unifund filed a motion for summary judgment on
the Appellant's counterclaims.  On June 28, 2013, the trial court
entered summary judgment in Unifund's favor on the Appellant's
common law claims, leaving only her counterclaims for violations of
the FDCPA and the CSPA.  Further, in its summary judgment entry,
the court made findings regarding the Time-Bar Class.  

The Appellant alleged in her counterclaim that Unifund knowingly
filed a time-barred collection suit against her.  Unifund argued on
summary judgment that its claim was not time-barred because it was
filed within the then 15-year statute of limitations governing
written contracts in Ohio.  The court found the account agreement
was subject to the 15-year statute of limitations.

On Jan. 16, 2014, the Appellant filed a motion to compel discovery,
in which she sought additional information regarding, inter alia,
the Time-Bar Class.  On Sept. 4, 2014, the court held that further
discovery on this issue was not appropriate because the court had
already decided the complaint was properly filed within the 15-year
statute of limitations.

On Dec. 14, 2014, the Appellant filed a motion seeking to certify
her counterclaims as a class action and Unifund filed a brief in
opposition.  Despite the court's earlier ruling that Unifund filed
its claim against the Appellant within the statute of limitations,
the Appellant sought to certify the Time-Bar Class, alleging that
Unifund sued her and other class members outside the statute of
limitations.  She also asked the court to certify another class,
which she called the "Incompetence Class," alleging that Unifund
sued her and others without a valid statutory assignment of the
debt.

On Dec. 6, 2016, the trial court entered judgment on the
Appellant's motion to certify.  The court: (1) denied the
Appellant's motion to reconsider the court's June 28, 2013 judgment
finding that Unifund timely filed its suit within the 15-year
limitations period; (2) denied her motion to certify the Time-Bar
Class; and (3) granted her motion to certify the Incompetence
Class, but only as to her claim under the FDCPA, not as to her
claim under the CSPA.  Thus, the class action would proceed only as
to the Incompetence Class on the Appellant's claim for a violation
of the FDCPA.

The Appellant appealed that judgment and in Unifund CCR Partners v.
Piaser, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2016-A-0076, 2018-Ohi o-3016, the
Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.  The Appellant
subsequently filed an application for reconsideration. Upon
reconsideration, the Court concluded it had either failed to
address or did not fully address the Appellant's arguments.  The
application was therefore granted.

The following determinations of the trial court are currently
before the Court: (1) the trial court's 2013 judgment finding the
15-year statute of limitations applied; (2) the 2014 judgment
denying her motion to compel discovery regarding the Time-Bar
Class; and (3) that part of the 2016 judgment denying her motion
for reconsideration of the court's 2013 judgment applying the
15-year statute.

She asserts two assignments of error.  For her first assigned
error, she alleges the trial court erred to the prejudice of the
Defendant-Appellant in finding that the Time-Bar Class failed the
class certification requirement that the named representative must
be a member of the class.  For her second assigned error, the
Appellant alleges that the trial court abused its discretion in
overruling the Defendant-Appellant's motion to compel discovery of
information relevant to the court's inquiry of its motion for class
certification.

As to the Appellant's first assigned error, Judge Rice holds that
in order to certify a class action under Civ.R. 23, the Movant must
show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that seven requirements
are met.  In erroneously finding, the Appellant was not a member of
the Time-Bar Class, the trial court determined any analysis of the
remaining six elements was unnecessary and moot.  Because the trial
court did not consider the remaining requirements of Civ.R. 23(B),
the Court has no analysis to evaluate for error.  On remand,
therefore, the trial court will address remaining elements for
class certification and determine whether appellant has met her
burden.  The Appellant's first assignment of error is sustained.

As to the Appellant's second assigned error, the Judge holds the
Appellant's second assignment of error is without merit.  The
assigned error refers to the court's 2014 judgment denying the
Appellant's motion for additional discovery regarding the Time-Bar
Class.  Because, however, the judgment is not a final order, the
assignment of error lacks merit.  In any event, the Appellant
concedes that Unifund produced enough discovery materials to
support her motion to certify the Time-Bar Class.  Moreover, she
does not specify what additional information she needed or how not
having it would prejudice her.  The Appellant speculates that,
should the Time-Bar Class be certified, she will need additional
discovery to prosecute the class claims.  If, on remand, the trial
court deems class certification proper, the Appellant may then move
the trial court anew for additional discovery.  The Appellant's
request is, at this time, unripe.

Unifund asserts three cross-assignments of error.  They contend (i)
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ms.
Piaser's motion to certify a time-bar class because Ms. Piaser's
claims are not common to or typical of the purported class claim;
(ii) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ms.
Piaser's motion to certify a time-bar class because Ms. Piaser did
not satisfy Civ.R. 23(B)(2); and (iii) trial court did not abuse
its discretion in denying Ms. Piaser's motion to certify a time-bar
class because Ms. Piaser did not satisfy Civ.R 23(B)(3).

Because the trial court determined that the Appellant was not a
class member, the Judge finds that the trial court did not consider
the remaining requirements of class certification.  She is
unwilling to consider alternate grounds in support of a motion for
summary judgment for the first time on appeal where the trial court
has not engaged in a review of the issue in the first instance.

For the reasons stated in her Opinion, Judge Rice (i) sustained the
Appellant's first assignment of error is sustained; and (ii)
overruled her second assignment of error and Unifund's
cross-assignments of error.  She affirmed in part and reversed in
part the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas and
remanded.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/6u9rhg from Leagle.com.

Alan H. Abes -- alan.abes@dinsmore.com -- and Elizabeth M. Shaffer
-- elizabeth.shaffer@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP, 255
East Fifth Street, Suite 1900, Cincinnati, OH 45202 (For
Plaintiffs-Appellees).

Robert S. Belovich -- rsb@belovichlaw -- 9100 South Hills
Boulevard, Suite 320, Broadview Heights, OH 44147; and Anand N.
Misra -- officeofanand@gmail.com -- The Misra Law Firm, L.L.C.,
3659 Green Road, #100, Beachwood, OH 44122 (For
Defendant-Appellant).


UNITED STATES: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Casiano Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEANNA MAE CASIANO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 17-1315C (Fed. Cl.), Judge
Elaine D. Kaplan of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (i) denied the
government's motion to dismiss; (ii) granted the Plaintiffs'
cross-motion for judgment on the administrative record as to Ms.
Casiano's challenge to her disability rating; and (iii) granted the
government's motion for judgment on the administrative record as to
Patricia Barrett's claims.

The individual Plaintiffs in the case are Casiano and Barrett, each
of whom formerly served as a commissioned officer in the United
States Public Health Service ("USPHS").  Both Ms. Casiano and Ms.
Barrett were separated from the USPHS after being found unfit to
perform their duties for medical reasons.  Each claims that the
USPHS violated applicable laws and regulations in determining her
fitness for duty and rating her unfitting conditions.  They each
seek additional disability pay and benefits, as well as pay and
travel allowances they allege they were wrongfully denied.

In the complaint filed with the Court, Ms. Barrett alleges that the
decision of the USPHS to separate her with severance pay "was
arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law and regulation, was not
based on substantial evidence, and denied her pay and allowances
that she is due as a result of her service.  As had Ms. Casiano,
Ms. Barrett complains that the USPHS did not afford her the
procedural rights afforded to Army officers under DoD Directive
1332.18 and the Army's implementing issuances.  She further
complains that the USPHS' actions also denied her payments
associated with her case, including travel pay for appearing at
medical examinations and her hearing and costs for out of pocket
payments incurred for private legal counsel.

Finally, Ms. Barrett contends that the rating assigned to her
unfitting condition (degenerative joint disease) was erroneous.
The Plaintiffs observe that Ms. Barrett had "bilateral knee
replacement surgery" and that under the VASRD, the minimum rating
for a prosthetic knee is 30%.  Thus, according to the Plaintiffs,
Ms. Barrett should have been rated at 60% for her knees.

Ms. Casiano and Ms. Barrett styled their complaint as a class
action on behalf of all former members of the USPHS Commissioned
Corps whose disability retirement claims were considered under
policies and procedures that were allegedly not in compliance with
federal law and relevant regulations and who have as a result been
denied proper consideration and rating of their disabilities and
have been denied important rights guaranteed them under the law.
The Plaintiffs, however, did not file a formal motion for class
certification, and ultimately agreed that the Court should address
the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the administrative
record before considering whether the case should be certified as a
class action.

Currently before the Court are the government's motion to dismiss
and for judgment on the administrative record, as well as the
Plaintiffs' cross-motion for judgment on the administrative
record.

The government has moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims on
several jurisdictional grounds.  First, it seeks to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claim that USPHS's administrative process for
adjudicating disability cases violates 42 U.S.C. Section 213a(a)
because it does not guarantee the same rights provided in the
Army's regulations.  

Judge Kaplan finds that the government's jurisdictional challenges
to the Plaintiffs' complaint lack merit.  She opines that the Court
has limited authority to order injunctive relief; it may do so only
where such relief is an incident of and collateral to a money
judgment.  Thus, to the extent that the Court were to find that the
Plaintiffs' procedural rights were violated, and that such
violations were prejudicial, it is empowered only to award them
monetary relief; it cannot enjoin USPHS from applying the
regulations prospectively.

Turning to the merits of the parties' cross-motions for judgment on
the administrative record, the Judge rejects the Plaintiffs' claims
that the procedures used to adjudicate their fitness for duty
and/or eligibility for disability retirement were invalid under 42
U.S.C. Section 213a(a)(2) to the extent that they did not mirror
the procedures applicable to commissioned Army officers.  She also
finds that the Plaintiffs' argument that they were denied full and
fair hearings, as guaranteed by 10 U.S.C. Section 1214, lacks
merit.  The Plaintiffs provide no authority in support of their
claim that the "full and fair hearing" guarantee requires more,
such as the subsidization of witness travel or the provision of
free counsel.

Because the officers who attend Medical Appeals Boards ("MABs") are
not attending at the direction of USPHS, they are not on official
travel and are not entitled to reimbursement under the Federal
Travel Regulations.  The Judge accordingly finds without merit the
Plaintiffs' claims that USPHS violated applicable law or regulation
by not providing such reimbursement.


The remaining claims in the Plaintiffs' complaint concern whether
USPHS properly applied the VASRD when rating their medical
conditions.  Both the Plaintiffs contend that it did not and that,
as a result, they were denied disability retirement benefits to
which they were entitled.

The Judge agrees that the MAB failed to adequately explain why it
assigned Ms. Casiano a 20% disability rating for her fibromyalgia,
rather than the 40% rating that is applicable where an officer's
symptoms are "constant, or nearly so, and refractory to therapy."
She will therefore remand Ms. Casiano's claim to the Board for
Correction of Commissioned Corps Records ("BCCCR") for an
examination of that issue, consistent with her opinion.  On the
other hand, she finds that Ms. Barrett's challenge to her 20%
disability rating lacks merit.  She will therefore grant judgment
for the government as to Ms. Barrett's claims.

On the basis of the foregoing, Judge Kaplan (i) denied the
government's motion to dismiss; (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' motion
for judgment on the administrative record as to Ms. Barrett's
claims; (iii) granted the government's motion for judgment on the
administrative record as to Ms. Barrett's claims; (iv) granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the administrative record as to
Ms. Casiano's claim that the decision to assign a 20% disability
rating to her fibromyalgia was arbitrary and capricious; (v) denied
it as to Ms. Casiano's other claims; (vi) denied the government's
motion for judgment on the administrative record as to Ms.
Casiano's challenge to her disability rating; and (vii) granted it
as to her other claims.

Further, the Judge remanded Ms. Casiano's claim with respect to her
rating to the BCCCR for additional proceedings consistent with her
Opinion.  In particular, the BCCCR will direct the MAB to determine
whether, at the time of her separation, Ms. Casiano's symptoms were
constant, or nearly so, and refractory to therapy within the
meaning of 38 C.F.R. Section 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5025.  The
MAB's decision will be based on the existing record and such
additional evidence as it deems necessary to address the issue
before it.

The remand proceedings will be completed within 120 days of the
date of the Order.  The Judge stayed proceedings in the instant
case during that time.  In accordance with RCFC 52.2(b)(1)(D),
within 45 days of the date of the Order, and every 45 days
thereafter, the government will file a status report indicating the
status of the proceedings before the BCCCR.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/o6sIMo from Leagle.com.

DEANNA MAE CASIANO & PATRICIA BARRETT, on behalf of themselves and
all other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented
by Jason Ellis Perry -- jason.perry@jeperrylaw.com -- Law Office of
Jason Perry LLC.

USA, Defendant, represented by William James Grimaldi, U.S.
Department of Justice - Civil Division.


UNITED STATES: Sued Over Changes to Special Protection Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Castillo, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that when
Alex thinks about her childhood in Guerrero, Mexico, she remembers
the abuse.

There was the time her mother threatened to burn her hands on the
stove because she had cried after being hit. And the time her
mother didn't get her medical treatment after she caught her finger
in a steel gate. Or the many times she had to beg neighbors for
food because her mother punished her by not feeding her.

Now a 22-year-old Cal State Fullerton student studying animation,
Alex moved to San Diego at age 7 to live with her paternal
grandmother. For decades, young immigrants like her have benefited
from a legal classification called special immigrant juvenile
status, which allows them to live in the United States and embark
on a path to U.S. citizenship.

Nationwide, SIJS is available to immigrants under age 21 who have
been abused, abandoned or neglected by one or both parents if a
state court finds it's against their best interest to be returned
to their parents or sent back to their home country. Implemented by
Congress as part of the Immigration Act of 1990, the protections
increasingly had been used in recent years by minors who arrived
unaccompanied at the Mexican border.

But since the beginning of 2018, the Trump administration has been
rejecting special status applications from immigrants who are over
18, despite court orders finding that they were mistreated.

In response, Alex, who is using an alias out of fear of
retaliation, and three other young immigrants living in California
have sued the administration, saying their applications were
unlawfully denied.

"I think they're just trying to find loopholes, honestly, to not
let people have what was once provided to them," Alex said. "The
small possibility that we have to become U.S. citizens . . .  is
getting smaller and smaller. I feel like that's their goal: to make
it almost impossible for one to be legally in the U.S."

The administration has said that it is adhering to laws in a
majority of states that set adulthood at age 18.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services "continues to ensure that
children who have been abused, abandoned or neglected receive the
humanitarian benefits they are eligible for," said spokesman
Michael Bars.

Critics contend that the shift is further evidence that the federal
government is trying to create as many obstacles as possible for
immigrants in need of humanitarian protections.

According to lawyers bringing the case against Citizenship and
Immigration Services, several hundred young people in California
could be affected by the denials this year.

In October, Judge Nathanael Cousins of the U.S. District Court of
Northern California issued an order that bans the government from
deporting or placing into deportation proceedings any SIJS
applicants in the state who are over 18 while the lawsuit
proceeds.

The four plaintiffs in the case experienced similar circumstances
of abuse or neglect.

One is a 19-year-old New Zealand citizen who was abandoned by both
parents at 4 months old and raised by her aunts. Her application
was denied in April by USCIS. Another is a 19-year-old from
Honduras who was abandoned by his parents shortly after birth and
raised by a cousin. His application has been pending for more than
a year, despite the requirement under law that SIJS petitions be
decided within six months.

"I think this is part of the administration's attack on
immigrants," said attorney Sara Van Hofwegen of Public Counsel, a
Los Angeles-based pro bono public interest law firm. "Very little
immigration law has changed in the last two years, but we're seeing
a dramatic change across all forms of relief."

The case follows a class-action lawsuit in the same court
challenging the Trump administration's decision to end temporary
protected status for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from
several countries.

Bars, the Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman, said the
agency could not comment on pending litigation.

The SIJS lawsuit hinges in part on states' differing definitions of
the age of adulthood.

