CAR_Public/190215.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, February 15, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 34

                            Headlines

125 COURT: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of 421-A Tenants Suit
3M COMPANY: Combat Arms Earplugs Defective, Military Personnel Say
ACCOLADE INC: Settlement in Fulton-Green Suit Has Prelim Approval
AIRSTREAM INC: Satterly Seeks Overtime Wages for Employees
ALLERGAN PLC: Feb. 19 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline

ALLERGAN PLC: Law Firms File Class Action Over Breast Implants
ALTA MESA: Sued over False & Misleading Securities Statements
AMAZING HOME: Rivas Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay
AMERICAN CHORE: Borisovskiy Suit Alleges FLSA, NYLL Violation
APHRIA INC: Scott+Scott Posts New Info on Class Action

ARRIS INTERNATIONAL: Agnes-Sampson Sues Over Sale to CommScope
AUSTRALIA: 110 Businesses Join $400MM Sydney Light Rail Suit
AUTOBAHN INC: Court Dismisses S. Ferrari's Suit with Prejudice
AUTOBAHN INC: Settlement in S. Ferrari's Suit Has Final Approval
BARCLAYS CAPITAL: Court Resolves Deposition Notice Scope in Bigsby

BCBSM INC: LP Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
BECTON DICKINSON: Defending Against 4,445 Hernia Product Claims
BECTON DICKINSON: Has Deal for 15,156 Women Health Product Claims
BIG M CASINO: Court Conditionally Certifies Pecora FLSA Class
BIG M CASINO: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Pecora FLSA/SCPWA Suit

BLUE NILE: Dennis Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BP EXPLORATION: Eldridge Suit Over Oil Spill Moved to N.D. Miss.
CALIFORNIA SERVICE: Settlement in West TCPA Suit Has Final Approval
CANADA: Quebec Nursing Home Residents' Class Action Pending
CAPITAL ONE: Court Denies Bid to Remand Langer PCC/MVSFA Suit

CITY ISLAND YACHT: Thorne Files ADA Class Action in New York
CONNLEY FISHING: Thorne Files ADA Class Action
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Violates ADA, Dennis Suit Asserts
CORONA, CA: Failed to Apply Cash-in-Lieu Payments, Sevier Says
CRST EXPEDITED: 8th Cir. Appeal Filed in Sellars Harassment Suit

DANSKE BANK: March 11 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
DOLLAR TREE: Supplemental Pretrial Sched Order in Snipes Issued
DURACELL CO: Siddle & Meeks Sue over Defective LED Flashlights
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Feb. 25 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
EPIC SYSTEMS: Lewis FLSA Suit Can't Proceed in District Court

FLIGHT SERVICES: Cook et al. Seek to Certify Classes
FLOWERS FOODS: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Noll Labor Suit
FORD MOTOR: Judge Tosses Swollen Lug Nuts Class Action
GENWORTH LIFE: Court Dismisses Rhinehart Suit with Leave to Amend
GLV INC: Court Certifies Class in Mullen ICFA/IPFSA Suit

GOOGLE INC: Supreme Court Considering Role of Cy pres Awards
HAITI: Ex-Government Officials Involved in Wire Transfer Fraud
HAVANA'S CUBAN: Spears Seeks Payment for Overtime Work
HEARTBEAT HEALTH: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ICON CO: Opal Tower Homebush Residents Mull Class Action

ILLINOIS: Court Dismisses Substantive Due Process Claim in Frazier
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Probes Securities Claims
INFORMATION RESOURCES: May 31 Bakhtiar Class Cert. Bid Filing Due
INTU CORP: More Massage Therapists Join Class Action
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Says California Securities Suit Now Concluded

KANSAS: Judge Certifies Lawsuit Againts Dep't of Corrections
KEURIG DR. PEPPER: Facing False Advertising Lawsuits
LELAND, NC: Responds to Builders' Suit Over Illegal Impact Fees
LIFESTYLE PUBLICATIONS: Lowe Suit Moved to C.D. California
LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Smith Suit Still Ongoing in Utah

LOUISIANA: Landry's Bid to Alter/Amend Judgment in Campbell Denied
LOVED ONES: Court Allows Filing of 3rd Amended Mayhew FLSA Suit
LOXO ONCOLOGY: Stevens Sues over Eli Lilly Merger Deal
MAHARD EGG FARM: Miranda Suit Asserts Civil Rights Act Violation
MARKEL CORP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action

MARKEL CORP: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
MCKESSON CORP: Seeks Extension of Time to File Writ
MDL 2785: Sanofi's Suggestion of Remand Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
MDL 2848: Skoczlas Asks Court to Remand Zostavax Case to N.D. Tex.
MERCK & CO: Settles 7-Year Equal Pay Class Action for $6.2MM

MERCK SHARP: Cannot Compel Arbitration in Rotavirus Antitrust Suit
MESA LABORATORIES: Orrington Settlement Receives Initial Approval
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Sued over Misleading Reports, Share Price Drop
MONSANTO COMPANY: Alexy Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Lombard Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Martin Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Martinez Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Outlaws Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Peetzs Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Scotts Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Smith Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Susaks Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
NANO: Faces 2nd Class Action Over BitGrail Hack
NAVIENT CORP: Johnson Fistel Probes Securities Claims vs 3 Companie
NESTLE INDIA: Says Noodles Does Not Contain Lead Amid Class Suit

NESTLE INDIA: Supreme Court to Reopen Maggi Noodles Class Action
NESTLE USA: Tomasella Sues Over Non-disclosure in Product Packaging
NEW ERA CAP: Dennis Hits Blind-inaccessible Website
NPSG GLOBAL: Reese Sues Over Unpaid Hourly, Overtime Wages
OKLAHOMA: National Experts Release Foster Care Reform Report

ONTARIO: Court Certifies Class Action Over Youth Segregation
PALM BEACH, FL: School Board May Drug Test Substitute Teachers
PARBALL NEWCO: Settlement in Slack FLSA Suit Has Final Approval
PARKWOOD ENTERTAINMENT: Blind Woman Files Discrimination Case
PEPSICO INC: Removed Riddle Case to Middle District of Florida

PRIMESOURCE HEALTH: Pfefferkorn Suit Has Conditional Certification
RASH CURTIS: Court Denies Bid for Sanctions in McMillion TCPA Suit
RCR TOMLINSON: EGL to Acquire Energy Assets Amid Class Action
SEMPRA ENERGY: Plumley Appeals S.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
SOGOU INC: Johnson Fistel Files Securities Class Actions vs 3 Cos

STONEMOR PARTNERS: Continues to Defend Anderson Suit in E.D. Pa.
TELACU MANAGEMENT: Sanders Seeks Payment of Overtime Wage
TEXAS: Court Dismisses J.R. Gray's Suit for Lack of Jurisdiction
THREE STARON: Ortiz Seeks Payment of Minimum Wage
TOOTSIE ROLL: Beasley Suit Alleges Breach of Implied Warranty

TOTAL CARD: Stephens Sues over Debt Collection Practices
TRAININGWHEEL CORP: Freeman et al. Suit Moved to M.D. Florida
UBER TECHN: Canadian Drivers' Class Action Can Proceed
UNITED STATES: Burleson Tea Party Receives IRS Settlement Checks
UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Gifford Suit With Prejudice

VOX MEDIA: Spruill Suit Transferred to District of Columbia
WAL-MART STORES: Court Dismisses M. Prado's Suit with Prejudice
WASHINGTON: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Schumacher Suit
WEDRIVEU INC: Terry Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
WELLS FARGO: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Rawls' FDCPA/FCCPA Suit

WESTERN DIGITAL: Securities Suit in California Ongoing
WESTSIDE LAKESHORE: Paz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
WOOD GROUP: Class of Drivers in Nino Suit Conditionally Certified
WYNN LAS VEGAS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Cesarz FLSA Suit
ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: Patel Securities Suit Dismissed With Prejudice


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 PI Suits v. Rexnord's Prager Unit Still Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had 1,100 Pending Claims at Dec. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had US$101MM Reserves at Dec. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Records $594MM Liability at Dec.31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $5.8MM Liability at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: DowDuPont Inc. Has $1.1-Bil. Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $546MM Liability at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgment Favors Armstrong, et al., in Johansen
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgment Favors Gardner Denver, et al., in Harding
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Has $944,000 Liability at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Multiple PI Suits on Falk Products Still Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Reports $105MM Payments in 2018
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Still Faces Stearns PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord's Zurn Had 6,000 Pending Suits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at Dec. 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial of Shulman Suit Stayed Pending Imerys Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weil-McLain's Summary Judgment v. Harding Denied


                            *********

125 COURT: 2d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of 421-A Tenants Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, 421-A TENANTS ASSOCIATION, INC., VINETTA SCRIVO,
RICHARD LEBED, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. 125 COURT STREET LLC, TWO TREES
MANAGEMENT CO. LLC, 30 MAIN LLC, DW ASSOCIATES LP, DAVID C.
WALENTAS, JED D. WALENTAS, 194 ATLANTIC LLC, Defendants-Appellees,
Case Nos. 17-3865-cv and 17-3964-cv (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's
judgment (i) dismissing the class action complaint, and (ii)
denying their motion for leave to amend.

In the complaint, the Plaintiffs-Appellants("tenants"), allege a
broad scheme to defraud the State of New York, New York City, and a
proposed tenant class by overcharging tenants on their rent at two
different housing developments subject to New York City's rent
stabilization scheme.  According to the tenants, Defendants David
Walentas and Jed Walentas, who are New York real estate developers,
and some of the business organizations that they control,
perpetrated this scheme in order to unlawfully deregulate
apartments subject to rent stabilization while still collecting tax
breaks under Section 421-a of the Real Property Tax Law of the
State of New York.  Under section 421-a, New York allows real
estate developers to receive certain tax benefits on properties
when the developers agree to make the property subject to the New
York City Rent Stabilization Law.  A landlord's property that is
subject to the Rent Stabilization Law must comply with several
restrictions on rent increases and respect certain tenant
protections.

According to the tenants, a landlord whose property is subject to
the Rent Stabilization Law must inform the City and the tenant at
that property of a unit's "initial legal regulated rent."  The Rent
Stabilization law protects tenants paying those controlled rates in
part by guaranteeing that they receive a renewal lease each time
their lease expires.  The law also permits strictly regulated rent
increases for certain improvements to a tenant's apartment or
building.  Finally, certain reporting requirements apply to the
rent amounts.

The tenants contend that the Walentas developers and some of the
companies that they control ("Walentas Enterprise") attempted to
evade the restrictions of the Rent Stabilization Law while still
receiving tax exemptions through a variety of fraudulent acts.  The
allegations concern two apartment complexes located in Brooklyn:
125 Court Street and Cobble Hills Mews.  The tenants allege that in
the initial application for section 421-a tax exemptions for the
125 Court Street property, the Walentas Enterprise made many
fraudulent statements to New York City's Department of Housing
Preservation and Development ("HPD"). The HPD "determines both
eligibility for Section 421-a real property tax exemptions and the
initial rents in the subject property."

The tenants further allege that the Walentas Enterprise then
compounded that fraud by using the illegally-inflated initial rent
amount to calculate rent increases each time a tenant renewed their
lease.  They contend that the Walentas Enterprise used the inflated
rent amounts to extract higher-than-permissible rents over nearly a
decade of operating 125 Court Street.  As part of this alleged
ongoing fraud, the Enterprise submitted false rent registration
reports to DHCR and to the tenants at 125 Court Street.

The complaint also alleges that the rent increases coerced tenants
into moving out of their apartments, which allowed the Walentas
Enterprise to apply further increases to the rent amount because of
the tenant vacancy.  Similarly, the Walentas Enterprise allegedly
used unlawful evictions to remove individuals from their apartments
in order to create vacancies that would permit rent increases.
Finally, the tenants allege that a similar scheme occurred at the
Enterprises' Cobble Hill Mews property, although they provide
significantly less detailed factual allegations for that property.

The tenants initiated the lawsuit in early 2017, alleging civil
Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") claims,
as well as a pendent state law contract reformation claim.  After
filing an amended complaint, the Walentas realtors and the
Defendant business organizations moved to dismiss, primarily on the
grounds that the complaint (1) lacked specificity as to the Cobble
Hill Mews property, and (2) was untimely.  As to the timeliness
ground, the Defendants pointed to a New York state court lawsuit
alleging similar violations at the 125 Court Street building
against the same Defendants, as well as some news articles covering
that lawsuit, to argue that the Defendants were put on inquiry
notice of the alleged scheme in 2012.

The district court agreed and dismissed the complaint for failing
to state a claim regarding the Cobble Hill Mews property, and on
timeliness grounds as to the claims regarding the 125 Court Street
property.   The tenants appealed. On appeal, they argue that the
district court erred in its analysis of whether their lawsuit was
timely, and that the district court erred by denying leave to amend
the complaint.

The Appellate Court agrees with the district court that the 2012
state court lawsuit put the tenants on inquiry notice of their
civil RICO claims.  It concludes that the district court correctly
refused to equitably toll the statute of limitations.  The tenants'
failure to prosecute their lawsuit once on inquiry notice
forecloses their argument that they acted with "reasonable
diligence," a prerequisite for equitable tolling.

It also agrees with the district court that the tenants cannot
avoid the statute of limitations by characterizing each new lease
as a new and independent injury.  The tenants allege that they were
injured by the renewal leases because the renewal leases used the
illegally-inflated initial rent amount to calculate rent increases.
Although each renewal lease therefore leads to a new injury, that
injury is not independent of the alleged underlying RICO violation
because it is caused in material part by the alleged fraud
committed in connection with the first lease.

The tenants also appeal the district court's decision to deny their
motion to reconsider and the request therein to amend the complaint
to address the district court's timeliness ruling.  The Court holds
that although the district court did not explain that decision, it
finds no error.  The tenants propose amending their complaint to
demonstrate that the documents underlying the state court lawsuit
and the case were not in the public record and that the defendant
in the state court action misrepresented certain facts to that
court.  The tenants miss the point: the lawsuit itself and the
accompanying press coverage put the tenants on inquiry notice of
their claims.  As a result, any amendment to the complaint cannot
fix the statute of limitations problem that the tenants face.
Accordingly, it affirms the denial of leave to amend the complaint
as to the statute of limitations issues.

For the reasons stated, the Court affirmed the district court's
judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2019 Summary Order is
available at https://is.gd/DwZ54w from Leagle.com.

MATTHEW L. BERMAN -- mberman@vkvlawyers.com -- (Robert J. Valli,
Jr. -- rvalli@vkvlawyers.com -- on the brief), Valli Kane & Vagnini
LLP, Garden City, NY., for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

PAUL L. SHECHTMAN -- paul.shechtman@bracewell.com -- (Rita K.
Maxwell -- rita.maxwell@bracewelllaw.com -- on the brief),
Bracewell LLP, New York, NY., for Defendants-Appellees.