To obtain special status, applicants first need a ruling from a
juvenile court in their state finding they were mistreated and
either declaring them a dependent of the court or appointing them a
guardian. Afterward, the applicant submits the judge's order with
the petition to USCIS.

In most states, where 18-year-olds are considered adults, courts
can issue the orders required for SIJS applications only through
age 17. But California and a few other states define children as
being under age 21 for the purposes of establishing guardianship.

In late 2015, the California Legislature passed a law allowing
courts to appoint guardians for people 18 to 20 years old for the
purpose of applying for SIJS. In approving the bill, the
Legislature wrote that it was "particularly necessary in light of
the vulnerability of this class of unaccompanied youth, and their
need for a custodial relationship with a responsible adult as they
adjust to a new cultural context, language, and education system,
and recover from the trauma of abuse, neglect, or abandonment."

Maryland enacted a similar law to California's in 2014. In Nebraska
and Alabama, the age of adulthood is 19. In Mississippi, it's 21.

New York, where the age of adulthood is 18, amended its family law
in 2008 to allow anyone to obtain legal guardianship until age 21.
Lawyers there filed a class-action lawsuit against USCIS in June,
challenging the agency's stance that New York family courts don't
count as juvenile courts in determining SIJS eligibility. Lawyers
in California say applicants have received similar rejection
responses from Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Under the Trump administration, the citizenship and immigration
agency has stopped accepting applicants who are over 18 but under
21, saying they are not juveniles. It's a departure from the way
applications were routinely processed since the law was enacted in
1990 and expanded in 2008.

More than 70,000 people have applied for the protections since
2010, according to USCIS figures. Applications grew significantly
after a 2015 influx of unaccompanied children at the border. The
agency received nearly 17,000 applications from October 2017 —
the start of the last fiscal year -- to June, the last month for
which data is available.

A spokesman for USCIS told Politico in April that the agency had
rejected hundreds of applicants based on guidance issued in
February but never announced publicly.

Compounding the issue, lawyers say, is the increasing length of
time it's taking for applicants to get a response.

The number of pending applications has more than tripled since
2016. In 2017, close to 19,000 applications were pending. As of
June, more than 30,000 applications remained unresolved.

Plaintiffs' lawyers say that SIJS applicants are at further risk of
deportation based on another policy change that the citizenship and
immigration agency implemented in July, which directs its officers
to begin removal proceedings against anyone who is denied an
immigration benefit.

"These children brought themselves to the attention of the U.S.
government, relying on the language of the law," said attorney Mary
Tanagho Ross of Public Counsel. "The government is saying, 'We can
ad-hoc reinterpret the law and change our minds and punish you for
it.' It's really a bait-and-switch."

The administration's clampdown is squeezing immigrants such as Jay,
a 22-year-old from Mexico who is another plaintiff in the lawsuit.

She was brought to the United States at age 7 and suffered years of
physical abuse by her father. She fled in 2014 and a former
computer science teacher in San Jose took her in. Last year, the
Alameda County Probate Court appointed the teacher as her legal
guardian.

Forced to drop out of community college in 2016 after being
diagnosed with thyroid cancer, Jay said her life now consisted of
doctor's appointments and lab tests. She suffers anxiety and
depression from the trauma she endured as a child.

In July, Jay received a letter stating that USCIS planned to deny
her special status application.

She has temporary protection from deportation under Deferred Action
for Childhood Arrivals, which the Trump administration announced
would end last year. In response to lawsuits, two U.S. district
courts halted the program's termination and required USCIS to
continue accepting renewal applications from DACA recipients while
the lawsuits moved forward.

Jay had expected that applying for SIJS would be the last of her
legal hurdles.

"I had all the hope that this was going to be the last process that
I would need to go through," she said. "It's completely unfair.
There's a lot of us that left our country when we were kids. That's
not a home that we know."

At the October court hearing, Department of Justice attorney Ari
Nazarov argued that 18-year-olds are adults under California law,
despite the 2015 law extending their status as minors for SIJS
applications. He said those filed by immigrants between 18 and 21
can be considered only in states such as Nebraska and Mississippi,
where the general age of adulthood is over 18. He acknowledged that
applicants — especially the plaintiffs — run the risk of being
referred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and placed in
deportation proceedings. But he said they weren't at immediate risk
of deportation.

"If removal proceedings even were to happen right now, it would
take years before they're resolved," he said, noting that they have
the right to appeal.

He also argued that SIJS doesn't automatically grant recipients
legal status because later they have to apply to become legal
residents.

"All it is is just a classification," he said. "So there's no
irreparable harm here."

Alex disagrees. The possibility that she could be deported in the
future makes her worry about a lot of things: being separated from
her grandmother, her friends and her boyfriend, not being able to
finish college or fulfill her dream of becoming a cartoon
animator.

Most frightening of all is the thought of being tracked down by her
family in Mexico and enduring more abuse from her mother.

"I'm terrified to go back," she said. "My life is here." [GN]


VALE S.A.: Price of Securities Artificially Inflated, Rauch Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN RAUCH, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. VALE S.A., FABIO SCHVARTSMAN, and
LUCIANO SIANI PIRES, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00526
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 28, 2019), is a class action on behalf of persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
Vale securities between April 13, 2018 and January 28, 2019,
inclusive.

In November 2015, the Fundao tailings dam, joint-owned by Vale and
BHP Billiton Brasil Ltda., had burst, releasing tailings
downstream, flooding communities and negatively impacting property
and the environment. This dam failure resulted in fatalities.

According to the complaint, Vale purportedly took steps to provide
relief to those affected and prevent such a catastrophe from
occurring in the future. On January 25, 2019, news articles
reported Vale's tailings dam at its Feijao iron ore mine in
Brumadinho, Brazil had burst. Mining debris and mud flooded the
city. Several people were killed, including Vale's workers.
Hundreds of others were reported as missing.

On April 13, 2018, Vale filed a Form 20-F with the SEC, which
provided its financial results and position for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017.  The 2017 20-F was signed by Defendants
Schvartsman and Pires.  The 2017 20-F contained signed
certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by
Defendants Schvartsman and Pires attesting to the accuracy of
financial reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the
Company's internal control over financial reporting and the
disclosure of all fraud.  The 2017 20-F stated the Company was
committed to keeping its workplace safe and minimizing
environmental damage after its joint-owned Fundao tailings dam had
burst in 2015. Because of their positions of control and authority
as senior officers, the Individual Defendants were able to, and
did, control the contents of the various reports, press releases
and public filings which Vale disseminated in the marketplace
during the Class Period concerning Vale's results of operations.
Throughout the Class Period, the Individual Defendants exercised
their power and authority to cause Vale to engage in the wrongful
acts. The Individual Defendants therefore, were "controlling
persons" of Vale within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. In this capacity, they participated in the alleged
unlawful conduct which artificially inflated the market price of
Vale securities, the lawsuit says.

Vale is a mining and metals company headquartered in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil. The Company is incorporated in Brazil. During the
Class Period, the Company's securities traded on the NYSE under the
ticker symbol, "VALE."[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com

VANVORST LAW FIRM: Faces Shank Suit in NY Asserting FDCPA Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VanVorst Law Firm.
The case is styled as Marilyn Shank, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VanVorst Law Firm,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00590 (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.

VanVorst Law Firm, PLLC is a debt collector.[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


VIRGINIA: DVM Commissioner Ordered to Reinstate Driver's Licenses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
C-ville reports that a federal judge granted a preliminary
injunction December 21 and ordered Department of Motor Vehicles
Commissioner Richard Holcomb to reinstate the driver's licenses of
three plaintiffs who automatically lost their licenses when they
were unable to pay court costs and fines. The judge said they are
likely to prevail in their arguments that such automatic
suspensions are unconstitutional.

That same week, Governor Ralph Northam called for an end to the
practice. And Republican state Senator Bill Stanley has filed a
bill that would end the automatic suspensions.

The class-action lawsuit -- Stinnie v. Holcomb -- challenges the
automatic loss of driving privileges regardless of a person's
ability to pay and without notice or a hearing. Brought by the
Legal Aid Justice Center in Charlottesville, the case alleges that
approximately 650,000 Virginians have had their licenses suspended
for reasons that have nothing to do with driving violations and
solely for failure to pay fines.

In his ruling, Judge Norman Moon says, "While the Court recognizes
the Commonwealth's interest in ensuring the collection of court
fines and costs, these interests are not furthered by a license
suspension scheme that neither considers an individual's ability to
pay nor provides him with an opportunity to be heard on the
matter."

Two of the plaintiffs -- Damian Stinnie and Adrianne Johnson -- are
from Charlottesville, and Moon's injunction noted how the inability
to drive affected their ability to find employment and "created a
cycle of debt."

His ruling only affects the plaintiffs in the case, and the DMV is
ordered to reinstate their licenses without charging its $145
reinstatement fee.

"The ruling is a victory for the Constitution and for common sense.
The Court stated unequivocally that Virginia's driver's license
suspension statute likely violates procedural due process rights,
says Angela Ciolfi, executive director of Legal Aid Justice Center,
in a release.