3M COMPANY: Combat Arms Earplugs Defective, Military Personnel Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, SEAN LYNCH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00273 (D. Colo., Feb.
1, 2019), seeks medical monitoring for Plaintiff and the Class to
help diagnose and/or mitigate hearing loss and hearing related
maladies resulting from the use of 3M's defective product. The
Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and damages in the form of the
reasonably necessary costs of diagnostic testing and mitigation,
and asserts claims for negligence, fraudulent concealment, and
fraudulent omission. The lawsuit seeks relief on behalf of Lt.
Lynch and a Class of all military personnel that have used Combat
Arms (TM) Earplugs.

According to the complaint, 3M makes the Combat Arms (TM) Earplugs,
a dual-ended, selective attenuation earplug for combat use. The
Earplugs were designed as a single set of earplugs that provided
soldiers with two options for use depending on which end of the
earplug was being used. Worn in the closed position (green end),
the Earplugs were supposed to offer protection from all sounds.
Worn in the open position (yellow end), the Earplugs were supposed
to significantly reduce loud impulse noises such as gunfire or
battlefield explosions, while still allowing the wearer to hear
low-level sounds critical to mission safety such as voice commands
or the footsteps of approaching enemies.

Unbeknownst to the soldiers who wore them, the lawsuit states, the
Earplugs suffered from a dangerous design defect that caused the
Earplugs to loosen in the wearer's ear, thereby permitting damaging
sounds to enter the ear canals by traveling around the Earplug. The
loosening caused by the defect was imperceptible to the wearer who
had no reason to believe the Earplug were not operating as
represented and then, as a result, were unknowingly exposed to
dangerous levels of impulse noise.  Specifically, the stem design
of the Earplugs was simply too short and cannot be inserted deep
enough into the ear canal in order to obtain a proper fit. When the
Earplug is inserted into the ear canal pursuant to the fitting
instructions provided by Defendant, the basal edge of the third
flange of the non-inserted end of the earplug becomes prone to
press against the wearers' ear canals and fold back to its original
shape, thereby loosening the seal in their ear canal and exposing
the wearer to dangerous levels of impulse noises. The Earplug is
symmetrical; therefore, the defect exposes the wearer to dangerous
levels of noise, notwithstanding which side of the Earplug was
being used.

In 2003, the Defendant won a bid to supply the Combat Arms (TM)
Earplugs to the U.S. Military and ultimately became its exclusive
supplier of combat earplugs until 2015, when the product was
discontinued.  According to the lawsuit, the design defect plaguing
the Combat ArmsTM was known to Defendant and its predecessor well
in advance of its sale to the U.S. Government and distribution to
soldiers for use. In advance of the sale, the Defendant conducted
testing which unequivocally revealed the existence of the defect
and resulted in the closed end of the Earplugs being half as
effective at blocking sound as it ultimately claimed to be, and the
open end of the Earplugs amplified sound rather than blocking it.
Instead of redesigning the Earplugs, however, Defendant secretly
altered the fitting and insertion procedure to compensate for the
defect and then retested the closed-end of the Earplugs. The
secretly altered fitting procedure allowed the Defendant to
artificially boost the Earplugs noise reduction rating sufficiently
for Defendant to win the bid.

By the time the Combat Arms (TM) was discontinued, 3M had sold
millions of Earplugs to the U.S. Government and recklessly exposing
tens of thousands of military personnel to the devastating effects
of exposure to high levels of impulse noise. In 2016,
Moldex-Metric, Inc., a designer and manufacturer of non-linear
dual-mode earplugs, filed suit in the name United States Government
under the False Claims Act to recover penalties and damages arising
from false statements made by 3M to the Government regarding its
defective Combat Arms (TM) Earplugs. In July 2018 the Department of
Justice announced that 3M agreed to pay $9.1 million to resolve
allegations that it knowingly sold the dual-ended Combat Arms
Earplugs to the United States military without disclosing defects
that hampered the effectiveness of the device that could
exacerbate, rather than mitigate, the noise it was intended to
protect against.

Sean Lynch is an officer of the U.S. Marine Corps. in which he has
dutifully served for nearly 19 years. In the course of his service,
Lt. Lynch was exposed to impulse noises from weapons fire during
his combat and non-combat duties. The Marine Corps provided Lt.
Lynch with Combat Arms (TM) Earplugs manufactured by 3M or its
predecessor, the purpose of which was to protect Lt. Lynch and
other soldiers from the concussive effects associated with service
related impulse noise (e.g. weapons fire).

In sum, 3M Combat Arms (TM) Earplugs were given to soldiers to
protect them from hearing damage resulting from close range weapons
fire and battlefield ordinance discharge. Due to a design defect
known to 3M, however, the Earplugs did not perform as intended
resulting in the exposure of tens of thousands of soldiers to
dangerous levels of impulse noise that in turn could cause hearing
maladies, the lawsuit says.

3M Company, formerly known as the Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company, is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Steven W. Teppler, Esq.
          MANDELBAUM SALSBURG , PC
          Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          11891 US Highway One, Suite 100
          North Palm Beach, FL 33408
          Telephone: 202 253 5670
          Facsimile: 561 214 4130
          E-mail: steppler@lawfirm.ms

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

          Kevin S. Hannon, Esq.
          THE HANNON LAW FIRM , LLC
          1641 Downing Street
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (303) 861-8800
          E-mail: khannon@hannonlaw.com

ACCOLADE INC: Settlement in Fulton-Green Suit Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TASHICA FULTON-GREEN and DANIEL CREVAK, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
ACCOLADE, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-274 (E.D. Pa.),
Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania granted the parties' Motion for
Preliminary Settlement Approval.

In January 2017, Accolade was the target of a "phishing" scheme."
A cybercriminal requested the W-2s for current and former
U.S.-based Accolade employees from an Accolade employee who then
sent the unencrypted files via email.  The W-2s included personally
identifying information ("PII") such as employees' names,
addresses, Social Security Numbers, salaries, and taxes withheld
for 2016.  Fulton-Green and Crevak's PII was included in the
breach.  They filed suit against Accolade on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated alleging negligence, negligence
per se, breach of implied contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement following
negotiations and a private mediation overseen by Rodney A. Max of
Upchurch Watson White & Max.  They agreed to settle the action,
pursuant to the terms of their settlement agreement, and subject to
the approval and determination of the Court as to the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement.  The final approval
of the settlement will result in dismissal of the action with
prejudice.

The proposed settlement class will consist of all current and
former Accolade employees whose W-2 data was compromised as a
result of the Data Disclosure which occurred on or about Jan. 17,
2017.

Under the proposed settlement, all the class members are entitled
to enroll in identity theft protection for 24 months through
Experian's ProtectMyID service.  The class members who have already
enrolled in the program will be instructed on how to enroll for an
additional 24 months.  They will also be entitled to seek
reimbursement for four claim categories (A-D), with an overall cap
of $1500 paid to each class member.  However, the participants must
have spent at least one full hour dealing with the theft of their
PII before they can claim any lost time.  

The treatment of each claim category is set out as follows:

     a. Claim Category A: The class members who had a false tax
return filed after Jan. 16, 2017 are eligible for a basic payment
of $75.  They must provide proof of the false tax return, attest
that they have no knowledge of a false return being filed in the
previous three years, submit a self-verifying statement for time
spent dealing with the effects of the breach, and submit
documentation of recovery.  Accolade will reimburse claimants at
$25 per hour spent dealing with the effects of a false tax return.
There is a maximum recovery of $275 per claimant for claims made
pursuant to Claim Category A.

     b. Claim Category B: The class members who had an IRS tax
transcript requested using their PII after Jan. 16, 2017 and
submitted an identity theft affidavit to the IRS are eligible for
payment of $75.  They must provide proof of the issuance of a tax
transcript by the IRS and submission of an identity theft
affidavit, attest that they have no knowledge of an IRS transcript
being fraudulently requested using their PII in the previous three
years, and submit a self-verifying statement for time spent dealing
with the effects of the breach.  Accolade will reimburse Category B
claimants at $25 per hour spent dealing with the effects of having
their IRS tax transcript requested using their PII.  There is a
maximum per claimant recovery of $125 for claims made pursuant to
Claim Category B.

     c. Claim Category C: The class members who experienced
incidents of identity theft or financial fraud (other than those
covered by Categories A and B) after Jan. 16, 2017 are eligible for
payment of $75.  This includes the opening of new bank accounts,
credit applications, FAFSA applications, etc. It does not include
fraud on existing credit cards. These Category C class members must
provide proof of fraudulent activity or details of such activity
and why proof does not exist, attest that they have no knowledge of
identity theft (other than fraudulent credit card activity) filed
in the previous three years, and submit a self-verifying statement
for time spent dealing with the effects of the breach.  Accolade
will reimburse claimants at $25 per hour spent dealing with the
effects of identity theft.  There is a maximum per claimant
recovery of $275 for claims made pursuant to Claim Category C.

     d. Claim Category D: The class members who claim they suffered
out of pocket expenses (other than those covered in categories A,
B, or C) as a result of the data disclosure are entitled to
reimbursement of such amount.  They must submit reasonable
documentation supporting their claim for expenses, proof of
fraudulent activity or details of such activity or why proof does
not exist, include a detailed explanation of the activities related
to the data disclosure that the claimant spent time on, and submit
a self-verifying statement for time spent dealing with the effects
of the breach.  Accolade will reimburse claimants at $25 per hour
spent for up to 3 hours for claims made pursuant to Claim Category
D.  The claimants are not entitled to reimbursement of expenses
that have already been reimbursed through Experian or any other
source.

The settlement agreement also provides for injunctive relief which
includes undertaking and maintaining the following cybersecurity
measures for two years: cybersecurity awareness and training
program, training employees on new policies for handling PII,
implementing and operating systems to help detect and filter
phishing attempts, restricting access to tax and payroll
information, random testing of policies, and access control
review.

At this preliminary stage, Judge Pratter finds there is little
disputing that the proposed settlement easily passes the
reasonableness test.  Based on the information provided and
critically considered by the Court, the proposed Class Counsel are
experienced in litigating and resolving data breach class actions
such as this.  There are no objectors as of yet.  Costs associated
with notice and claims administration will be separate from the
monies made available to pay claims.  Although the Court notes that
the Class Representatives are expected to receive a service award,
the parties state that the award is nominal and will also be
separate from the monies made available to pay claims.  The Judge
finds nothing to indicate that the Class Representatives have
interests antagonistic to the rest of the class members.  Finally,
the settlement agreement appears to deal with the major issues
central to the case: protecting class members whose PII was
released in the data breach, reimbursing them for the time and
expense spent dealing with the effects of the data breach, and
putting systems in place at Accolade to prevent a similar breach in
the future.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(a)
and  Rule 23(b)(3) requirements.  As to the notice of the proposed
settlement, he finds that the proposed notice program is
sufficient.  The parties propose to hire Epiq Systems as the
Settlement Administrator.  The notice itself explains the
settlement in plain language with helpful charts and FAQs.  Thus,
he finds that the proposed notice program offers the best
practicable notice to the class members under the circumstances.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Pratter granted the Motion for
Preliminary Settlement Approval in the matter.  An appropriate
Order, with attendant time requisites, follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/nWSJv5 from Leagle.com.

TASHICA FULTON-GREEN, Plaintiff, represented by BRUCE W. STECKLER
-- bruce@stecklerlaw.com -- STECKLER GRESHAM & COCHRAN, CHARLES E.
SCHAFFER -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN & JOHN
A. YANCHUNIS -- jyanchunis@forthepeople.com -- MORGAN & MORGAN.

DANIEL CREVAK, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by CHARLES E. SCHAFFER, LEVIN
SEDRAN & BERMAN & JOHN A. YANCHUNIS, MORGAN & MORGAN.

ACCOLADE, INC., Defendant, represented by PAUL G. KARLSGODT --
pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP & TYSON Y. HERROLD
-- therrold@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP.


AIRSTREAM INC: Satterly Seeks Overtime Wages for Employees
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Satterly, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. Airstream, Inc., 419 W. Pike St., Jackson
Center, Ohio 45334, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00032-TMR (S.D.
Ohio, Jan. 31, 2019), alleges that the Defendant failed to fully
pay employees overtime wages seeking all available relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

According to the complaint, Satterly worked as an hourly,
non-exempt "employee" of the Defendant as defined in the FLSA and
the Ohio Acts as a production worker beginning in February 2016
until the beginning of August 2016. Satterly primarily performed
non-exempt duties for the Defendants.

The Defendant was fully aware that they have accurate
clock-in/clock-out timekeeping records that captures the exact time
that its Timeclock Associates are working, but it still did not
compensate its Timeclock Associates for the actual amount of
compensable time working in one or more workweeks during the three
years preceding this complaint, the lawsuit says.

Airstream, Inc. manufactures travel trailers, avenue and interstate
touring coaches, and motor homes. The company also provides wheel
alignment and chassis.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and those similarly situated:

          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: 614 704-0546
          Facsimile: 614 573-9826
          E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

               - and -

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: 614-949-1181
          Facsimile: 614-386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

ALLERGAN PLC: Feb. 19 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until February 19, 2019 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against
Allergan plc. (NYSE: AGN), if they purchased the Company's shares
between February 24, 2017, and December 19, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Get Help

Allergan investors should visit us at
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-allergan-plc-securities-litigation-1
or call toll-free (844) 367-9658.  Lawyers at Kahn Swick&Foti, LLC
are available to discuss your legal options.

                           About the Lawsuit

Allergan and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On December 19, 2018, the Company announced that it had halted the
sale of its textured breast implants in the European market
following a compulsory recall request from the French regulatory
authority, AgenceNationale de Sécurité du Médicament, after the
product's CE Mark certification expired, amid concerns of a link to
a rare form of cancer.

On this news, the price of Allergan's shares plummeted.

The case is Cook v. Allergan Plc et al, No. 18-cv-12089. [GN]


ALLERGAN PLC: Law Firms File Class Action Over Breast Implants
--------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Carpenter, writing for Global News, reports that the year
Judith Lepine turned 19, she says, was one of the most difficult of
her life.

"I'm telling you [now] I want to live," she said, weeping.  "I'm
25, I am not dead."

But in her late teens, she thought of giving up.  The reason, she
says, was suffering as a result of breast implants.

When she was 16 years old, she had textured breast implants to
correct breast asymmetry. The surgeon, she says, told her and her
parents at the time that they were safe.

"I developed so many, so many health problems," Ms. Lepine said.

For nine years, she suffered from a range of illnesses, from bouts
of depression to excruciating pain.  But she says her doctor didn't
take her seriously.

"When I went to see him, he would say it's all in your head," she
said.

It wasn't until June 2018 that she discovered the problem was
likely connected to the implants.  She had them removed and it was
confirmed they had ruptured.