Since the case was filed in 2016, the issue, which advocates call a
"modern-day debtors prison," has gained national attention.
Lawsuits have been filed in six other states and a federal judge in
Tennessee recently issued a similar injunction there. [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Denial of Attys' Fees in Clean Diesel Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, JASON HILL; RAY
PRECIADO; SUSAN TARRENCE; STEVEN R. THORNTON; ANNE DUNCAN ARGENTO;
SIMON W. BEAVEN; JULIET BRODIE; SARAH BURT; AIMEE EPSTEIN; GEORGE
FARQUAR; MARK HOULE; REBECCA KAPLAN; HELEN KOISK-WESTLY; RAYMOND
KREIN; STEPHEN VERNER; LEO WINTERNITZ; MARCUS ALEXANDER DOEGE;
LESLIE MACLISE-KANE; TIMOTHY WATSON; FARRAH P. BELL; JERRY LAWHON;
MICHAEL R. CRUISE; JOHN C. DUFURRENA; SCOTT BAHR; KARL FRY; CESAR
OLMOS; BRITNEY LYNNE SCHNATHORST; CARLA BERG; AARON JOY; ERIC
DAVIDSON WHITE; FLOYD BECK WARREN; THOMAS J. BUCHBERGER; RUSSELL
EVANS; CARMEL RUBIN; DANIEL SULLIVAN; MATTHEW CURE; DENISE DE
FIESTA; MARK ROVNER; WOLFGANG STEUDEL; ANNE MAHLE; DAVID MCCARTHY;
SCOTT MOEN; RYAN JOSEPH SCHUETTE; MEGAN WALAWENDER; JOSEPH MORREY;
MICHAEL LORENZ; NANCY L. STIREK; REBECCA PERLMUTTER; ADDISON
MINOTT; RICHARD GROGAN; ALAN BANDICS; MELANI BUCHANAN FARMER; KEVIN
BEDARD; ELIZABETH BEDARD; CYNTHIA R. KIRTLAND; MICHAEL CHARLES
KRIMMELBEIN; WILL HARLAN; HEATHER GREENFIELD; THOMAS W. AYALA;
HERBERT YUSSIM; NICHOLAS BOND; BRIAN J. BIALECKI; KATHERINE MEHLS;
WHITNEY POWERS; ROY MCNEAL; BRETT ALTERS; KELLY R. KING; RACHEL
OTTO; WILLIAM ANDREW WILSON; DAVID EBENSTEIN; MARK SCHUMACHER; CHAD
DIAL; JOSEPH HERR; KURT MALLERY; MARION B. MOORE; LAURA SWENSON;
BRIAN NICHOLAS MILLS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, BISHOP, HEENAN &
DAVIES, Objector-Appellant, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.;
VOLKSWAGEN, AG; AUDI, AG; AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC; PORSCHE CARS NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees. IN RE VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, JASON HILL; RAY
PRECIADO; SUSAN TARRENCE; STEVEN R. THORNTON; ANNE DUNCAN ARGENTO;
SIMON W. BEAVEN; JULIET BRODIE; SARAH BURT; AIMEE EPSTEIN; GEORGE
FARQUAR; MARK HOULE; REBECCA KAPLAN; HELEN KOISK-WESTLY; RAYMOND
KREIN; STEPHEN VERNER; LEO WINTERNITZ; MARCUS ALEXANDER DOEGE;
LESLIE MACLISE-KANE; TIMOTHY WATSON; FARRAH P. BELL; JERRY LAWHON;
MICHAEL R. CRUISE; JOHN C. DUFURRENA; SCOTT BAHR; KARL FRY; CESAR
OLMOS; BRITNEY LYNNE SCHNATHORST; CARLA BERG; AARON JOY; ERIC
DAVIDSON WHITE; FLOYD BECK WARREN; THOMAS J. BUCHBERGER; RUSSELL
EVANS; CARMEL RUBIN; DANIEL SULLIVAN; MATTHEW CURE; DENISE DE
FIESTA; MARK ROVNER; WOLFGANG STEUDEL; ANNE MAHLE; DAVID MCCARTHY;
SCOTT MOEN; RYAN JOSEPH SCHUETTE; MEGAN WALAWENDER; JOSEPH MORREY;
MICHAEL LORENZ; NANCY L. STIREK; REBECCA PERLMUTTER; ADDISON
MINOTT; RICHARD GROGAN; ALAN BANDICS; MELANI BUCHANAN FARMER; KEVIN
BEDARD; ELIZABETH BEDARD; CYNTHIA R. KIRTLAND; MICHAEL CHARLES
KRIMMELBEIN; WILL HARLAN; HEATHER GREENFIELD; THOMAS W. AYALA;
HERBERT YUSSIM; NICHOLAS BOND; BRIAN J. BIALECKI; KATHERINE MEHLS;
WHITNEY POWERS; ROY MCNEAL; BRETT ALTERS; KELLY R. KING; RACHEL
OTTO; WILLIAM ANDREW WILSON; DAVID EBENSTEIN; MARK SCHUMACHER; CHAD
DIAL; JOSEPH HERR; KURT MALLERY; MARION B. MOORE; LAURA SWENSON;
BRIAN NICHOLAS MILLS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, LAW OFFICE OF MALONEY &
CAMPOLO, LLP, Objector-Appellant, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA,
INC.; VOLKSWAGEN, AG; AUDI, AG; AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC; PORSCHE CARS
NORTH AMERICA, INC.; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees. IN RE VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, JASON HILL; RAY
PRECIADO; SUSAN TARRENCE; STEVEN R. THORNTON; ANNE DUNCAN ARGENTO;
SIMON W. BEAVEN; JULIET BRODIE; SARAH BURT; AIMEE EPSTEIN; GEORGE
FARQUAR; MARK HOULE; REBECCA KAPLAN; HELEN KOISK-WESTLY; RAYMOND
KREIN; STEPHEN VERNER; LEO WINTERNITZ; MARCUS ALEXANDER DOEGE;
LESLIE MACLISE-KANE; TIMOTHY WATSON; FARRAH P. BELL; JERRY LAWHON;
MICHAEL R. CRUISE; JOHN C. DUFURRENA; SCOTT BAHR; KARL FRY; CESAR
OLMOS; BRITNEY LYNNE SCHNATHORST; CARLA BERG; AARON JOY; ERIC
DAVIDSON WHITE; FLOYD BECK WARREN; THOMAS J. BUCHBERGER; RUSSELL
EVANS; CARMEL RUBIN; DANIEL SULLIVAN; MATTHEW CURE; DENISE DE
FIESTA; MARK ROVNER; WOLFGANG STEUDEL; ANNE MAHLE; DAVID MCCARTHY;
SCOTT MOEN; RYAN JOSEPH SCHUETTE; MEGAN WALAWENDER; JOSEPH MORREY;
MICHAEL LORENZ; NANCY L. STIREK; REBECCA PERLMUTTER; ADDISON
MINOTT; RICHARD GROGAN; ALAN BANDICS; MELANI BUCHANAN FARMER; KEVIN
BEDARD; ELIZABETH BEDARD; CYNTHIA R. KIRTLAND; MICHAEL CHARLES
KRIMMELBEIN; WILL HARLAN; HEATHER GREENFIELD; THOMAS W. AYALA;
HERBERT YUSSIM; NICHOLAS BOND; BRIAN J. BIALECKI; KATHERINE MEHLS;
WHITNEY POWERS; ROY MCNEAL; BRETT ALTERS; KELLY R. KING; RACHEL
OTTO; WILLIAM ANDREW WILSON; DAVID EBENSTEIN; MARK SCHUMACHER; CHAD
DIAL; JOSEPH HERR; KURT MALLERY; MARION B. MOORE; LAURA SWENSON;
BRIAN NICHOLAS MILLS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, JAMES BEN FEINMAN;
RONALD CLARK FLESHMAN, JR., Objectors-Appellants, v. VOLKSWAGEN
GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.; VOLKSWAGEN, AG; AUDI, AG; AUDI OF AMERICA,
LLC; PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC.; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT
BOSCH, LLC, Defendants-Appellees. IN RE VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL"
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION,
JASON HILL; RAY PRECIADO; SUSAN TARRENCE; STEVEN R. THORNTON; ANNE
DUNCAN ARGENTO; SIMON W. BEAVEN; JULIET BRODIE; SARAH BURT; AIMEE
EPSTEIN; GEORGE FARQUAR; MARK HOULE; REBECCA KAPLAN; HELEN
KOISK-WESTLY; RAYMOND KREIN; STEPHEN VERNER; LEO WINTERNITZ; MARCUS
ALEXANDER DOEGE; LESLIE MACLISE-KANE; TIMOTHY WATSON; FARRAH P.
BELL; JERRY LAWHON; MICHAEL R. CRUISE; JOHN C. DUFURRENA; SCOTT
BAHR; KARL FRY; CESAR OLMOS; BRITNEY LYNNE SCHNATHORST; CARLA BERG;
AARON JOY; ERIC DAVIDSON WHITE; FLOYD BECK WARREN; THOMAS J.
BUCHBERGER; RUSSELL EVANS; CARMEL RUBIN; DANIEL SULLIVAN; MATTHEW
CURE; DENISE DE FIESTA; MARK ROVNER; WOLFGANG STEUDEL; ANNE MAHLE;
DAVID MCCARTHY; SCOTT MOEN; RYAN JOSEPH SCHUETTE; MEGAN WALAWENDER;
JOSEPH MORREY; MICHAEL LORENZ; NANCY L. STIREK; REBECCA PERLMUTTER;
ADDISON MINOTT; RICHARD GROGAN; ALAN BANDICS; MELANI BUCHANAN
FARMER; KEVIN BEDARD; ELIZABETH BEDARD; CYNTHIA R. KIRTLAND;
MICHAEL CHARLES KRIMMELBEIN; WILL HARLAN; HEATHER GREENFIELD;
THOMAS W. AYALA; HERBERT YUSSIM; NICHOLAS BOND; BRIAN J. BIALECKI;
KATHERINE MEHLS; WHITNEY POWERS; ROY MCNEAL; BRETT ALTERS; KELLY R.
KING; RACHEL OTTO; WILLIAM ANDREW WILSON; DAVID EBENSTEIN; MARK
SCHUMACHER; CHAD DIAL; JOSEPH HERR; KURT MALLERY; MARION B. MOORE;
LAURA SWENSON; BRIAN NICHOLAS MILLS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, LEMBERG
LAW, LLC, Objector-Appellant, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.;
VOLKSWAGEN, AG; AUDI, AG; AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC; PORSCHE CARS NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees. IN RE VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, JASON HILL; RAY
PRECIADO; SUSAN TARRENCE; STEVEN R. THORNTON; ANNE DUNCAN ARGENTO;
SIMON W. BEAVEN; JULIET BRODIE; SARAH BURT; AIMEE EPSTEIN; GEORGE
FARQUAR; MARK HOULE; REBECCA KAPLAN; HELEN KOISK-WESTLY; RAYMOND
KREIN; STEPHEN VERNER; LEO WINTERNITZ; MARCUS ALEXANDER DOEGE;
LESLIE MACLISE-KANE; TIMOTHY WATSON; FARRAH P. BELL; JERRY LAWHON;
MICHAEL R. CRUISE; JOHN C. DUFURRENA; SCOTT BAHR; KARL FRY; CESAR
OLMOS; BRITNEY LYNNE SCHNATHORST; CARLA BERG; AARON JOY; ERIC
DAVIDSON WHITE; FLOYD BECK WARREN; THOMAS J. BUCHBERGER; RUSSELL
EVANS; CARMEL RUBIN; DANIEL SULLIVAN; MATTHEW CURE; DENISE DE
FIESTA; MARK ROVNER; WOLFGANG STEUDEL; ANNE MAHLE; DAVID MCCARTHY;
SCOTT MOEN; RYAN JOSEPH SCHUETTE; MEGAN WALAWENDER; JOSEPH MORREY;
MICHAEL LORENZ; NANCY L. STIREK; REBECCA PERLMUTTER; ADDISON
MINOTT; RICHARD GROGAN; ALAN BANDICS; MELANI BUCHANAN FARMER; KEVIN
BEDARD; ELIZABETH BEDARD; CYNTHIA R. KIRTLAND; MICHAEL CHARLES
KRIMMELBEIN; WILL HARLAN; HEATHER GREENFIELD; THOMAS W. AYALA;
HERBERT YUSSIM; NICHOLAS BOND; BRIAN J. BIALECKI; KATHERINE MEHLS;
WHITNEY POWERS; ROY MCNEAL; BRETT ALTERS; KELLY R. KING; RACHEL
OTTO; WILLIAM ANDREW WILSON; DAVID EBENSTEIN; MARK SCHUMACHER; CHAD
DIAL; JOSEPH HERR; KURT MALLERY; MARION B. MOORE; LAURA SWENSON;
BRIAN NICHOLAS MILLS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, NAGEL RICE, LLP,
Objector-Appellant, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.;
VOLKSWAGEN, AG; AUDI, AG; AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC; PORSCHE CARS NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees. IN RE VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, JASON HILL; RAY
PRECIADO; SUSAN TARRENCE; STEVEN R. THORNTON; ANNE DUNCAN ARGENTO;
SIMON W. BEAVEN; JULIET BRODIE; SARAH BURT; AIMEE EPSTEIN; GEORGE
FARQUAR; MARK HOULE; REBECCA KAPLAN; HELEN KOISK-WESTLY; RAYMOND
KREIN; STEPHEN VERNER; LEO WINTERNITZ; MARCUS ALEXANDER DOEGE;
LESLIE MACLISE-KANE; TIMOTHY WATSON; FARRAH P. BELL; JERRY LAWHON;
MICHAEL R. CRUISE; JOHN C. DUFURRENA; SCOTT BAHR; KARL FRY; CESAR
OLMOS; BRITNEY LYNNE SCHNATHORST; CARLA BERG; AARON JOY; ERIC
DAVIDSON WHITE; FLOYD BECK WARREN; THOMAS J. BUCHBERGER; RUSSELL
EVANS; CARMEL RUBIN; DANIEL SULLIVAN; MATTHEW CURE; DENISE DE
FIESTA; MARK ROVNER; WOLFGANG STEUDEL; ANNE MAHLE; DAVID MCCARTHY;
SCOTT MOEN; RYAN JOSEPH SCHUETTE; MEGAN WALAWENDER; JOSEPH MORREY;
MICHAEL LORENZ; NANCY L. STIREK; REBECCA PERLMUTTER; ADDISON
MINOTT; RICHARD GROGAN; ALAN BANDICS; MELANI BUCHANAN FARMER; KEVIN
BEDARD; ELIZABETH BEDARD; CYNTHIA R. KIRTLAND; MICHAEL CHARLES
KRIMMELBEIN; WILL HARLAN; HEATHER GREENFIELD; THOMAS W. AYALA;
HERBERT YUSSIM; NICHOLAS BOND; BRIAN J. BIALECKI; KATHERINE MEHLS;
WHITNEY POWERS; ROY MCNEAL; BRETT ALTERS; KELLY R. KING; RACHEL
OTTO; WILLIAM ANDREW WILSON; DAVID EBENSTEIN; MARK SCHUMACHER; CHAD
DIAL; JOSEPH HERR; KURT MALLERY; MARION B. MOORE; LAURA SWENSON;
BRIAN NICHOLAS MILLS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, STRONG LAW OFFICES,
Objector-Appellant, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.;
VOLKSWAGEN, AG; AUDI, AG; AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC; PORSCHE CARS NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees. IN RE VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, JASON HILL; RAY
PRECIADO; SUSAN TARRENCE; STEVEN R. THORNTON; ANNE DUNCAN ARGENTO;
SIMON W. BEAVEN; JULIET BRODIE; SARAH BURT; AIMEE EPSTEIN; GEORGE
FARQUAR; MARK HOULE; REBECCA KAPLAN; HELEN KOISK-WESTLY; RAYMOND
KREIN; STEPHEN VERNER; LEO WINTERNITZ; MARCUS ALEXANDER DOEGE;
LESLIE MACLISE-KANE; TIMOTHY WATSON; FARRAH P. BELL; JERRY LAWHON;
MICHAEL R. CRUISE; JOHN C. DUFURRENA; SCOTT BAHR; KARL FRY; CESAR
OLMOS; BRITNEY LYNNE SCHNATHORST; CARLA BERG; AARON JOY; ERIC
DAVIDSON WHITE; FLOYD BECK WARREN; THOMAS J. BUCHBERGER; RUSSELL
EVANS; CARMEL RUBIN; DANIEL SULLIVAN; MATTHEW CURE; DENISE DE
FIESTA; MARK ROVNER; WOLFGANG STEUDEL; ANNE MAHLE; DAVID MCCARTHY;
SCOTT MOEN; RYAN JOSEPH SCHUETTE; MEGAN WALAWENDER; JOSEPH MORREY;
MICHAEL LORENZ; NANCY L. STIREK; REBECCA PERLMUTTER; ADDISON
MINOTT; RICHARD GROGAN; ALAN BANDICS; MELANI BUCHANAN FARMER; KEVIN
BEDARD; ELIZABETH BEDARD; CYNTHIA R. KIRTLAND; MICHAEL CHARLES
KRIMMELBEIN; WILL HARLAN; HEATHER GREENFIELD; THOMAS W. AYALA;
HERBERT YUSSIM; NICHOLAS BOND; BRIAN J. BIALECKI; KATHERINE MEHLS;
WHITNEY POWERS; ROY MCNEAL; BRETT ALTERS; KELLY R. KING; RACHEL
OTTO; WILLIAM ANDREW WILSON; DAVID EBENSTEIN; MARK SCHUMACHER; CHAD
DIAL; JOSEPH HERR; KURT MALLERY; MARION B. MOORE; LAURA SWENSON;
BRIAN NICHOLAS MILLS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, HYDE & SWIGART,
Objector-Appellant, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.;
VOLKSWAGEN, AG; AUDI, AG; AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC; PORSCHE CARS NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees. IN RE VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, JASON HILL; RAY
PRECIADO; SUSAN TARRENCE; STEVEN R. THORNTON; ANNE DUNCAN ARGENTO;
SIMON W. BEAVEN; JULIET BRODIE; SARAH BURT; AIMEE EPSTEIN; GEORGE
FARQUAR; MARK HOULE; REBECCA KAPLAN; HELEN KOISK-WESTLY; RAYMOND
KREIN; STEPHEN VERNER; LEO WINTERNITZ; MARCUS ALEXANDER DOEGE;
LESLIE MACLISE-KANE; TIMOTHY WATSON; FARRAH P. BELL; JERRY LAWHON;
MICHAEL R. CRUISE; JOHN C. DUFURRENA; SCOTT BAHR; KARL FRY; CESAR
OLMOS; BRITNEY LYNNE SCHNATHORST; CARLA BERG; AARON JOY; ERIC
DAVIDSON WHITE; FLOYD BECK WARREN; THOMAS J. BUCHBERGER; RUSSELL
EVANS; CARMEL RUBIN; DANIEL SULLIVAN; MATTHEW CURE; DENISE DE
FIESTA; MARK ROVNER; WOLFGANG STEUDEL; ANNE MAHLE; DAVID MCCARTHY;
SCOTT MOEN; RYAN JOSEPH SCHUETTE; MEGAN WALAWENDER; JOSEPH MORREY;
MICHAEL LORENZ; NANCY L. STIREK; REBECCA PERLMUTTER; ADDISON
MINOTT; RICHARD GROGAN; ALAN BANDICS; MELANI BUCHANAN FARMER; KEVIN
BEDARD; ELIZABETH BEDARD; CYNTHIA R. KIRTLAND; MICHAEL CHARLES
KRIMMELBEIN; WILL HARLAN; HEATHER GREENFIELD; THOMAS W. AYALA;
HERBERT YUSSIM; NICHOLAS BOND; BRIAN J. BIALECKI; KATHERINE MEHLS;
WHITNEY POWERS; ROY MCNEAL; BRETT ALTERS; KELLY R. KING; RACHEL
OTTO; WILLIAM ANDREW WILSON; DAVID EBENSTEIN; MARK SCHUMACHER; CHAD
DIAL; JOSEPH HERR; KURT MALLERY; MARION B. MOORE; LAURA SWENSON;
BRIAN NICHOLAS MILLS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, THE DRISCOLL FIRM,
P.C., Objector-Appellant, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.;
VOLKSWAGEN, AG; AUDI, AG; AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC; PORSCHE CARS NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees. IN RE VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, JASON HILL; RAY
PRECIADO; SUSAN TARRENCE; STEVEN R. THORNTON; ANNE DUNCAN ARGENTO;
SIMON W. BEAVEN; JULIET BRODIE; SARAH BURT; AIMEE EPSTEIN; GEORGE
FARQUAR; MARK HOULE; REBECCA KAPLAN; HELEN KOISK-WESTLY; RAYMOND
KREIN; STEPHEN VERNER; LEO WINTERNITZ; MARCUS ALEXANDER DOEGE;
LESLIE MACLISE-KANE; TIMOTHY WATSON; FARRAH P. BELL; JERRY LAWHON;
MICHAEL R. CRUISE; JOHN C. DUFURRENA; SCOTT BAHR; KARL FRY; CESAR
OLMOS; BRITNEY LYNNE SCHNATHORST; CARLA BERG; AARON JOY; ERIC
DAVIDSON WHITE; FLOYD BECK WARREN; THOMAS J. BUCHBERGER; RUSSELL
EVANS; CARMEL RUBIN; DANIEL SULLIVAN; MATTHEW CURE; DENISE DE
FIESTA; MARK ROVNER; WOLFGANG STEUDEL; ANNE MAHLE; DAVID MCCARTHY;
SCOTT MOEN; RYAN JOSEPH SCHUETTE; MEGAN WALAWENDER; JOSEPH MORREY;
MICHAEL LORENZ; NANCY L. STIREK; REBECCA PERLMUTTER; ADDISON
MINOTT; RICHARD GROGAN; ALAN BANDICS; MELANI BUCHANAN FARMER; KEVIN
BEDARD; ELIZABETH BEDARD; CYNTHIA R. KIRTLAND; MICHAEL CHARLES
KRIMMELBEIN; WILL HARLAN; HEATHER GREENFIELD; THOMAS W. AYALA;
HERBERT YUSSIM; NICHOLAS BOND; BRIAN J. BIALECKI; KATHERINE MEHLS;
WHITNEY POWERS; ROY MCNEAL; BRETT ALTERS; KELLY R. KING; RACHEL
OTTO; WILLIAM ANDREW WILSON; DAVID EBENSTEIN; MARK SCHUMACHER; CHAD
DIAL; JOSEPH HERR; KURT MALLERY; MARION B. MOORE; LAURA SWENSON;
BRIAN NICHOLAS MILLS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, VILES AND BECKMAN, LLC,
Objector-Appellant, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.;
VOLKSWAGEN, AG; AUDI, AG; AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC; PORSCHE CARS NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees. IN RE VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, JASON HILL; RAY
PRECIADO; SUSAN TARRENCE; STEVEN R. THORNTON; ANNE DUNCAN ARGENTO;
SIMON W. BEAVEN; JULIET BRODIE; SARAH BURT; AIMEE EPSTEIN; GEORGE
FARQUAR; MARK HOULE; REBECCA KAPLAN; HELEN KOISK-WESTLY; RAYMOND
KREIN; STEPHEN VERNER; LEO WINTERNITZ; MARCUS ALEXANDER DOEGE;
LESLIE MACLISE-KANE; TIMOTHY WATSON; FARRAH P. BELL; JERRY LAWHON;
MICHAEL R. CRUISE; JOHN C. DUFURRENA; SCOTT BAHR; KARL FRY; CESAR
OLMOS; BRITNEY LYNNE SCHNATHORST; CARLA BERG; AARON JOY; ERIC
DAVIDSON WHITE; FLOYD BECK WARREN; THOMAS J. BUCHBERGER; RUSSELL
EVANS; CARMEL RUBIN; DANIEL SULLIVAN; MATTHEW CURE; DENISE DE
FIESTA; MARK ROVNER; WOLFGANG STEUDEL; ANNE MAHLE; DAVID MCCARTHY;
SCOTT MOEN; RYAN JOSEPH SCHUETTE; MEGAN WALAWENDER; JOSEPH MORREY;
MICHAEL LORENZ; NANCY L. STIREK; REBECCA PERLMUTTER; ADDISON
MINOTT; RICHARD GROGAN; ALAN BANDICS; MELANI BUCHANAN FARMER; KEVIN
BEDARD; ELIZABETH BEDARD; CYNTHIA R. KIRTLAND; MICHAEL CHARLES
KRIMMELBEIN; WILL HARLAN; HEATHER GREENFIELD; THOMAS W. AYALA;
HERBERT YUSSIM; NICHOLAS BOND; BRIAN J. BIALECKI; KATHERINE MEHLS;
WHITNEY POWERS; ROY MCNEAL; BRETT ALTERS; KELLY R. KING; RACHEL
OTTO; WILLIAM ANDREW WILSON; DAVID EBENSTEIN; MARK SCHUMACHER; CHAD
DIAL; JOSEPH HERR; KURT MALLERY; MARION B. MOORE; LAURA SWENSON;
BRIAN NICHOLAS MILLS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, HOLTON LAW FIRM, PLLC,
Objector-Appellant, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.;
VOLKSWAGEN, AG; AUDI, AG; AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC; PORSCHE CARS NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees. IN RE VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, JASON HILL; RAY
PRECIADO; SUSAN TARRENCE; STEVEN R. THORNTON; ANNE DUNCAN ARGENTO;
SIMON W. BEAVEN; JULIET BRODIE; SARAH BURT; AIMEE EPSTEIN; GEORGE
FARQUAR; MARK HOULE; REBECCA KAPLAN; HELEN KOISK-WESTLY; RAYMOND
KREIN; STEPHEN VERNER; LEO WINTERNITZ; MARCUS ALEXANDER DOEGE;
LESLIE MACLISE-KANE; TIMOTHY WATSON; FARRAH P. BELL; JERRY LAWHON;
MICHAEL R. CRUISE; JOHN C. DUFURRENA; SCOTT BAHR; KARL FRY; CESAR
OLMOS; BRITNEY LYNNE SCHNATHORST; CARLA BERG; AARON JOY; ERIC
DAVIDSON WHITE; FLOYD BECK WARREN; THOMAS J. BUCHBERGER; RUSSELL
EVANS; CARMEL RUBIN; DANIEL SULLIVAN; MATTHEW CURE; DENISE DE
FIESTA; MARK ROVNER; WOLFGANG STEUDEL; ANNE MAHLE; DAVID MCCARTHY;
SCOTT MOEN; RYAN JOSEPH SCHUETTE; MEGAN WALAWENDER; JOSEPH MORREY;
MICHAEL LORENZ; NANCY L. STIREK; REBECCA PERLMUTTER; ADDISON
MINOTT; RICHARD GROGAN; ALAN BANDICS; MELANI BUCHANAN FARMER; KEVIN
BEDARD; ELIZABETH BEDARD; CYNTHIA R. KIRTLAND; MICHAEL CHARLES
KRIMMELBEIN; WILL HARLAN; HEATHER GREENFIELD; THOMAS W. AYALA;
HERBERT YUSSIM; NICHOLAS BOND; BRIAN J. BIALECKI; KATHERINE MEHLS;
WHITNEY POWERS; ROY MCNEAL; BRETT ALTERS; KELLY R. KING; RACHEL
OTTO; WILLIAM ANDREW WILSON; DAVID EBENSTEIN; MARK SCHUMACHER; CHAD
DIAL; JOSEPH HERR; KURT MALLERY; MARION B. MOORE; LAURA SWENSON;
BRIAN NICHOLAS MILLS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES,
APLC, Objector-Appellant, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.;
VOLKSWAGEN, AG; AUDI, AG; AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC; PORSCHE CARS NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees. IN RE VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, JASON HILL; RAY
PRECIADO; SUSAN TARRENCE; STEVEN R. THORNTON; ANNE DUNCAN ARGENTO;
SIMON W. BEAVEN; JULIET BRODIE; SARAH BURT; AIMEE EPSTEIN; GEORGE
FARQUAR; MARK HOULE; REBECCA KAPLAN; HELEN KOISK-WESTLY; RAYMOND
KREIN; STEPHEN VERNER; LEO WINTERNITZ; MARCUS ALEXANDER DOEGE;
LESLIE MACLISE-KANE; TIMOTHY WATSON; FARRAH P. BELL; JERRY LAWHON;
MICHAEL R. CRUISE; JOHN C. DUFURRENA; SCOTT BAHR; KARL FRY; CESAR
OLMOS; BRITNEY LYNNE SCHNATHORST; CARLA BERG; AARON JOY; ERIC
DAVIDSON WHITE; FLOYD BECK WARREN; THOMAS J. BUCHBERGER; RUSSELL
EVANS; CARMEL RUBIN; DANIEL SULLIVAN; MATTHEW CURE; DENISE DE
FIESTA; MARK ROVNER; WOLFGANG STEUDEL; ANNE MAHLE; DAVID MCCARTHY;
RYAN JOSEPH SCHUETTE; MEGAN WALAWENDER; JOSEPH MORREY; MICHAEL
LORENZ; NANCY L. STIREK; REBECCA PERLMUTTER; ADDISON MINOTT;
RICHARD GROGAN; ALAN BANDICS; MELANI BUCHANAN FARMER; KEVIN BEDARD;
ELIZABETH BEDARD; CYNTHIA R. KIRTLAND; MICHAEL CHARLES KRIMMELBEIN;
WILL HARLAN; HEATHER GREENFIELD; THOMAS W. AYALA; HERBERT YUSSIM;
NICHOLAS BOND; BRIAN J. BIALECKI; KATHERINE MEHLS; WHITNEY POWERS;
ROY MCNEAL; BRETT ALTERS; KELLY R. KING; RACHEL OTTO; WILLIAM
ANDREW WILSON; DAVID EBENSTEIN; MARK SCHUMACHER; CHAD DIAL; JOSEPH
HERR; KURT MALLERY; MARION B. MOORE; LAURA SWENSON; BRIAN NICHOLAS
MILLS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, LAW OFFICE OF SAMUEL W. BEARMAN, LLC;
SELLERS SKIEVASKI KUDER LLP; ARTICE MCGRAW, PA,
Objectors-Appellants, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.;
VOLKSWAGEN, AG; AUDI, AG; AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC; PORSCHE CARS NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees. IN RE VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, JASON HILL; RAY
PRECIADO; SUSAN TARRENCE; STEVEN R. THORNTON; ANNE DUNCAN ARGENTO;
SIMON W. BEAVEN; JULIET BRODIE; SARAH BURT; AIMEE EPSTEIN; GEORGE
FARQUAR; MARK HOULE; REBECCA KAPLAN; HELEN KOISK-WESTLY; RAYMOND
KREIN; STEPHEN VERNER; LEO WINTERNITZ; MARCUS ALEXANDER DOEGE;
LESLIE MACLISE-KANE; TIMOTHY WATSON; FARRAH P. BELL; JERRY LAWHON;
MICHAEL R. CRUISE; JOHN C. DUFURRENA; SCOTT BAHR; KARL FRY; CESAR
OLMOS; BRITNEY LYNNE SCHNATHORST; CARLA BERG; AARON JOY; ERIC
DAVIDSON WHITE; FLOYD BECK WARREN; THOMAS J. BUCHBERGER; RUSSELL
EVANS; CARMEL RUBIN; DANIEL SULLIVAN; MATTHEW CURE; DENISE DE
FIESTA; MARK ROVNER; WOLFGANG STEUDEL; ANNE MAHLE; DAVID MCCARTHY;
SCOTT MOEN; RYAN JOSEPH SCHUETTE; MEGAN WALAWENDER; JOSEPH MORREY;
MICHAEL LORENZ; NANCY L. STIREK; REBECCA PERLMUTTER; ADDISON
MINOTT; RICHARD GROGAN; ALAN BANDICS; MELANI BUCHANAN FARMER; KEVIN
BEDARD; ELIZABETH BEDARD; CYNTHIA R. KIRTLAND; MICHAEL CHARLES
KRIMMELBEIN; WILL HARLAN; HEATHER GREENFIELD; THOMAS W. AYALA;
HERBERT YUSSIM; NICHOLAS BOND; BRIAN J. BIALECKI; KATHERINE MEHLS;
WHITNEY POWERS; ROY MCNEAL; BRETT ALTERS; KELLY R. KING; RACHEL
OTTO; WILLIAM ANDREW WILSON; DAVID EBENSTEIN; MARK SCHUMACHER; CHAD
DIAL; JOSEPH HERR; KURT MALLERY; MARION B. MOORE; LAURA SWENSON;
BRIAN NICHOLAS MILLS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, HARRELL & NOWAK, LLC,
Objector-Appellant, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.;
VOLKSWAGEN, AG; AUDI, AG; AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC; PORSCHE CARS NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees. IN RE VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, JASON HILL; RAY
PRECIADO; SUSAN TARRENCE; STEVEN R. THORNTON; ANNE DUNCAN ARGENTO;
SIMON W. BEAVEN; JULIET BRODIE; SARAH BURT; AIMEE EPSTEIN; GEORGE
FARQUAR; MARK HOULE; REBECCA KAPLAN; HELEN KOISK-WESTLY; RAYMOND
KREIN; STEPHEN VERNER; LEO WINTERNITZ; MARCUS ALEXANDER DOEGE;
LESLIE MACLISE-KANE; TIMOTHY WATSON; FARRAH P. BELL; JERRY LAWHON;
MICHAEL R. CRUISE; JOHN C. DUFURRENA; SCOTT BAHR; KARL FRY; CESAR
OLMOS; BRITNEY LYNNE SCHNATHORST; CARLA BERG; AARON JOY; ERIC
DAVIDSON WHITE; FLOYD BECK WARREN; THOMAS J. BUCHBERGER; RUSSELL
EVANS; CARMEL RUBIN; DANIEL SULLIVAN; MATTHEW CURE; DENISE DE
FIESTA; MARK ROVNER; WOLFGANG STEUDEL; ANNE MAHLE; DAVID MCCARTHY;
RYAN JOSEPH SCHUETTE; MEGAN WALAWENDER; JOSEPH MORREY; MICHAEL
LORENZ; NANCY L. STIREK; REBECCA PERLMUTTER; ADDISON MINOTT;
RICHARD GROGAN; ALAN BANDICS; MELANI BUCHANAN FARMER; KEVIN BEDARD;
ELIZABETH BEDARD; CYNTHIA R. KIRTLAND; MICHAEL CHARLES KRIMMELBEIN;
WILL HARLAN; HEATHER GREENFIELD; THOMAS W. AYALA; HERBERT YUSSIM;
NICHOLAS BOND; BRIAN J. BIALECKI; KATHERINE MEHLS; WHITNEY POWERS;
ROY MCNEAL; BRETT ALTERS; KELLY R. KING; RACHEL OTTO; WILLIAM
ANDREW WILSON; DAVID EBENSTEIN; MARK SCHUMACHER; CHAD DIAL; JOSEPH
HERR; KURT MALLERY; MARION B. MOORE; LAURA SWENSON; BRIAN NICHOLAS
MILLS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, EGOLF FERLIC HARWOOD, LLC,
Objector-Appellant, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.;
VOLKSWAGEN, AG; AUDI, AG; AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC; PORSCHE CARS NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees. IN RE VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, JASON HILL; RAY
PRECIADO; SUSAN TARRENCE; STEVEN R. THORNTON; ANNE DUNCAN ARGENTO;
SIMON W. BEAVEN; JULIET BRODIE; SARAH BURT; AIMEE EPSTEIN; GEORGE
FARQUAR; MARK HOULE; REBECCA KAPLAN; HELEN KOISK-WESTLY; RAYMOND
KREIN; STEPHEN VERNER; LEO WINTERNITZ; MARCUS ALEXANDER DOEGE;
LESLIE MACLISE-KANE; TIMOTHY WATSON; FARRAH P. BELL; JERRY LAWHON;
MICHAEL R. CRUISE; JOHN C. DUFURRENA; SCOTT BAHR; KARL FRY; CESAR
OLMOS; BRITNEY LYNNE SCHNATHORST; CARLA BERG; AARON JOY; ERIC
DAVIDSON WHITE; FLOYD BECK WARREN; THOMAS J. BUCHBERGER; RUSSELL
EVANS; CARMEL RUBIN; DANIEL SULLIVAN; MATTHEW CURE; DENISE DE
FIESTA; MARK ROVNER; WOLFGANG STEUDEL; ANNE MAHLE; DAVID MCCARTHY;
RYAN JOSEPH SCHUETTE; MEGAN WALAWENDER; JOSEPH MORREY; MICHAEL
LORENZ; NANCY L. STIREK; REBECCA PERLMUTTER; ADDISON MINOTT;
RICHARD GROGAN; ALAN BANDICS; MELANI BUCHANAN FARMER; KEVIN BEDARD;
ELIZABETH BEDARD; CYNTHIA R. KIRTLAND; MICHAEL CHARLES KRIMMELBEIN;
WILL HARLAN; HEATHER GREENFIELD; THOMAS W. AYALA; HERBERT YUSSIM;
NICHOLAS BOND; BRIAN J. BIALECKI; KATHERINE MEHLS; WHITNEY POWERS;
ROY MCNEAL; BRETT ALTERS; KELLY R. KING; RACHEL OTTO; WILLIAM
ANDREW WILSON; DAVID EBENSTEIN; MARK SCHUMACHER; CHAD DIAL; JOSEPH
HERR; KURT MALLERY; MARION B. MOORE; LAURA SWENSON; BRIAN NICHOLAS
MILLS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, RYDER LAW FIRM, P.C.,
Objector-Appellant, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.;
VOLKSWAGEN, AG; AUDI, AG; AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC; PORSCHE CARS NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees. IN RE VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, JASON HILL; RAY
PRECIADO; SUSAN TARRENCE; STEVEN R. THORNTON; ANNE DUNCAN ARGENTO;
SIMON W. BEAVEN; JULIET BRODIE; SARAH BURT; AIMEE EPSTEIN; GEORGE
FARQUAR; MARK HOULE; REBECCA KAPLAN; HELEN KOISK-WESTLY; RAYMOND
KREIN; STEPHEN VERNER; LEO WINTERNITZ; MARCUS ALEXANDER DOEGE;
LESLIE MACLISE-KANE; TIMOTHY WATSON; FARRAH P. BELL; JERRY LAWHON;
MICHAEL R. CRUISE; JOHN C. DUFURRENA; SCOTT BAHR; KARL FRY; CESAR
OLMOS; BRITNEY LYNNE SCHNATHORST; CARLA BERG; AARON JOY; ERIC
DAVIDSON WHITE; FLOYD BECK WARREN; THOMAS J. BUCHBERGER; RUSSELL
EVANS; CARMEL RUBIN; DANIEL SULLIVAN; MATTHEW CURE; DENISE DE
FIESTA; MARK ROVNER; WOLFGANG STEUDEL; ANNE MAHLE; DAVID MCCARTHY;
SCOTT MOEN; RYAN JOSEPH SCHUETTE; MEGAN WALAWENDER; JOSEPH MORREY;
MICHAEL LORENZ; NANCY L. STIREK; REBECCA PERLMUTTER; ADDISON
MINOTT; RICHARD GROGAN; ALAN BANDICS; MELANI BUCHANAN FARMER; KEVIN
BEDARD; ELIZABETH BEDARD; CYNTHIA R. KIRTLAND; MICHAEL CHARLES
KRIMMELBEIN; WILL HARLAN; HEATHER GREENFIELD; THOMAS W. AYALA;
HERBERT YUSSIM; NICHOLAS BOND; BRIAN J. BIALECKI; KATHERINE MEHLS;
WHITNEY POWERS; ROY MCNEAL; BRETT ALTERS; KELLY R. KING; RACHEL
OTTO; WILLIAM ANDREW WILSON; DAVID EBENSTEIN; MARK SCHUMACHER; CHAD
DIAL; JOSEPH HERR; KURT MALLERY; MARION B. MOORE; LAURA SWENSON;
BRIAN NICHOLAS MILLS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, PAUL S. ROTHSTEIN,
Objector-Appellant, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.;
VOLKSWAGEN, AG; AUDI, AG; AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC; PORSCHE CARS NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees. IN RE VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, JASON HILL; RAY
PRECIADO; SUSAN TARRENCE; STEVEN R. THORNTON; ANNE DUNCAN ARGENTO;
SIMON W. BEAVEN; JULIET BRODIE; SARAH BURT; AIMEE EPSTEIN; GEORGE
FARQUAR; MARK HOULE; REBECCA KAPLAN; HELEN KOISK-WESTLY; RAYMOND
KREIN; STEPHEN VERNER; LEO WINTERNITZ; MARCUS ALEXANDER DOEGE;
LESLIE MACLISE-KANE; TIMOTHY WATSON; FARRAH P. BELL; JERRY LAWHON;
MICHAEL R. CRUISE; JOHN C. DUFURRENA; SCOTT BAHR; KARL FRY; CESAR
OLMOS; BRITNEY LYNNE SCHNATHORST; CARLA BERG; AARON JOY; ERIC
DAVIDSON WHITE; FLOYD BECK WARREN; THOMAS J. BUCHBERGER; RUSSELL
EVANS; CARMEL RUBIN; DANIEL SULLIVAN; MATTHEW CURE; DENISE DE
FIESTA; MARK ROVNER; WOLFGANG STEUDEL; ANNE MAHLE; DAVID MCCARTHY;
RYAN JOSEPH SCHUETTE; MEGAN WALAWENDER; JOSEPH MORREY; MICHAEL
LORENZ; NANCY L. STIREK; REBECCA PERLMUTTER; ADDISON MINOTT;
RICHARD GROGAN; ALAN BANDICS; MELANI BUCHANAN FARMER; KEVIN BEDARD;
ELIZABETH BEDARD; CYNTHIA R. KIRTLAND; MICHAEL CHARLES KRIMMELBEIN;
WILL HARLAN; HEATHER GREENFIELD; THOMAS W. AYALA; HERBERT YUSSIM;
NICHOLAS BOND; BRIAN J. BIALECKI; KATHERINE MEHLS; WHITNEY POWERS;
ROY MCNEAL; BRETT ALTERS; KELLY R. KING; RACHEL OTTO; WILLIAM
ANDREW WILSON; DAVID EBENSTEIN; MARK SCHUMACHER; CHAD DIAL; JOSEPH
HERR; KURT MALLERY; MARION B. MOORE; LAURA SWENSON; BRIAN NICHOLAS
MILLS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.; HABUSH HABUSH &
ROTTIER, S.C., Objectors-Appellants, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
AMERICA, INC.; VOLKSWAGEN, AG; AUDI, AG; AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC;
PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC.; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH,
LLC, Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos. 17-16020, 17-16065, 17-16067,
17-16068, 17-16082, 17-16083, 17-16089, 17-16092, 17-16099,
17-16123, 17-16124, 17-16130, 17-16132, 17-16156, 17-16158,
17-16172, 17-16180 (9th Cir.), Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's order denying all of the 244 non-class counsel motions for
attorneys' fees.