Several women have had similar experiences.  That's why two
Montreal law firms, LPC Avocats, and Tiger Banon Inc., have filed a
class-action lawsuit.

"The defendants in this case are Allergan, Mentor and Ideal
Implants," explained Joey Zukran -- jzukran@lpclex.com -- of LPC
Avocats.

The companies, he argues, violated Quebec consumer laws by not
informing consumers of the risks involved in using textured
implants.

"Firstly, the serious risk of cancer, number one," Mr. Zukran said,
detailing the risks, "and number two, the fact that these textured
implants have an increased risk of rupturing."

Since filing the petition for the lawsuit a few days ago, he adds,
numerous women have come forward.  Among other things, the lawyers
are suing for the cost of the implants, which can cost up to
$10,000, Mr. Zukran says.

Coincidentally, Ms. Lepine had her implants removed December 18th
-- the same day the Allergan implants were banned in Europe.  She
still has health problems and wants women everywhere to understand
the risks.

"I plan to advocate for this for the rest of my life," she said,
wiping tears.

On its website, Allergan says, "Patient safety is Allergan's
highest priority and we continue to collaborate with clinicians,
societies and global health authorities to advance research,
understanding and awareness about breast implant effectiveness and
safety."

LPC Avocats is inviting women who believe they may have been
affected by implants from any one of the three manufacturers, to
register. [GN]


ALTA MESA: Sued over False & Misleading Securities Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------
PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS NATIONAL PENSION FUND, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ALTA
MESA RESOURCES, INC. f/k/a SILVER RUN ACQUISITION CORPORATION II,
JAMES T. HACKETT, THOMAS J. WALKER, WILLIAM D. GUTERMUTH, JEFFREY
H. TEPPER, DIANA J. WALTERS and RIVERSTONE INVESTMENT GROUP LLC,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00920 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2019),
arises out of Defendants' dissemination of false and misleading
proxy statement in connection with the February 2018 acquisition of
Alta Mesa Holdings, LP and Kingfisher Midstream LLC by Silver Run
II.  The Plaintiff held Silver Run II Class A common stock at the
close of business on January 22, 2018, the record date, and was
entitled to vote on the merger.  

The Defendants are Silver Run II, its Board of Directors and Silver
Run II's private equity sponsor. Silver Run II was formed in 2016
as a blank check company organized under the laws of Delaware.
Blank check companies do not have established business or
operations, but rather, are formed for the purpose of effectuating
a merger or acquisition with another firm or business entity.
Stockholders in blank check companies depend on management to
honestly provide accurate information about any contemplated
transactions.

According to the complaint, on or about March 24, 2017, Silver Run
II carried out an initial public offering, selling 103.5 million
ownership units to investors for gross proceeds of $1.035 billion.
Each unit was priced at $10 and consisted of one share of Class A
common stock and one-third of a warrant to purchase Class A shares.
Each whole warrant entitled the holder to purchase one share of
Silver Run II Class A common stock at $11.50 per share. The IPO was
sponsored by Riverstone Investment Group LLC, a New York-based
energy sector private equity firm.

In August 2017, Silver Run II announced that it had entered into an
agreement, subject to shareholder approval, to merge with two
privately held companies, Alta Mesa and Kingfisher, in a deal
initially valued at $3.8 billion. Alta Mesa was an oil and gas
exploration and production company operating in the STACK play in
the Anadarko Basin area of Oklahoma. Kingfisher specialized in the
gathering, processing, and marketing of hydrocarbons from oil and
gas producers. The two companies were closely related and shared
overlapping and affiliated owners. Kingfisher had been built to
service Alta Mesa, and nearly 97% of Kingfisher's revenues derived
from production out of wells operated by Alta Mesa for the year
ended December 31, 2016.

On August 14, 2018, Silver Run II provided its second quarter 2018
financial results, again posting disappointing results and slashing
its outlook in the midst of numerous operational setbacks. Rather
than the hyperbolic growth portrayed in the Proxy, Silver Run II
revealed that Alta Mesa's oil production had actually declined
sequentially during the quarter and that it now expected to achieve
average daily net production of only 30.0 MBOE/d at the midpoint
for 2018, 22% below the estimates provided in the Proxy. Far from
the reliable and consistent well production represented to
investors in the Proxy to induce them to approve the Acquisition,
Silver Run II revealed that throughout 2018 Alta Mesa's wells had
suffered from repeated "shut-ins" or restricted production caps,
resulting in an average daily loss of thousands of BOE.

The value of the Class A common stock held by plaintiff and other
members of the Class declined substantially in value subsequent and
due to the approval of the Acquisition, causing economic loss and
damages as the truth about Alta Mesa and Kingfisher and the Proxy's
false and misleading nature were revealed over time. By December
2018, the price of Silver Run II Class A common stock was trading
below $1 per share, a 90% decline from the price shareholders would
have received had they redeemed their shares instead of approving
the Acquisition, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Robert M. Rothman, Esq.
          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: 631 367-7100
          Facsimile: 631 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  rrothman@rgrdlaw.com
                  bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Louis P. Malone, esq.
          O'DONOGHUE & O'DONOGHUE LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: 202 362-0041
          Facsimile: 202 362-2640

AMAZING HOME: Rivas Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
RICARDO RIVAS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. AMAZING HOME COMMUNITY SERVICES, LLC
& ADELA SEGOVIA, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00086 (W.D. Tex.,
Jan. 31, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime
wages, statutory liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees, under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek. Despite these hours worked, the Defendants paid
Rivas and all others similarly situated only "straight time" for
all hours worked and did not provide Rivas and all others similarly
situated with the overtime premium required by law. As a result,
Defendants have unlawfully withheld overtime compensation from its
Providers, including Plaintiffs.

On at least one occasion, Rivas asked Segovia he was not paid
overtime for hours he worked over forty each week. Segovia
responded, incorrectly, that she did not need to pay Providers
overtime. The Defendants also failed to make, keep, and preserve
accurate records with respect to Plaintiff and other Providers,
including hours worked each workday and total hours worked each
workweek, as required by 29 U.S.C. section 211(c), and supporting
federal regulations.

The Defendants' failure to pay proper overtime for all hours worked
over 40 was willful and not in good faith.  The Defendants did not
change their payment practices after Rivas inquired into them. At
least one other Provider has filed suit against the Defendants but
that have not changed their payment practices, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants operated as an institution primarily engaged in the
care of the sick, the aged, the mentally ill or defective who
resided on the premises of such institution during Plaintiffs'
employment with Defendants[BN].

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
          Allison S. Hartry, Esq.
          THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
          6243 IH-10 West, Suite 132
          San Antonio, TX 78201
          Telephone: (210) 225-0811
          Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
          E-mail: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com
                  ahartry@themoralesfirm.com

AMERICAN CHORE: Borisovskiy Suit Alleges FLSA, NYLL Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Naum Borisovskiy, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. American Chore Services Inc./City Choice Home
Care Services and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:18-cv-07370 (E.D.
N.Y., December 26, 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 failed to pay overtime as
required by the FLSA and also failed to furnish accurate wage
statements in violation of the NYLL.

The Plaintiff Naum Borisovskiy is an adult resident of the State of
New York. The Defendants employed the Plaintiff as a full-time Home
Attendant from at least August 2007 until September 2016.