The Appellants are lawyers and law firms that represented the class
members in an underlying class action that secured a settlement of
more than $10 billion and an additional award of $175 million in
fees for the class counsel.  The non-class counsel filed 244
motions for attorneys' fees.  In a single order, the district court
denied all of the motions, determining that the lawyers neither
performed common benefit work nor followed the proper procedures
for compensation.

On Sept. 18, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a
Notice of Violation ("NOV") in which it alleged that the Volkswagen
used "defeat devices" in 500,000 Volkswagen—and Audi-branded TDI
"clean diesel" vehicles.  Two months later, the EPA issued a second
NOV to Volkswagen and Defendant-Appellee Porsche Cars of North
America, Inc., which implicated the companies' 3.0-liter diesel
engine vehicles.

Soon after the issuance of the NOVs, consumers nationwide commenced
hundreds of lawsuits.  One such action was spearheaded by Appellant
Nagel Rice, an illustrative law firm that represented 43 Volkswagen
owners from various states.  Nagel Rice filed a complaint in New
Jersey federal court on Sept. 21, 2015 -- three days after the
issuance of the first NOV and two months before the eventual
consolidation of all related cases.  During this early
representation, Nagel Rice asserts that it performed various
activities related to the litigation, including conducting
research, fielding calls from prospective clients and the media,
and communicating with German legal counsel regarding potential
jurisdictional and evidentiary issues.

Eventually, on Dec. 8, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation consolidated the various lawsuits and transferred them
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Ultimately, the district court received more than 1,000 Volkswagen
cases as part of the MDL, titled In re Volkswagen "Clean Diesel"
Marketing, Sales Practices, & Product Liability Litigation, MDL
2672.

On Dec. 9, 2015 -- the day after the consolidation and transfer --
the district court issued its first pretrial order ("PTO"), in
which it announced its intent to appoint a Plaintiffs' Steering
Committee(s) to conduct and coordinate the pretrial stage of the
litigation with the Defendants' representatives or committee.
Nagel Rice was one of the firms that submitted papers to be
selected either as the Lead Counsel or as a member of the
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee ("PSC").  The district court
selected a 21-member PSC following the application process, and
appointed it and the Lead Counsel in its seventh PTO (PTO No. 7).
In its eleventh PTO (PTO No. 11), filed on Feb. 25, 2016, the
district court outlined its protocol for common benefit work and
expenses.  There is no indication in the record that Nagel Rice,
Feinman, or any other Appellants fully complied with the PTOs in
performing these efforts.

The Court filed its final approval of the Settlement on Oct. 25,
2016.  As of November 2017 -- one year before the end of the claims
period -- the claims of more than 300,000 class members had been
submitted and finalized, resulting in payments of nearly $7
billion.   Volkswagen and the Class Counsel eventually agreed to an
award of $175 million in attorneys' fees and costs, which the
district court granted on March 17, 2017.

The Court ultimately received 244 applications, including one from
Nagel Rice.  After reviewing the 244 fee applications, the district
court issued the Fee Order in which it determined that Volkswagen
did not agree to pay these fees and costs as part of the
Settlement, and Non-Class Counsel have not offered evidence that
their services benefited the class, as opposed to their individual
clients, and consequently denied the motions.

In denying the applications, the district court also recognized
that while the Non-Class Counsel are not entitled to fees from
Volkswagen as part of the class action, they may be entitled to
payment of certain fees and costs pursuant to attorney-client fee
agreements.  Accordingly, the court vacated the Lien Order and its
accompanying injunction on state court actions to facilitate such
recovery.  The appeals followed.

Nagel Rice and the other Appellants that signed its brief suggest
that the appeal presents an issue of first impression in the Ninth
Circuit: whether the Independent Counsel who performed services and
incurred costs in a multi-district litigation prior to the
appointment of the Lead Counsel are entitled to an award of fees
and costs, or are only the firms appointed to leadership roles
entitled to a fee award for services performed prior to their
appointment.  In truth, however, the central issue before the Court
is narrower: whether the district court abused its discretion when
it denied the Appellants' motions for attorneys' fees.

Judge Smith opines that he's sympathetic to the Appellants, and has
no doubt that many of them dutifully and conscientiously
represented their clients.  This is not necessarily a case where
latecomers attempt to divide spoils that they did not procure.  But
the Appellants' efforts do not entitle them to compensation from
the MDL, when the record indicates that they did not perform work
that benefited the class, and that they neglected to follow the
protocol mandated by the district court.  He commends the district
court's efforts to successfully manage a massive and potentially
ungainly MDL, and concludes that the court did not abuse its
discretion when it determined that the Appellants were not entitled
to compensation.  Accordingly, he affirmed the district court's
denial of the Appellants' motions for attorneys' fees.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/5bxmLA from Leagle.com.

Bruce H. Nagel -- bnagel@nagelrice.com -- (argued) and Diane E.
Sammons -- dsammons@nagelrice.com -- Nagel Rice, LLP, Roseland, New
Jersey; James B. Feinman (argued), James B. Feinman & Associates,
Lynchburg, California; Sara Khosroabadi and Joshua B. Swigart --
josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart, San Diego,
California; for Objectors-Appellants.

Samuel Issacharoff -- samuel.issacharoff@nyu.edu -- (argued), New
York, New York; Kevin R. Budner -- kbudner@lchb.com -- David S.
Stellings -- dstellings@lchb.com -- and Elizabeth J. Cabraser --
ecabraser@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, San
Francisco, California; Robin L. Greenwald, Weitz & Luxenberg P.C.,
New York, New York; Christopher A. Seeger, Seeger Weiss LLP, New
York, New York; Paul J. Geller, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Boca Raton, Florida; Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Keller Rohrback L.L.P.,
Seattle, Washington; Michael D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld LLP, Washington,
D.C.; Jayne Conroy , Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, New York, New York;
Roxanne Barton Conlin, Roxanne Conlin & Associates P.C., Des
Moines, Iowa; Joseph F. Rice, Motley Rice LLC, Mount Pleasant,
South Carolina; Michael Everett Heygood, Heygood Orr & Pearson,
Irving, Texas; Adam J. Levitt, Dicello Levitt & Casey LLC, Chicago,
Illinois; Frank Mario Pitre, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP,
Burlingame, California; James E. Cecchi and Carella, Byrne, Cecchi
Olstein Brody & Agnello P.C., Roseland, New Jersey; David Boies,
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Armonk, New York; W. Daniel "Dee"
Miles III , Beasley Allen Law Firm, Mongomery, Alabama; Benjamin L.
Bailey , Bailey Glasser LLP, Charleston, West Virginia; Steve W.
Berman, Hagens Berman, Seattle, Washington; Rosemary M. Rivas, Levi
& Korsinsky LLP, San Francisco, California; David Seabold Casey
Jr., Casey Gerry Schenk Franca Villa Blatt & Penfield LLP, San
Diego, California; J. Gerard Stranch IV, Bransteter Stranch &
Jennings, PLLC, Nashville, Tennessee; Lesley E. Weaver, Bleichmar
Fonti & Auld LLP, Oakland, California; Roland K. Tellis, Baron &
Budd P.C., Encino, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Sharon Nelles -- nelless@sullcrom.com -- (argued), Andrew J. Finn,
William B. Monahan -- monahanw@sullcrom.com -- and Robert J.
Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP,
New York, New York, for Defendants-Appellees.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Denial of Autoports' Bid for Attorneys' Fees Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. JASON HILL; RAY
PRECIADO; SUSAN TARRENCE; STEVEN R. THORNTON; ANNE DUNCAN ARGENTO;
SIMON W. BEAVEN; JULIET BRODIE; SARAH BURT; AIMEE EPSTEIN; GEORGE
FARQUAR; MARK HOULE; REBECCA KAPLAN; HELEN KOISK-WESTLY; RAYMOND
KREIN; LEO WINTERNITZ; MARCUS ALEXANDER DOEGE; LESLIE MACLISE-KANE;
TIMOTHY WATSON; FARRAH P. BELL; JERRY LAWHON; MICHAEL R. CRUISE;
JOHN C. DUFURRENA; SCOTT BAHR; KARL FRY; CESAR OLMOS; BRITNEY LYNNE
SCHNATHORST; CARLA BERG; AARON JOY; ERIC DAVIDSON WHITE; FLOYD BECK
WARREN; THOMAS J. BUCHBERGER; RUSSELL EVANS; CARMEL RUBIN; DANIEL
SULLIVAN; MATTHEW CURE; DENISE DE FIESTA; MARK ROVNER; WOLFGANG
STEUDEL; ANNE MAHLE; DAVID MCCARTHY; SCOTT MOEN; RYAN JOSEPH
SCHUETTE; MEGAN WALAWENDER; JOSEPH MORREY; MICHAEL LORENZ; NANCY L.
STIREK; REBECCA PERLMUTTER; ADDISON MINOTT; RICHARD GROGAN; ALAN
BANDICS; MELANI BUCHANAN FARMER; KEVIN BEDARD; ELIZABETH BEDARD;
CYNTHIA R. KIRTLAND; MICHAEL CHARLES KRIMMELBEIN; WILL HARLAN;
HEATHER GREENFIELD; THOMAS W. AYALA; HERBERT YUSSIM; NICHOLAS BOND;
BRIAN J. BIALECKI; KATHERINE MEHLS; WHITNEY POWERS; ROY MCNEAL;
BRETT ALTERS; KELLY R. KING; RACHEL OTTO; WILLIAM ANDREW WILSON;
DAVID EBENSTEIN; MARK SCHUMACHER; CHAD DIAL; JOSEPH HERR; KURT
MALLERY; MARION B. MOORE; LAURA SWENSON; BRIAN NICHOLAS MILLS;
STEPHEN VERNER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, AUTOPORT, LLC,
Objector-Appellant, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.;
VOLKSWAGEN, AG; AUDI, AG; AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC; PORSCHE CARS NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-16066 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
order denying Autoport's motion for attorneys' fees, along with 243
other fee motions.

The attorneys for Objector-Appellant Autoport represented it in a
state-court action against Volkswagen, and also provided guidance
to class counsel in the underlying multidistrict litigation
("MDL").  Autoport filed a motion for attorneys' fees to recover
for these services, which the district court denied along with 243
other fee motions.

As part of the flurry of litigation that followed public disclosure
of Volkswagen's use of "defeat devices" in its purportedly "clean
diesel" vehicles, Autoport and its lawyers represented
non-Volkswagen dealers ("Non-VW Dealers") in Missouri state court.
Upon reviewing the proposed MDL settlement filed with the district
court, one of Autoport's lawyers, Allen P. Press of the firm
Jacobson Press & Fields P.C. ("JPF"), noted that its text might
have excluded Non-VW Dealers -- an omission that, as confirmed by
one of Volkswagen's lawyers, would have been inadvertent.  Press
proceeded to engage with the MDL's Plaintiffs' Steering Committee
("PSC"), and after a lengthy email exchange with various PSC
members, the MDL's Lead Counsel stated that dealers were included
in the Settlement.  The final Settlement text remedied these
potential errors and included Non-VW Dealers.  Autoport
subsequently filed a motion for attorneys' fees with the district
court, seeking compensation primarily for JPF's efforts in Missouri
state court.  The district court denied Autoport's motion, and the
appeal followed.

The Ninth Circuit finds that the $404,646.27 in fees that Autoport
sought in its motion were not merely compensation for Press' work
with the Settlement text, but were instead primarily for the work
JPF performed for Autoport in Missouri state court.  That wholly
separate litigation was not consolidated as part of the MDL, and
there is no evidence that the Lead Counsel requested and authorized
the 287.3 hours spent prosecuting that state-court action, as
required by Pretrial Order ("PTO") No. 11.

As for the approximately 13 hours of work that Press spent working
on the Settlement text, the Court finds that although his efforts
arguably benefited the MDL class, it is not clear from the record
that Press qualified as the counsel authorized by the Lead Counsel
to perform work that may be considered for common benefit
compensation, and/or the counsel who have been specifically
approved by the Court as the Participating Counsel prior to
incurring any such cost or expense.  The evidence in the record
supports the district court's conclusion that Autoport did not
comply with PTO No. 11, as there is no evidence that the Lead
Counsel or the court actually authorized Press' work on the
Settlement.  Therefore, the district court did not abuse its
discretion when it concluded that none of the work for which
Autoport sought attorneys' fees, even those efforts that arguably
benefited the class, could be compensated.

Autoport also argues that the district court abused its discretion
by failing to consider any of the facts on which the fee request
was based and grouping the lawyers' request in with those of
numerous other lawyers who did not create any benefit for the
Class.  However, the Court holds that the district court only
needed to articulate with sufficient clarity the manner in which it
made its determination.  The district court explained the
applicable standard and then concluded -- correctly and
specifically -- that Autoport's work was not "requested and
authorized" by the Lead Counsel.  Although brief, the district
court's explanation sufficiently articulated the reason for its
denial.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/umOMG6 from Leagle.com.


WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Violates FDCPA, Marshall Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wakefield &
Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Robin R. Marshall,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Wakefield & Associates, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00586 (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.

Wakefield & Associates Inc was founded in 1982. The company's line
of business includes collection and adjustment services on claims
and other insurance related issues.[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


WALMART INC: Roach Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers
---------------------------------------------------------
ETHAN ROACH, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, vs. WALMART, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH01107 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Jan. 28,
2019), seeks to recover liquidated monetary damages against
Defendant for violations of the Biometric Information Privacy Act,
and seeks to enjoin the Defendant from committing further
violations.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as an hourly
employee at Defendant's Litchfield, Illinois Walmart store from
early 2016 until approximately August or September of 2017.
Starting in approximately April or May of 2017, and continuing
until approximately June or July of 2017, the Defendant forced him
to use a biometric cash register system. The Defendant forced him
and other employees responsible for a cash register drawer to scan
their handprint at the beginning of a shift to get the cash
register drawer and at the end of a shift to return the cash
register drawer.

Unlike an employee identification number or employee identification
card, handprints are unique and permanent identifiers. By requiring
employees to scan their handprints to check out or return a cash
register drawer, instead of identification numbers or badges only,
Defendant ensured that unauthorized employees could not access a
cash register drawer. Thus, there's no question that Defendant
benefited from using a biometric cash register system. But there's
equally no question that Defendant placed employees at risk by
using their biometric identifiers to check out and return cash
register drawers.

As a result, Illinois restricted private entities, like Defendant,
from collecting, storing, using, or transferring a person's
biometric identifiers and information without adhering to strict
informed-consent procedures established by the Biometric. The
Defendant collected, stored, and used the unique biometric
handprint identifiers of Plaintiff and others similarly situated
without following the detailed requirements of the Biometric
Information Privacy Act. As a result, Defendant violated the
Biometric Information Privacy Act and compromised the privacy and
security of the biometric identifiers and information of Plaintiff
and others similarly situated.

According to the complaint, the Defendant never provided Plaintiff
any written materials about its collection, retention, destruction,
use, or dissemination of his scanned hand print. The Defendant
never obtained Plaintiffs written consent, or release as a
condition of employment, before collecting, storing, or using a
scan of his handprint. The Defendant violated Plaintiffs privacy by
capturing or collecting his unique biometric identifiers and
information. The Defendant diminished the value of Plaintiffs
biometric identifiers and information by storing them without
publishing data retention and destruction policies required by the
Biometric Information Privacy Act, the lawsuit says.

Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores. Headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas, the company
was founded by Sam Walton in 1962 and incorporated on October 31,
1969.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

WAYFAIR INC: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Wayfair Inc. (NYSE: W) securities between August
2, 2018 and October 31, 2018 (the "Class Period").  Investors have
until March 11, 2019 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period defendants
made false and misleading statements to the market.  Specifically,
that Wayfair suffered from diminishing demand for its online
products and compensated by increased advertisers to drive sales.
The company was about one-third of the way through the third
quarter of 2018 when it announced its second-quarter results, and
by that time, it had already dramatically increased its advertising
spending for the quarter.  Based on these facts, the company's
public statements were false and materially misleading throughout
the class period.

If you purchased Wayfair securities during the Class Period or
continue to hold shares purchased before the Class Period, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon
Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com,
or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact
form.  There is no cost or obligation to you.

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


WAYFAIR INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Wayfair Inc. (NYSE:W) from August 2, 2018 through
October 31, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for Wayfair investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Wayfair class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1489.html or call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Wayfair had been experiencing significantly diminished
demand for its online product offerings and had significantly
increased advertising spending to grow sales; (2) Wayfair, which
was already more than one-third of the way into 3Q18 when it
announced its 2Q18 results on August 2, 2018, had already
dramatically increased advertising spending for 3Q18; and (3) as a
result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 11,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1489.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


WESTERN UNION: Celestin Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Odilon S. Celestin, Widmir Romelien, Goldie Lamothe Alexandre,
Vincent Marazita, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Michel Joseph Martelly, Jocelerme Privet, Jovenel Moise, Western
Union, Caribbean Air Mail, Inc., Unitransfer USA, Inc.,
Digicel-Haiti, Natcom S.A., and The Government of Haiti, Case No.
1:18-cv-07340 (E.D. N.Y., December 24, 2018), is brought against
the Defendants for entering into a horizontal price fixing
agreement in violation of the Sherman Act of 1980 and the Foreign
Trade Antitrust Improvement Act of 1982.

The Plaintiffs alleges that the Defendants conspired and entered
into two horizontal price-fixing agreements, circulars #98, #7, and
Presidential Order, to compel consumers to pay an extra $1.50 on
every money transfer effectuated to and from Haiti; as well as
charging consumers in the United States $0.05 per minute on every
international call placed to and from Haiti. The Plaintiffs and
other remitters must call the beneficiaries of the money transfer
to provide them with the money transfer control number in order for
them to collect the monies remitted to them.

The Plaintiffs send remittances, make money transfers and make
telephone calls to families and friends in Haiti.

The Defendant Michel Joseph Martelly is a citizen of Haiti.
Defendant Martelly at all relevant times orchestrated the scheme to
defraud US Citizens, Residents and Haitians living in Haiti with
the collection of the $1.50 and $.05 per minute on money transfers
and on international phone calls made to or from Haiti
respectively.

The Defendant Jocelerme Privert is a Citizen of Haiti. Privert at
all relevant times continued the conspiracy and the scheme by
allowing the unlawful collection of the $1.50 and $.05 per minute
on money transfers and on international phone calls made to or from
Haiti, respectively.

The Defendant Jovenel Moise is a Citizen of Haiti. Defendant Moise
at all relevant times continues to promote, market and collect the
unlawful fees.

The Defendant Western Union Company, also doing business as Western
Union Financial Services, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 12500 East Belford Avenue,
Englewood, Colorado 80112.

The Defendant CAM is a corporation in the global money services
business, incorporated under the laws of Florida, and headquartered
in Miami, Florida.

The Defendant Unitransfer USA, Inc. is a corporation in the global
money services business, incorporated under the laws of Delaware,
and headquartered in Miami, Florida.

The Defendant Unigestion Holding, S.A., a foreign corporation, dba
Digicel Haiti, Digicel Haiti is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Digicel Holdings, Ltd., which also owns Digicel USA, Inc. and
Digicel Jamaica, Ltd. Digicel USA is a corporation providing
telephone services incorporated under the laws of Delaware and
registered as a foreign corporation in Florida.

The Defendant NATCOM, S.A. is a consortium, created under the laws
of Haiti is a provider of telecommunications services in Haiti.

The Defendant the Government of Haiti entered into two horizontal
price-fixing arrangements and agreements knowing that such
arrangements and agreements violated the laws of Haiti as well as
the antitrust laws of the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Marcel P. Denis, Esq.
      DENIS LAW GROUP, PLLC
      9602 Avenue L
      Brooklyn, NY 11236
      Tel: (404) 977-9733
      Fax: (917) 810-3816
      E-mail: mdcounsel@gmail.com

          - and -

      Rodney R. Austin, Esq.
      RODNEY R. AUSTIN PLLC
      61-43 186th Street
      Fresh Meadows, NY 11365
      Tel: (718) 475-2119
      Fax: (877) 586-7490
      E-mail: rodney@raustinlaw.com


WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Cert./Stay Bid Briefing Sched in Rushing Modified
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM RUSHING, Individually and on Behalf of all
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., a
Delaware corporation, also d/b/a Williams-Sonoma, and
Williams-Sonoma Home, Pottery Barn, PB Teen, and PB Dorm, Pottery
Barn Kids, Pottery Barn Baby, and West Elm; WILLIAMS-SONOMA DTC,
INC., a California corporation; WILLIAMS-SONOMA ADVERTISING, INC.,
a California corporation; and DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-01421 WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, granted the parties stipulated order continuing
the hearing date and briefing schedule for the Defendants' Motion
to Certify Order on Pending Motions and Order Denying Motions for
Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration for Interlocutory Appeal
to the Ninth Circuit and Stay Proceedings.

On Jan. 9, 2019, Williams-Sonoma filed a Notice of Motion and
Motion for Certification and Stay.  Under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and Local Rules of the Northern District of
California, and the deadlines set forth on CM-ECF, the Plaintiff's
Response to Williams-Sonoma's Motion would be due by Jan. 23, 2019,
and the Defendants' Reply would be due by Jan. 30, 2019.
Williams-Sonoma scheduled the hearing on their Motion for 2:00 p.m.
on Feb. 13, 2019.

The Plaintiff's counsel is traveling for previously scheduled
out-of-state meetings and conducting on-campus interviews for law
students from Jan. 17, 2019 until Jan. 22, 2019.  The Plaintiff's
counsel, who reside in San Diego and Phoenix, are also unavailable
to travel to San Francisco for the hearing date Williams-Sonoma
originally noticed.  They requested that both the briefing schedule
and hearing date be continued for one week to accommodate their
schedules.

Williams-Sonoma renewed the request that the Plaintiff agrees to a
stay of the case pending a decision on the Motion for Certification
and Stay when the Plaintiff requested an extension of time to
respond to the Motion and to continue the hearing date and the
Plaintiff denied the request for a stay.  Williams-Sonoma's counsel
is unavailable to attend a hearing on Feb. 20, 2019, the
alternative hearing date the Plaintiff proposed

The parties have nevertheless agreed, and Judge Orrick granted,
that the schedule should be modified as follows:

     a. The deadline for the Plaintiff to file his response to the
Defendants' Motion for Certification and Stay is extended from Jan.
23, 2019 to Jan. 30, 2019;

     b. The deadline for the Defendants to file their reply is
extended from Jan. 30, 2019, to Feb. 6, 2019; and

     c. The hearing for the Defendants' Motion is continued from
Feb. 13, 2019, to Feb. 27, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Stipulated Order is
available at https://is.gd/jDOAOQ from Leagle.com.

William Rushing, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by George Richard Baker --
richard@bakerlawpc.com -- Baker Law PC, Amber L. Eck --
ambere@haelaw.com -- Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, Audra Elizabeth
Petrolle -- apetroile@roselawgroup.com -- Rose Law Group pc, pro
hac vice, Jonathan Henry Udell -- JUdell@roselawgroup.com -- Rose
Law Group pc, pro hac vice, Kathryn Honecker --
khonecker@roselawgroup.com -- Rose Law Group, pc, pro hac vice,
Lauren Marie Nageotte, Rose Law Group, pc, pro hac vice & Robert D.
Prine -- robertp@haelaw.com -- Haeggquist and Eck.

Williams-Sonoma, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Williams-Sonoma
Advertising, Inc., a California corporation & Williams-Sonoma DTC,
Inc., a California corporation, Defendants, represented by Benjamin
Okhaifo Aigboboh -- baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richter Hampton LLP, Dylan John Price -- dprice@sheppardmullin.com
-- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, P. Craig Cardon --
ccardon@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton
LLP & Robert James Guite -- rguite@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.


YELP INC: Reconsideration of Bid to Dismiss Azar Suit Denial Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROEI AZAR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. YELP, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00400-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M.
Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California denied Yelp's motionfor leave to file a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's Nov. 27, 2018 order granting in part
and denying in part its motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint.

The putative securities class action, brought under Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 against
Defendants Yelp, its CEO Jeremy Stoppelman, CFO Lanny Baker, and
COO Jed Nachman, alleges Yelp made false and misleading statements
regarding its expected revenue for fiscal year 2017, particularly
in relation to its advertising program with local businesses.

On Nov. 27, 2018, the Court issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part Yelp's motion to dismiss the FAC.  The Order ruled
that the earnings guidance Yelp issued on Feb. 9, 2017 was a
forward-looking statement accompanied by meaningful cautionary
statements protected by the safe harbor provision in the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), and therefore not
actionable.  However, several other statements Yelp made on Feb. 9,
2017, Feb. 14, 2017 and March 1, 2017 were non-forward-looking and
misleading, and therefore actionable.  The Order further found that
the Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that Yelp made the
actionable statements with scienter, and that the statements were a
substantial factor in causing the drop in Yelp's stock price and in
turn the Plaintiffs' loss.

On Dec. 17, 2018, Yelp moved for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration of the Order.  According to Yelp, the Court erred
in its loss causation analysis by linking the decline in stock
price to the forward-looking earnings projections it had dismissed
as non-actionable under the PSLRA safe harbor.

As an initial matter, Judge Chen finds that Yelp is correct that
loss causation cannot hinge upon a non-actionable statement.
Because Yelp's February 9 earnings guidance is a forward-looking
statement immunized by the PSLRA safe harbor, it is not a deceptive
act that forms the basis for the Plaintiffs' claim.  It therefore
cannot be the basis of the Plaintiffs' loss causation allegations.

Yelp goes further than that.  It argues that because the February 9
guidance is immunized, the May 9 revision to the guidance likewise
cannot support loss causation, because a change to an immaterial
statement cannot reveal a misrepresentation actionable under Rule
10b-5.  The Judge finds that the premise of Yelp's motion -- that
the Plaintiffs' loss causation theory relies solely on the market's
reaction to the discrepancy between the non-actionable February 9
guidance and the May 9 revision -- is flawed.  The Plaintiffs'
theory in fact posits that the May 9 revision revealed not only
that Yelp's February 9 guidance was misleadingly optimistic, but
also that Yelp's other statements from February 9, February 14, and
March 1 were too.  Accordingly, it is not fatal to the Plaintiffs'
loss causation allegations that the February 9 guidance was
dismissed as non-actionable.