The Defendant American Chore Services Inc./City Choice Home Care
Services is a domestic corporation operating in the home healthcare
industry in the City and State of New York, County of Kings. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Feinerman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DAVID A. FEINERMAN
      2765 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Tel: (718) 646-4800


APHRIA INC: Scott+Scott Posts New Info on Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), a national
securities and consumer rights litigation firm, announces new
information regarding its securities class action lawsuit against
Aphria, Inc. ("Aphria" or the "Company") and certain of the
Company's officers and directors for violating federal securities
laws (the "Action").

Earlier Aphria issued a statement announcing that Chief Executive
Officer, Vic Neufeld, a defendant in the Action, and co-founder,
Cole Cacciavillani, are stepping down from their executive roles at
the Company. This news follows allegations that certain of the
Company's assets were acquired at inflated prices from insiders and
that the quality of the Company's cannabis was inferior to its
competitors -- allegations which the Action directly addresses.

The Action, currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, asserts claims related to these
allegations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and SEC
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

If you purchased Aphria stock between July 17, 2018 and December 4,
2018, or you have questions about your legal rights, please contact
attorney Joe Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982, or at
jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. Aphria investors have until February 4,
2019 to move for lead plaintiff.

         Joe Pettigrew, Esq.
         Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
         230 Park Ave, 17 Fl, NY
         NY 10169-1820
         Telephone: (844) 818-6982
         Email: jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN]


ARRIS INTERNATIONAL: Agnes-Sampson Sues Over Sale to CommScope
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louise Agnes-Sampson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ARRIS International PLC, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-12205 (S.D. N.Y., December 26, 2018), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the acquisition of Arris by CommScope
Holding Company, Inc.

On November 8, 2018, ARRIS and CommScope entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Reorganization, pursuant to which CommScope has agreed
to acquire all of the issued and to be issued ordinary shares of
ARRIS for $31.75 in cash per ordinary share (the "Merger
Consideration"). On December 19, 2018, in order to convince ARRIS's
public common shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, the Defendants authorized the filing of a materially
incomplete and misleading Definitive Proxy Statement with the SEC,
in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, the
complaint asserts.

In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections for
ARRIS; and (ii) the valuation analyses performed by ARRIS's
financial advisor, Evercore Group L.L.C.

The Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times
relevant hereto, the owner of ARRIS common stock.

The Defendant ARRIS is a public limited company incorporated under
the laws of England and Wales. ARRIS's common stock is traded on
the NasdaqGS under the ticker symbol "ARRS." ARRIS, together with
its subsidiaries, provides entertainment, communications, and
networking technology and solutions worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Customer Premises Equipment, Network & Cloud, and
Enterprise Networks. The Customer Premises Equipment segment offers
digital subscriber lines and cable modems, broadband gateways,
set-top boxes, and video gateways

The Individual Defendants are members of ARRIS' board of directors.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AUSTRALIA: 110 Businesses Join $400MM Sydney Light Rail Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Heather McNab, writing for Australian Associated Press, reports
that the number of businesses and landlords suing the state
government over the delayed Sydney light rail project has almost
doubled over the past four months.

The light rail was originally meant to be finished in 2019 but the
company building it now expects it to be completed by May 2020.

Some 60 businesses along the route filed a class action lawsuit
against Transport for NSW in late August claiming they'd been
adversely impacted by construction work along the route from the
CBD to the eastern suburbs.

But that number has now grown to 110 businesses and landlords who
are seeking $400 million in compensation over what they say is the
government's poor planning.

Lawyer Rick Mitry says claimants have suffered economic and
psychological trauma.

The class action in the NSW Supreme Court includes small and large
businesses some of which are claiming up to $15 million in
damages.

The suit aims to hold the NSW government accountable, Mr Mitry told
AAP.

"If you're going to unnecessarily damage people's lives and
businesses then you've got to be brought to account -- you can't
just do these things with impunity," he said.

City of Sydney councillor Angela Vithoulkas -- who's the former
owner of Vivo Cafe on George Street on the light rail route --
believes the class action has a strong chance of success because
people can document the financial and mental anguish they've
experienced.

"Families are in crisis over the financial impact . . . there will
never be enough money to fix that heartache," she said.

A Transport for NSW spokeswoman stated: "TfNSW denies the
allegations made in the class action and is defending the
proceedings."

"It is not appropriate for us to comment further while the matter
is before the courts," she said in a statement.

The department has filed cross-claims against light rail consortium
ALTRAC and its Spanish subcontractor Acciona.

It notes the state government has delivered more than $117 million
to 115 impacted businesses through its "small business assistance
program".

The total cost of the light rail project has blown out from $1.6
billion to $2.1 billion.

Acciona has launched its own legal action against the government
seeking an additional $1.2 billion arguing it was misled over the
complexity of the project. [GN]


AUTOBAHN INC: Court Dismisses S. Ferrari's Suit with Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice the case,
STEVE FERRARI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AUTOBAHN, INC. DBA AUTOBAHN
MOTORS; MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC; AND SONIC AUTOMOTIVE, INC.
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-CV-00018-YGR (N.D. Cal.), except as
provided in the Court's Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of Class Settlement, etc.

The Plaintiffs will take nothing by their complaint against the
Defendants.  There is no just reason for delay in the entry of
theJudgment, and immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is
expressly directed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2019 Partial Judgment is
available at https://is.gd/YJN6x5 from Leagle.com.

Steve Ferrari, Mike Keynejad, John Diaz, Harold Fethe & Ray
Gapasin, Plaintiffs, represented by Herman Franck, Franck and
Associates, Brian William Warwick -- bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
-- Varnell and Warwick, David K. Lietz --
dlietz@varnellandwarwick.com -- Varnell and Warwick, Elizabeth
Betowski -- elizabeth.francklaw@gmail.com -- Franck and Associates
& Janet Robards Varnell -- jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com --
Varnell and Warwick.

Patricia Reuben, individually and as representatives of the Class
of Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Herman
Franck, Franck and Associates, Brian William Warwick, Varnell and
Warwick, Elizabeth Betowski, Franck and Associates & Janet Robards
Varnell, Varnell and Warwick.

Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Helen Yiea Trac
-- helen.trac@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, James Niles

Tansey -- james.tansey@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP &
Regina M. Rodriguez -- regina.rodriguez@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP.


AUTOBAHN INC: Settlement in S. Ferrari's Suit Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVE FERRARI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AUTOBAHN, INC.
DBA AUTOBAHN MOTORS; MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC; AND SONIC AUTOMOTIVE,
INC. Defendants, Case No. 4:17-CV-00018-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Plaintiffs' (i) Motion for
Attorney Fees and Class Representative Awards, and (ii) Motion for
Final Approval of Pro Tanto Class Action Settlement.

Due and adequate notice having been given to the Class of the
proposed Settlement and the pending motions, as required by the
Court's orders, and upon consideration of all papers filed and
proceedings had herein, Judge Rogers granted the motions for Final
Approval and for Attorney Fees and Class Representative Awards.

The Class, for purposes of the Order, will mean all consumers who
during the Class Period received service from Autobahn, together
with all consumers who purchased a [Certified Pre-Owned] CPO
automobile from Autobahn during the period Jan. 1, 2007 through
Dec. 31, 2012.  The Class Period is Jan. 1, 2005 through Feb. 28,
2018.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Judge certified for settlement purposes only the Class, which it
previously provisionally certified.  The Settlement Class is
divided into sub-Classes 1A, 1B, 2, 3A, and 3B, which are defined
in the Settlement Agreement.

She reaffirmed that the Action is properly maintained as a class
action, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(e), and that the Class
Counsel and the Plaintiffs, as the Class Representatives, fairly
and adequately represent the interests of the Class.

The Class Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of
$577,000 and reimbursement of customary, reasonable, and documented
out-of-pocket litigation expenses not to exceed $22,000 to be paid
in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.  The Judge also
awarded Incentive Awards to the named Plaintiffs in the following
amounts: Steve Ferrari - $2,500; Mike Keynejad - $8,000; Patricia
Rubin - $2,500; Harold Fethe - $4,000; John Diaz - $5,000; and Ray
Gapasin - $2,500 as the Class Representatives, to compensate them
for their commitments and efforts on behalf of the Class in the
Action.

The Parties are to bear their own costs, except as awarded by the
Court in the Final Approval Order.  In its Order Granting
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval, the Court directed the
parties to appoint a Settlement Administrator.  The parties
selected RSM US LLP.  RSM US LLP will continue to perform those
duties and responsibilities that remain under the Settlement and
theFinal Approval Order.

The Parties and Settlement Administrator are directed to implement
the Final Approval Order and the Settlement in accordance with the
terms and provisions thereof, including the processing and payment
of Claims.

Judge Rogers dismissed the Action with prejudice against the
Autobahn Defendants without fees or costs except as provided in the
Settlement Agreement and the Order.  She finds no just reason for
delay in issuing a judgment as to the claims that are resolved by
the Settlement.

The Class Counsel will serve a copy of the Final Approval Order on
all named parties or their counsel and the Settlement Administrator
immediately upon receipt and the Settlement Administrator will post
a copy of the Final Approval Order on the Settlement Website
immediately upon receipt.

The parties will submit a Final Report by Feb. 28, 2020, detailing
the number of Vouchers redeemed by the Class.  The Judge set a
Compliance hearing regarding the filing of the final report and
accounting on the Court's calendar at 9:00 a.m. on March 6, 2020.
If the parties timely file their report, the Court will vacate the
compliance hearing and no appearance will be required.  The Order
terminates Docket Nos. 164 and 170.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/2AFzJY from Leagle.com.

Steve Ferrari, Mike Keynejad, John Diaz, Harold Fethe & Ray
Gapasin, Plaintiffs, represented by Herman Franck, Franck and
Associates, Brian William Warwick -- bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
-- Varnell and Warwick, David K. Lietz --
dlietz@varnellandwarwick.com -- Varnell and Warwick, Elizabeth
Betowski -- elizabeth.francklaw@gmail.com -- Franck and Associates
& Janet Robards Varnell -- jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com --
Varnell and Warwick.

Patricia Reuben, individually and as representatives of the Class
of Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Herman
Franck, Franck and Associates, Brian William Warwick, Varnell and
Warwick, Elizabeth Betowski, Franck and Associates & Janet Robards
Varnell, Varnell and Warwick.

Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Helen Yiea Trac
-- helen.trac@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, James Niles

Tansey -- james.tansey@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP &
Regina M. Rodriguez -- regina.rodriguez@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP.


BARCLAYS CAPITAL: Court Resolves Deposition Notice Scope in Bigsby
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Bigsby et al., Plaintiffs, v. Barclays Capital Real
Estate, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-01398 (JGK) (SDA) (S.D.
N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York directed BCREI to designate a
witness or witnesses to testify regarding Topic 4(h)(iii), as
revised; and Topic 6(i) (regarding BCREI's negotiation of attorney
fee schedules).

The Plaintiffs are mortgagors who filed the putative class action
against BCREI, in its capacity as successor to a mortgage-servicing
company known as HomEq Servicing Corp. ("HomEq").  HomEq collected
on home loans on behalf of mortgage-note holders, who were
typically trustees and beneficiaries of securitized loans.  BCREI
acquired HomEq in 2006.

After acquiring HomEq, BCREI continued to operate HomEq using the
same employees, guidelines and business strategies as those used by
HomEq. HomEq and BCREI serviced note holders' loans pursuant to a
Pooling and Servicing Agreement ("PSA").  Under the PSA, a note
holder assigned to HomEq and BCREI certain ownership rights of the
note, including the right to foreclose on delinquent mortgages.

Each Plaintiff obtained at least one mortgage serviced by HomEq and
BCREI.  All the Plaintiffs went into default on their mortgage
obligations, and BCREI instituted foreclosure proceedings against
them.  Fidelity National Foreclosure Solutions and its successors
and related entities provided bankruptcy and foreclosure services
to HomEq and BCREI.  Fidelity served as the intermediary between
the bankruptcy and foreclosure counsel hired by Fidelity, and HomEq
and BCREI.  The Plaintiffs allege that BCREI engaged in an illegal
scheme with Fidelity to shift certain expenses to the Plaintiffs,
including attorneys' fees.

Prior motion practice resulted in the dismissal of several claims.
The Plaintiffs' remaining claims, which relate to fees charged to
them, are claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment and
conversion, as well as claims under the California Unfair
Competition Law arising out of the alleged fee-shifting scheme.

Before the Court is a dispute between the parties regarding the
scope of a deposition notice ("Notice") served by the Plaintiffs'
counsel, pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  In their Notice, the Plaintiffs seek testimony from one
or more corporate representatives of BCREI, regarding 10 identified
topics, only certain of which are disputed.

The parties' present disputes relate to the following topics
contained in the Notice:

     a. Topic 4(h)(iii): The operation, functionality and
capabilities of the principal accounting systems used by HomEq in
servicing loans, including the MSP system and IT Turbo relating to
the following areas: The use and identity of codes used by HomEq in
the Accounting Systems relating to the charging-off, reversal,
adjustment or waiver of fees and expenses posted to accounts.

     b. Topic 6: The agreements between Fidelity and HomEq relating
to the provision of default, foreclosure, bankruptcy and eviction
services provided by Fidelity, attorneys, trustees and other
parties, including: (i) the negotiation of the fee schedules and
indemnity provisions in the agreements.

     c. Topic 9: Communications among Barclays employees, between
Barclays and Fidelity, or between Barclays and any related-entity
concerning contractual provisions such as the one in the April 9,
2009 agreement between Barclays and Fidelity titled Default
Statement of Work requiring indemnifying Barclays if the Fidelity
business model is alleged to be unlawful or improper or constitutes
an impermissible `fee splitting' or `referral fee' arrangement.

An Oral argument was held by telephone on Jan. 25, 2019.

Magistrate Judge Aaron finds in his discretion that using Topic
4(h)(iii) as written would not be proportional to the needs of the
case.  Thus, he amends the topic to require testimony with respect
to accounting system codes that actually appear on the Plaintiffs'
account transcripts.

As to Topic 6(i), the Magistrate finds that the negotiation of
attorney fee schedules is relevant at least to the Plaintiffs'
remaining UCL claim.  He also finds that the discovery sought on
Topic 6(i) is proportional to the needs of the case.  BCREI will
make a conscientious good faith effort to prepare a designated
witness to testify regarding negotiation of the fee schedules that
appear in the identified agreements between BCREI and Fidelity,
including by referring such witness to documents within the
possession, custody or control of BCREI; by having the witness
interview past employees of BCREI; and/or by referring the witness
to other reasonably available sources.

And finally, as to Topic 9, the Judge finds that testimony
regarding negotiation of the indemnity provisions is not relevant.
In any event, even if he were to find some marginal relevance of
such testimony, it would not be sufficiently important in resolving
the remaining issues in the case, and the burden and expense of
such discovery would outweigh its likely benefit.  Thus, BCREI
needs not designate a witness to testify regarding indemnity
provisions in the Fidelity agreements, although it may choose to do
so.  If BCREI declines to designate a witness on this topic, it may
not introduce at trial evidence regarding the indemnity provisions,
including evidence regarding the reasons why it added the indemnity
provisions to the Fidelity agreements.