In contrast, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have specifically
alleged that Yelp's local advertiser churn issues -- the subject of
Yelp's misleading omissions -- caused the drop in stock price.
They have also pointed to statements by analysts and Yelp's own
executives identifying advertiser churn as the root cause of the
stock decline, as opposed to a general failure to hit prior
earnings estimates.  The Plaintiffs have therefore established the
necessary causal link between Yelp's actionable misrepresentations
and the drop in Yelp's stock price.

For these reasons, Judge Chen concludes that Yelp's motion does not
present a dispositive legal argument for the purposes of Local Rule
7-9(b).  He therefore denied the motion.  The order disposes of
Docket No. 47.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/PjbRqv from Leagle.com.

Roei Azar, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Lesley F. Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com --
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Charles Henry Linehan --
clinehan@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Corey
Daniel Holzer -- cholzer@holzerlaw.com -- Holzer and Holzer LLC,
pro hac vice, Kevin Francis Ruf -- kruf@glancylaw.com -- Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, Lionel Z. Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com --
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Robert Vincent Prongay --
RProngay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Stan Karas
-- skaras@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Jonathan Davis, (Lead Plaintiff), Plaintiff, represented by Robert
Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Corey Daniel Holzer,
Holzer and Holzer LLC, Kevin Francis Ruf, Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP, Lesley F. Portnoy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lionel Z.
Glancy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Stan Karas, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP.

Yelp, Inc., Jeremy Stoppelman & Lanny Baker, Defendants,
represented by Benjamin Thorman Halbig --
benjamin.halbig@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold and Porter, Gilbert Ross
Serota -- gilbert.serota@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye
Scholer LLP & Zheng He -- jane.he@arnoldporter.com -- Arnold &
Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, pro hac vice.

Jed Nachman, Defendant, represented by Gilbert Ross Serota, Arnold
& Porter Kaye Scholer LLP & Benjamin Thorman Halbig, Arnold and
Porter.

Gady Davidian, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A..


YOGAWORKS INC: Kirby McInerney Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of all persons or entities
who acquired YogaWorks, Inc. ("YogaWorks" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: YOGA ) securities between August 7, 2017 and December 27,
2018 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until February 25, 2019
to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, YogaWorks' Registration Statement and
Prospectus made materially misleading statements regarding: (1)
YogaWorks' studio-level economics and the adverse trends it faced
in declining studio profitability; (2) reasons for YogaWorks'
declining revenue, including increasing corporate overhead costs;
and (3) YogaWorks' increasing corporate infrastructure costs and
inability to achieve economies of scale.

On or around August 11, 2017, YogaWorks conducted its initial
public offering ("IPO"), issuing approximately 7.3 million shares
of common stock priced at $5.50 per share. As of December 27, 2018,
YogaWorks' stock closed at $0.45 or approximately 92% below its IPO
price.

If you acquired YogaWorks securities, have information, or would
like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W.
Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.

         Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
         Kirby McInerney LLP
         Telephone: (212) 371-6600
         Website: www.kmllp.com
         Email: telrod@kmllp.com [GN]


YOUNIQUE LLC: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Schmitt Suit to 9th Cir
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Younique, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Megan Schmitt, et al. v. Younique, LLC, Case No.
8:17-cv-01397-JVS-JDE, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 24,
2019, the Hon. James V. Selna granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Judge Selna granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the
California, Florida and Ohio classes.  Judge Selna denied the
Plaintiff' motion to certify the Tennessee class.

This case concerns the marketing and sales of Younique's mascara
product, Moodstruck 3D Fiber Lashes (the "Lash Enhancer") from
October 2012 until July 2015.  The Lash Enhancer consists of two
components, a "Transplanting Gel" and "Natural Fibers."  Younique
represented that the Natural Fiber component was "natural" and
consisted of "100% Natural Green Tea Fibers" on the Lash Enhancer's
label, according to the Court's Civil Minutes.

However, the Plaintiffs allege that the Natural Fiber component did
not actually contain any green tea leaves and instead was composed
of ground-up nylon.  The Plaintiffs allege that a reasonable person
would not consider nylon "natural."

The appellate case is captioned as Megan Schmitt, et al. v.
Younique, LLC, Case No. 19-80011, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents MEGAN SCHMITT, individually on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated; DEANA REILLY,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated; CAROL ORLOWSKY, individually and on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated; and STEPHANIE MILLER BRUN,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Alison Marie Bernal, Esq.
          Jonathan Miller, Esq.
          NYE, PEABODY, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP
          33 West Mission Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 963-2345
          E-mail: alison@nps-law.com
                  Jonathan@nps-law.com

               - and -

          Todd David Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1900
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER LLP
          PNC Park
          115 Federal Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Michael Liskow, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: liskow@whafh.com

               - and -

          Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
          WALSH PLLC
          1561 Long Haul Road
          Grangeville, ID 83530
          Telephone: (903) 574-1807
          E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com

Defendant-Petitioner YOUNIQUE, LLC, is represented by:

          Sascha Von Mende Henry, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780
          E-mail: shenry@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Abby H. Meyer, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 513-5100
          E-mail: ameyer@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Jonathan David Moss, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780
          E-mail: jmoss@sheppardmullin.com


[*] Federal Gov't Urged to Take Action on PFAS Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------
Brady Dennis, writing for The Washington Post, reports that the day
this small town told its residents to stop drinking the water, life
on Glendale Boulevard turned from quiet to alarming.

One couple decided to immediately put their house up for sale.
Another fretted over their young son and the baby who would soon
arrive. And up the street, one mom felt a rising indignation that
would turn her into an activist to ban chemicals contaminating her
family's drinking water -- and that of millions of other
Americans.

That late July day, this town along the banks of the Kalamazoo
River became the latest community affected by a ubiquitous class of
compounds known as polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances,
or PFAS. For years, calls for the federal government to regulate
the chemicals have been unsuccessful, and last year the Trump
administration tried to block publication of a study urging a much
lower threshold of exposure.

The man-made chemicals have long been used in a wide range of
consumer products, including nonstick cookware, water-repellent
fabrics and grease-resistant paper products, as well as in
firefighting foams. But exposures have been associated with an
array of health problems, among them thyroid disease, weakened
immunity, infertility risks and certain cancers. The compounds do
not break down in the environment.

In Parchment, where they were once used by a long-shuttered paper
mill, tests found PFAS levels in the water system in excess of
1,500 parts per trillion — more than 20 times the Environmental
Protection Agency's recommended lifetime exposure limit of 70 parts
per trillion.

Local officials promptly alerted residents. Michigan officials
declared a state of emergency. People started picking up free cases
of bottled water at the high school. Within weeks, the town
abandoned the municipal wells that had served 3,000 people and
began getting water from nearby Kalamazoo.

"This is not a problem you can run away from," said Parchment
resident Tammy Cooper, who has become an outspoken advocate for
better regulation. "There are Parchments across the country."

Harvard University researchers say public drinking-water supplies
serving more than 6 million Americans have tested for the chemicals
at or above the EPA's threshold — which many experts argue should
be far lower to safeguard public health. The level is only an
agency guideline; the federal government does not regulate PFAS.

The compounds' presence has rattled communities from Hoosick Falls,
N.Y., to Tucson. They have been particularly prevalent on or near
military bases, which have long used PFAS-laden foams in training
exercises.

Both houses of Congress held hearings on the problem last year, and
lawmakers introduced bills to compel the government to test for
PFAS chemicals nationwide and to respond wherever water and soil
polluted by them are found. In late November, the head of the EPA
vowed that the agency would soon unveil a "national strategy" to
address the situation.

Affected communities are still waiting.

"There are some very real human impacts from this stuff," said Erik
Olson, a drinking-water expert for the Natural Resources Defense
Council. "Most people have no idea they are being exposed."

Michigan is one of the few states where officials are trying to
determine the extent of PFAS contamination. Health officials
undertook statewide tests this year across 1,380 public water
supplies and at more than 400 schools that operate their own
wells.

"When we look for it, we tend to find it," said Eden Wells, the
state's chief medical executive. Yet detection raises difficult
questions, given the lack of regulation involving PFAS in water and
the evolving research on its long-term health effects.

"Many of our responses are outstripping the scientific knowledge we
need," Wells said.

More is known about two particular types of the chemicals,
perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA),
which companies phased out years ago amid growing evidence that
both were ending up in the blood of nearly every American. But
thousands of other PFAS chemicals remain in use — among the many
threats, including arsenic and lead, to drinking water nationwide.

"From a policy perspective, what bothers me about all this is there
are industries everywhere that don't really have to report what
they are using," said Detlef Knappe, a North Carolina State
University environmental engineer whose research helped identify
another PFAS chemical, known as GenX, in Wilmington's drinking
water supply. "As a class, there are so many compounds . . .
and it pops up in the most unexpected places."

The Trump administration's focus on the problem has been
inconsistent.

Politico reported in May that the White House and EPA sought to
block publication of a federal health study on the nationwide
effects of PFAS contamination after one administration aide warned
in an email that it could result in a "public relations nightmare."
The study from the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, which eventually was released, suggested that the EPA's
existing, nonenforceable standard is inadequate to protect public
health and should be much lower.

The same month, the EPA held a PFAS "summit" with industry
representatives, public health groups, tribal leaders and officials
from all levels of government. Then-administrator Scott Pruitt
pledged action, saying, "There are concerns about these chemicals
across the country because of their persistence, their durability,
getting into the environment and impacting communities in an
adverse way."

Little has happened since then, however.

At a hearing in early fall, Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) pressed
the EPA's director of groundwater and drinking water on when the
agency might announce its plans to regulate the chemicals and
finalize a drinking-water standard. Peter Grevatt, an agency
veteran who recently retired, responded that officials were
continuing to visit communities and develop a long-term "management
plan." He acknowledged that it could take the agency a "number of
years" to put enforceable regulations in place -- if it determined
that the contaminants were surfacing in enough water systems to be
considered a nationwide health concern.

"Is it a national standard that requires all the nation's systems
to sample on some regular basis and has the tools to get treatment
in place?" Mr. Grevatt said. "Or is it something that we'll address
more locally?"

Environmental attorney Robert Bilott successfully sued DuPont on
behalf of plaintiffs exposed to PFOA in Ohio and West Virginia, and
this year he filed a class-action lawsuit against 3M, DuPont,
Chemours and several other companies on behalf of all Americans
with PFAS chemicals in their blood. Some states have taken
aggressive steps on their own, with New Jersey the first to
regulate certain types of PFAS chemicals in its drinking water.

Federal attention is long overdue, Mr. Bilott contends.

"It's a national issue that needs to be addressed in a national
way," he said.

At least outwardly, a sense of normalcy has returned to Parchment.

Bottled water is no longer being handed out at the high school,
though the town is still relying on water from Kalamazoo. Officials
say their investigation is ongoing, with one likely culprit of the
contamination being a local landfill once used by the now-closed
paper mill.

Yet beneath the surface, many people continue to worry.

"In our minds, our water was safe," said Mayor Robert D. Britigan
III, who noted that Parchment always had been in compliance with
Michigan's drinking-water regulations. The city has since left the
municipal water business. "We will never go back to those wells,"
he said.

On a sunny day this fall, customers lined up at the window of
Twisters for the last ice cream cones of the season. The regulars
sat in their usual spots inside Scooter D's, a popular diner off
the main drag, where the waitresses call people "sweetheart" and
the smell of hash browns hangs in the air.

"We lost a lot of business, primarily because of fear," said
manager Carrie Klinger, whose father started the diner more than
two decades ago. During the month-long water crisis, the family
bought 80 pounds of bagged ice a day, made soups with bottled water
and served canned sodas because the drink machine was hooked to a
water line.

"It's still not quite back to where it was," Ms. Klinger said. "I
still have customers who say they'll never drink the water again."

Echoes of that distrust linger on Glendale Boulevard, where
Jennifer and Justin Koehler lived in a tidy, white clapboard house
until selling and moving away because of their fears.

"It made me so scared, because our kids are so little. And it made
me angry," Jennifer Koehler said of the water problems in
Parchment.

Their former neighbors, Tammy Cooper and her husband David, have
wrestled with the same emotions. "What did this crisis do? It woke
me up to what the government is and is not doing on many levels,"
she said.

Down the street, life for Sara and Matt Dean remains a mix of
anxiety, resignation and doubt.

"We relocated here thinking it would be a really great life
decision," Sara Dean said as her 2-year-old son, Patrick, played on
the floor. "You're supposed to hear about this somewhere else. This
is the most average of average communities that there could be.
It's 'Leave It To Beaver' average. If it can happen here, it can
happen anywhere."

The family spent thousands of dollars to install a top-notch water
filter. Still, they hesitate to wash their vegetables or cook with
tap water. "It's just this giant question mark," Matt Dean said.
"Are we responsible staying here?"

But they are staying, for now. On Oct. 17, Sara gave birth to a
second son, Britt. The next day, the family brought him home to
Parchment. [GN]


[*] GDPR Likely to Pick Up Momentum in 2019, Consumer Suits Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Schiff, writing for Ad Exchanger, reports that freight
trains take time to build steam. That's your metaphor for what's to
come in 2019 for the General Data Protection Regulation.

"I think people were expecting a massive fine on Day One," said
Forrester principal analyst Fatemeh Khatibloo, "[but] these
investigations take time."

Data protection authorities (DPAs) across Europe have their hands
full fielding an influx of inbound grievances. The number of data
breach, consent and privacy-related complaints have increased since
the law took effect in May. Over the summer, the United Kingdom's
Information Commissioner's Office reported a 160% uptick in data
breach complaints from the year before. Whistleblower reports on
company data breaches in the United Kingdom have almost tripled.

"There is clearly increased awareness within the general population
about the GDPR," said Ronan Tigner -- rtigner@mofo.com -- an
associate focused on data privacy and security at law firm Morrison
& Foerster.

Consumer advocacy groups are also filing complaints on behalf of
consumers, primarily directed at the big tech set, under a new
collective redress or class action mechanism introduced through
Article 80 of the GDPR.

Priorities, priorities

With all that activity, it makes sense that member state DPAs took
their time to get the lay of the land in 2018 before ramping up
closer to the end of the year.

"For a reform of this scope and magnitude, it's only expected that
several months will pass before enforcement comes into focus," said
Omer Tene, VP and chief knowledge officer at the International
Association of Privacy Professionals. "2018 wasn't even a full year
for GDPR."

But there was still a lot of groundwork laid this year and many
hints dropped about what DPAs will prioritize in 2019. Data
security and consent, particularly as it pertains to advertising
and location tracking, top the agenda, Mr. Tigner said.

France's data protection authority, the Commission nationale de
l'informatique et des libertés (the CNIL), issued a series of four
warnings against French geolocation-focused ad tech companies in
the latter half of the year for failing to collect the proper
consent. Three of the companies -- Teemo, Fidzup and SingleSpot --
have made changes to their systems and been cleared.

The most recent warning, which was issued in November against a
Paris-based location data company called Vectaury, name-drops the
IAB Europe GDPR Transparency and Consent Framework, a mechanism
created by the advertising industry that allows publishers and
vendors to share consent strings. Reading between the lines, the
CNIL appears to be questioning the viability of consent strings if
users don't have a clear and obvious way of giving their consent to
every party touching their data.

2019 will likely be the year that industry standards are put to the
test.

"I expect individuals' consent and the propagation of data
protection requirements along the digital supply chain will be
areas of intense scrutiny," Mr. Tene said.

On the docket

With the grace period to comply far in the rearview -- GDPR has
been in effect for nearly seven months now and companies had a
two-year transition period to prep before that -- European
enforcement agencies will start laying down the law.

But the DPAs aren't looking to fine companies out of existence if
there's any alternative.

In September, during a DMEXCO panel in Cologne, Armand Heslot, a
privacy and security expert with the CNIL, said that enforcers
"will be more gentle and take the time to first explain to
companies how they have to do things" if anything about the new law
is still unclear. "Fines will come afterwards," Mr. Heslot said.

To their credit, the DPAs "are not trying to be immediately
punitive," Ms. Khatibloo said. They've given most of the firms
they've investigated an opportunity to come into compliance. That
was the case with the geolocation warnings in France.

That doesn't mean, however, that European data protection
authorities have eternal patience, and the kid gloves will be off
for any companies that don't make a good faith effort to comply.

"It's one thing telling a regulator and the public, 'We did our
best, but still suffered a breach,' and it's quite another to say,
'Sorry, we just weren't prepared yet,'" Mr. Tene said. "It's in
those latter cases that we can expect to see the large 4% of annual
global revenue fines."

But while getting in line with the law is of great importance to
any company under its jurisdiction, Ms. Khatibloo hopes that
advertisers and marketers will start to move beyond GDPR as "a
compliance exercise" in 2019.

"Our industry tends to be the worst violators of 'fair and ethical'
when it comes to data use -- it's not malicious, it's just that our
data and technology capabilities have exploded," she said. "This is
the year to start asking, every single day: 'Just because I can,
does it mean I should?'"[GN]


[*] Ill. Employers May Want to Address Class Action Waivers, BIPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Starkman, Esq. -- pstarkman@clarkhill.com -- of Clark Hill
PLC, in an article for JDSupra, reports that 2019 is here.  Now is
a great time for employers in Illinois to consider if and how they
want to address new employment laws and workplace trends that will
impact 2019 and beyond.  New military leave procedures, class
action waivers, expense reimbursement, and commission plans are
just some of the action items that Illinois employers may want to
address in 2019. Here is an A, B, C "To Do" List for Illinois
employers in 2019:

Absences

Military Leave: The Illinois Service Member Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act (ISERRA) is effective on January 1, 2019
and may require employers in Illinois to revise their existing
military leave policies because it repeals the prior patchwork of
state military leave laws.  Among other unique protections, an
Illinois employee on military leave must receive:

   -- An average of 3 years' performance evaluation ratings, as
long as the average is not less than the rating received just prior
to military service.

   -- Full salary continuation for annual training service for up
to 30 non-consecutive days each calendar year.

Illinois employers will have to post a notice of rights and
benefits under the ISERRA.

Paid Breaks for Nursing Mothers: Under new amendments to the
Illinois Nursing Mothers in the Workplace Act, Illinois employers
should consider if they need to revise their policies and
procedures to meet a new requirement to provide "reasonable" paid
breaks (that may run concurrently with other available break time)
each time employees who are nursing parents need to express milk at
work unless these breaks would constitute an "undue hardship" as
defined by the Illinois Human Rights Act ("IHRA").

Paid Sick Leave under Cook County and Chicago Ordinances: Employers
in Cook County, IL, but located outside of Chicago may want to
check if their municipality has opted out or into the Cook County
Earned Sick Leave Ordinance.  Over 100 of Cook County's 132
municipalities have opted out of the Ordinance's paid sick leave
requirements since it was enacted in 2017.  Wilmette voted in 2018
to continue to opt out of the sick leave requirements, but opted
into its minimum wage increases.  Western Springs and Northbrook,
IL opted back into both aspects of the Ordinance effective Jan. 1,
2019.

Employers in Chicago may also want to review their paid sick leave
compliance because the City formed the Office of Labor Standards
that, effective January 1, 2019, is tasked with more rigorously
enforcing Chicago's paid sick leave and other employment
ordinances. Penalties can include suspension or revocation of an
employer's business license.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) – Class Action Waivers

Employers in Illinois may also want to consider adding class action
waivers to their ADR procedures, including mandatory arbitration
agreements.

Properly drafted class action waivers (i.e., provisions that
preclude employees from bringing employment claims as class and
collective actions) are now enforceable in Illinois after the U.S.
Supreme Court in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (U.S. 2018) reversed
the Seventh Circuit's anti-class action waiver decision.
Illinois employers, however, may want to consider whether or not to
carve out sexual harassment and sexual assault claims from
mandatory arbitration agreements or other confidential ADR
procedures.  Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Uber, and several large
law firms have voluntarily given up mandatory arbitration and
confidentiality requirements for employees who bring sex harassment
and sexual assault claims, due to the #MeToo movement and similar
pressures.

Employers may also want to reconsider their use of confidentiality
and non-disclosure agreements when addressing sexual harassment or
sexual abuse claims.  New Internal Revenue Code Section 162(q)
precludes employers from taking business deductions for settlement
payments and attorneys' fees "related to" confidential resolutions
of such claims.

Anti-Discrimination/Harassment Poster

Illinois employers should be aware that there is a new mandatory
notice entitled "You have the Right to Be Free From Job
Discrimination and Sexual Harassment" (which can be found here and
here)  that has been prepared by the Illinois Department of Human
Rights (IDHR) to provide additional information on employee rights
under the Illinois Human Rights Act(IHRA), including the right to
be free from sexual harassment, the right to reasonable
accommodations for employees who are pregnant or have a disability,
and the right to be free from retaliation for exercising rights
under the Act.

The notice also provides three options for reporting
discrimination, including contacting the Illinois Sexual Harassment
and Discrimination Helpline.  The amendments took effect in
September 2018, but the new notice was released only recently.

Background Checks

The New "Summary of Your Rights" Form: There is a new version of
the form entitled "A Summary of Your Rights" (found here) that all
employers must now provide to applicants and employees at various
stages when obtaining and using "consumer reports" (background
checks) conducted by third-party consumer reporting agencies (such
as a credit-reporting company, a record-checking company, or an
investigative firm).

The 2018 federal Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer
Protection Act amended the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).  Now,
whenever the FCRA requires that a "consumer" (which includes
applicants and employees) receive a "Summary of Consumer Rights"
form, it must be the new form that has been amended to include a
notice that, free of charge to consumers, nationwide consumer
reporting agencies must provide a "national security freeze" that
restricts prospective lenders from obtaining access to the
consumer's background report.

When Illinois employers replace their old "Summary of Consumer
Rights" forms with this new form, they may also want to re-examine
their procedures to comply with the FCRA's "stand-alone" disclosure
and affirmative authorization requirements, the notice requirement
before and after taking an adverse employment action based on a
consumer report, as well as applicable Illinois "ban the box"
limitations on criminal history inquiries and other laws affecting
background checks.

Biometric Information

Illinois employers are increasingly using or considering the use of
employee's fingerprints, facial recognition software, voice or
retina scans and other forms of biometric information for
attendance, access to company equipment or data, immigration
compliance, or security purposes.  These Illinois employers may
also want to continue to reevaluate their compliance with the
strict written disclosure and consent provisions of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

The Illinois BIPA is one of only three state law of its kind in the
US, but the only one that provides employees with a private cause
of action for liquidated damages of up to $5,000 for each willful
violation and attorneys' fees.

In the past two years, over 100 BIPA class action laws have been
filed (which is yet another reason to consider utilizinge class
action waivers) against Facebook, Southwestern Airlines, Google,
Shutterfly, to name a few high-profile targets.

On Sept. 28, 2018, the Illinois Appellate Court's First District
(covering Chicago and surrounding Cook County) in Sekura v. Krishna
Schaumburg Tan Inc. revived a previously dismissed BIPA class
action.  The Sekura court rejected a line of cases holding that an
"aggrieved person" under BIPA must allege some additional injury
resulting from an employer's collection, use or disclosure of
biometric information. Instead, the Illinois Appellate Court joined
federal court decisions holding that simply alleging noncompliance
with the BIPA's procedural requirements was enough to state a cause
of action.

The Illinois Supreme Court appears poised to decide the scope of an
"aggrieved person" under the BIPA, as the Sekura case and another
BIPA decision are currently on appeal.

In the meantime, Illinois employer may want to  consider the
following measures to reduce the threat of BIPA liability:

Adopt mandatory arbitration agreements with class action waivers
that cover BIPA claims.

Develop or review existing written policies and procedures to
provide notice to employees and other affected persons about the
employer's procedures for the collection, storage, use,
transmission, and destruction of biometric information.
Institute written procedures and forms to obtain written and signed
consent forms (whether via e-signatures or with "wet" signatures on
hard-copies) from all affected persons (including employees and
consumers who provide biometric information).
Establish written policies and procedures to protect biometric
information that (i) utilize security measures commensurate with
best practices used in the industry, such as the security used to
protect trade secrets and HIPAA-protected medical data, (ii)
provide accommodations for those unable or unwilling to provide
biometric information due to a disability or religious objections,
and (iii) establish response protocols in the event of a data
breach involving biometric information.
Compensation

Expense Reimbursement: Illinois employers may also want to  review
and revise their expense reimbursement policies to comply with
recent amendments to the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act
(IWPCA).  Effective January 1, 2019, in Illinois:

[a]n employer shall reimburse an employee for all necessary
expenditures or losses incurred by the employee within the
employee's scope of employment and directly related to services
performed for the employer.

In order to comply with the new IWPCA amendments and avoid
unanticipated reimbursements, Illinois employers should consider
establishing new written policies or re-examining existing policies
so that the policies "authorize or require" the employee to incur
the expense and contain specific limits for reimbursable expenses,
BUT the policies cannot provide only "minimal" or no
reimbursement.

A written reimbursement policy may require that employees request
reimbursement, with supporting documentation, within 30 days of
incurring the expense.  BUT the employer may not shorten the 30-day
period for submitting expense reimbursement requests, though the
policy may provide a longer period; BUT if an employee losses a
receipt or never receives one, the employer must accept the
employee's signed statement as sufficient documentation for the
expense.

Commission Plans, Bonuses and Incentive Compensation: Illinois
employers should also consider reviewing and revising their 2019
written commission, bonus and incentive compensation plans, if
feasible, in light of the Seventh Circuit's 2018 decision in
Sutula-Johnson v. Office Depot.

In Sutula-Johnson, following a merger of with OfficeMax, Office
Depot eliminated a prior commission plan for furniture salespeople
and established a new compensation plan involving a salary and
"incentive payments" that were "accrued" upon invoicing, but were
not "earned" until Office Depot actually paid the incentive
payments, usually 45 days after the end of each quarter.

Because both plans contained contractual disclaimer language that
allowed the plans to revised or terminated (as to unearned
compensation), the Seventh Circuit rejected a breach of contract
claim based on the change of plans.

However, the Seventh Circuit held that (i) Office Depot's incentive
payments were really commissions (because they were calculated
based on the value of the sale) and (ii) paying such commissions 45
days after the end of each quarter violated the IWPCA's requirement
that "earned" commissions must be paid on a monthly basis.

The Seventh Circuit's decision in Sutula-Johnson v. Office Depot is
problematic for employers in Illinois because:

The Seventh Circuit gave no weight to the plan provisions that the
commissions were not earned until paid.

It ignored the IWPCA's regulation that states: "to be entitled to
receive compensation for a commission under the [IWPCA], the
commission must be earned under the terms of the agreement or
contract." (emphasis added).

It held for the first time that an employer cannot "impos[e] an
arbitrary date on which wages are earned, completely unrelated to
the employee's duties." (emphasis added).

It determined that the incentive payments were "earned" for
purposes of the IWPCA, not based on the "terms of the agreement or
contract," but on when the employee completes all work on the
sale.

Consequently, in order to avoid potential IWPCA liability and the
budgeting and cash flow issues that may arise from having to pay
commissions before transactions are completed and sales proceeds
are received, Illinois employers may want to revisit  2019
commission plans that are not already in effect or that can be
revised:

To determine whether or not to add a provision requiring an
employee complete all work on a sale in order to "earn" a
commission and to define  all of the work that an employee must
complete in order to "earn" a commission on a sale.

To consider if it is feasible and advisable to add plan provisions
that sales employees have continuing responsibilities to assist in
completing the entire transaction beyond getting the customer to
"sign on the dotted line," (such as helping employers obtain
payment in full from customers, handling returns and post-sale
adjustments, and resolving disputes).   

Illinois Equal Pay Act (IEPA) Amendment: An amendment to Illinois's
Equal Pay Act of 2003 ("IEPA") effective January 1, 2019, will
prohibit pay discrimination between African-Americans and
non-African-Americans (as well as between male and female
employees) who perform "the same or substantially similar work" on
jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and for
work that is performed under "similar working conditions."  The
amended IEPA allows wage differentials pursuant to a seniority
system, merit system, a system that measures earnings by quantity
or quality of production, or any other wage differential based on
any factor "other than race."

Illinois employers may want to consider whether or not to perform
race and/or gender pay equity audits to determine which jobs are
sufficiently similar, if there are race/gender pay disparaties
between these similar jobs, whether the pay disparities are legally
significant, and if they can be explained by lawful reasons.
Whether to conduct a pay equity audit and how to do so should be
decided in consultation with experienced legal counsel, lest the
audit become a "smoking gun" that may be used against the employer
in an IEPA lawsuit.  Class action waivers and arbitration
agreements that Illinois employers may want to consider when
addressing the expanded potential liability under recent IEPA
amendment.

Salary and Wage Inquiries: For now, Illinois does not bar employers
from inquiring about or screening applicants based on salary and
wage history, as the legislature in 2018 failed to override a veto
of such legislation by out-going Governor Rauner.  This may change
in 2019 with a new administration in Illinois and 20 other states
and municipalities (most recently Massachusetts) barring salary
history inquiries.

Effective April 10, 2018, the City of Chicago issued an order that
City departments may not ask for applicants' salary histories.

Confidentiality of Trade Secrets and Other Sensitive Information

Trade Secrets: If employers in Illinois and elsewhere have
confidentiality provisions in policies, personnel manuals, codes of
conduct, and agreements with employees, contractors and other third
parties, the employers should consider reviewing (and, if
necessary, revising) those provisions include the whistleblower
immunity notice required by the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act
(DTSA).  Employers in Illinois and elsewhere have found to their
dismay that if they fail to provide the required notice, they
cannot recover attorneys' fees and punitive damages from employees
and contractors even if they have stolen the employer's trade
secrets in violation of the DTSA.

Employers should also consider whether or not they have taken
sufficient security measures to protect their trade secrets and
confidential information when they allow employees to store and use
such critical data on their personal smartphones, laptops, and
other electronic devices.  The case of Yellowfin Yachts v. Barker
Boatworks is an example of what employers in Illinois and elsewhere
should NOT do. In 2018, the Eleventh Circuit rejected a company's
theft of trade secret claims against its former VP of Sales who
allegedly downloaded "hundreds" of the company password-protected
confidential supplier and customer files just before he left to
start a competing business, because:

The company permitted and paid for him to store the company's
confidential customer information on his personal cellphone and
laptop as part of the company's round-the-clock, "white-glove"
customer service program.

The company did not require him to sign a non-disclosure agreement
(NDA), even though it had presented him with a proposed employment
agreement with a confidentiality provision that he never signed.

The company did not instruct him to return or delete the company's
information when he left.

Bring-Your-Own-Device-To-Work (BYOD) Policies: Based on the
Yellowfin Yachts case and other court decisions, Illinois employers
that allow employees to keep company trade secrets on personal
smartphones, laptops and other electronic devices may want to take
the time now to re-examine their BYOD, Acceptable Computer/Data
Usage, Return of Company Property, and other data protection
policies and practices in order to determine if they should
include:

   -- written agreements that company information kept on personal
devices must be kept confidential and used only on behalf of the
company;

   -- "instruction ... as to how to secure the information on
[employees'] cellphone[s] or personal laptop[s];"

   -- employee training and periodic reminders of restrictions on
access to and storage of the company's valuable information via
personal devices; and

   -- procedures to obtain the return of company property and data
at the end of employment (e.g., exit interviews).
To quote UCLA basketball coach John Wooden, "Failing to prepare is
preparing to fail."  Illinois employers may want to act now in
order to prepare for the new employment law challenges that
Illinois employers will confront in 2019. [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 ***