For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Aaron ordered BCREI to
designate a witness or witnesses to testify regarding Topic
4(h)(iii), as revised; and Topic 6(i) (regarding BCREI's
negotiation of attorney fee schedules).

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/SY1FQJ from Leagle.com.

Lamar Bigsby, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Karl Jones, Jones, Wolf
& Kapasi LLC, Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC &
Paul Stewart Grobman, Paul Grobman, Esq.

Karla Freeland, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Jarret Wolf,
Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC & Paul Stewart Grobman, Paul Grobman,
Esq.

Barclays Capital Real Estate, Inc., doing business as, Defendant,
represented by James Ellis Brandt -- james.brandt@lw.com -- Latham
& Watkins LLP, Michael Andrew Watsula -- michael.watsula@lw.com --
Latham & Watkins LLP, Serrin Andrew Turner -- serrin.turner@lw.com
-- Latham & Watkins LLP & Tracey L. Orick, Latham & Watkins, LLP.

Maria Brandt, Herman Grimes & Kathleen Murry, ADR Providers,
represented by Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Jones,Wolf & Kapasi, LLC.


BCBSM INC: LP Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
------------------------------------------
L.P., by and through her father, J.P., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. BCBSM, Inc., dba Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Minnesota, Case No. 0:18-cv-03472 (D. Minn.,
December 26, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The action arises from the Defendant's practice of reducing
insured's covered benefits by amounts that Blue Cross claims,
without adjudication and without proper notice, it overpaid to the
same insured for unrelated health care expenses. Offsetting in this
manner is permitted only when an insurer's ERISA-regulated plan
authorizes it. Blue Cross's language, which is standardized among
its various insurance products, does not, asserts the comaplaint.

The Plaintiff J.P. was a full-time employee of Bolton & Menk, Inc.,
an engineering firm with headquarters in Mankato, MN. While
employed at Bolton & Menk, J.P. lived in Nicollet County, within
this judicial district. His employer-sponsored health insurance at
issue in this litigation was administered by defendant Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of Minnesota and is regulated by ERISA.

The Defendant BCBSM, Inc. is a non-profit company incorporated in
Minnesota with its principal place of business located within this
judicial district. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles N. Nauen, Esq.
      Susan Ellingstad, Esq.
      David W. Asp, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
      100 Washington Avenue South Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Tel: (612) 339-6900
      Fax: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: cnnauen@locklaw.com
              seellingstad@locklaw.com
              dwasp@locklaw.com

          - and -

      Jordan Lewis, Esq.
      JORDAN LEWIS, P.A.
      4473 N.E. 11th Avenue
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334
      Tel: (954) 616-8995
      Fax: (954) 206-0374
      E-mail: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com


BECTON DICKINSON: Defending Against 4,445 Hernia Product Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the company
is defending approximately 4,445 product liability claims involving
the Company's line of hernia repair devices.

As of December 31, 2018, the Company is defending approximately
4,445 product liability claims involving the Company's line of
hernia repair devices (collectively, the "Hernia Product Claims").


The majority of those claims are currently pending in a coordinated
proceeding in Rhode Island State Court, but claims are also pending
in other state and/or federal court jurisdictions. In addition,
those claims include multiple putative class actions in Canada.

Generally, the Hernia Product Claims seek damages for personal
injury allegedly resulting from use of the products. From time to
time, the Company engages in resolution discussions with
plaintiffs' law firms regarding certain of the Hernia Product
Claims, but the Company also intends to vigorously defend Hernia
Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation.

Trials are scheduled throughout 2019 in various state and/or
federal courts. The Company expects additional trials of Hernia
Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months. In August
2018, a new hernia multi-district litigation ("MDL") was ordered to
be established in the Southern District of Ohio.

The Company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the
Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and
unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuits, will not
have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results
of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.


BECTON DICKINSON: Has Deal for 15,156 Women Health Product Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that as of
December 31, 2018, the Company has reached agreements or agreements
in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle their
respective inventories of cases totaling approximately 15,156 of
the Women's Health Product Claims.

As of December 31, 2018, the Company is defending approximately
1,098 product liability claims involving the Company's line of
pelvic mesh devices. The majority of those claims are currently
pending in either the federal MDL in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, or a coordinated
proceeding in New Jersey State Court, but claims are also pending
in other state and/or federal court jurisdictions.

In addition, those claims include putative class actions filed in
the United States. Not included in the figures above are
approximately 1,026 filed and unfiled claims that have been
asserted or threatened against the Company but lack sufficient
information to determine whether a pelvic mesh device of the
Company is actually at issue.

The claims identified above also include products manufactured by
both the Company and two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as
successor in interest to Covidien plc) ("Medtronic"), each a
supplier of the Company. Medtronic has an obligation to defend and
indemnify the Company with respect to any product defect liability
relating to products its subsidiaries had manufactured. As
described below, in July 2015 the Company reached an agreement with
Medtronic (which was amended in June 2017) regarding certain
aspects of Medtronic's indemnification obligation.

The foregoing lawsuits, unfiled claims, putative class actions, and
other claims, together with claims that have settled or are the
subject of agreements or agreements in principle to settle, are
referred to collectively as the "Women's Health Product Claims."

The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for
personal injury allegedly resulting from use of the products.

As of December 31, 2018, the Company has reached agreements or
agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to
settle their respective inventories of cases totaling approximately
15,156 of the Women's Health Product Claims.

The Company believes that these Women's Health Product Claims are
not the subject of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. These
settlement agreements and agreements in principle include unfiled
and previously unknown claims held by various plaintiffs' law
firms, which are not included in the approximate number of lawsuits
set forth in the first paragraph of this section.

Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including
requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a
certain minimum number of plaintiffs. The Company continues to
engage in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding
potential resolution of unsettled Women's Health Product Claims,
which may include additional inventory settlements.

Starting in 2014 in the MDL, the court entered certain pre-trial
orders requiring trial work up and remand of a significant number
of Women's Health Product Claims, including an order entered in the
MDL on January 30, 2018, that requires the work up and remand of
all remaining unsettled cases (the "WHP Pre-Trial Orders").

The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result in material additional costs or
trial verdicts in future periods in defending Women's Health
Product Claims. Trials are anticipated throughout 2019 in state
courts. A trial in the New Jersey coordinated proceeding began in
March 2018, and in April 2018 a jury entered a verdict against the
Company in the total amount of $68 million ($33 million
compensatory; $35 million punitive). The Company is in the process
of appealing that verdict. The Company expects additional trials of
Women's Health Product Claims to take place over the next 12
months, which may potentially include consolidated trials.

In July 2015, as part of the agreement with Medtronic noted above,
Medtronic agreed to take responsibility for pursuing settlement of
certain of the Women’s Health Product Claims that relate to
products distributed by the Company under supply agreements with
Medtronic, and the Company has paid Medtronic $121 million towards
these potential settlements.

In June 2017, the Company amended the agreement with Medtronic to
transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women's Health
Product Claims to Medtronic on terms similar to the July 2015
agreement, including with respect to the obligation to make
payments to Medtronic towards these potential settlements. The
Company also may, in its sole discretion, transfer responsibility
for settlement of additional Women's Health Product Claims to
Medtronic on similar terms. The agreements do not resolve the
dispute between the Company and Medtronic with respect to Women's
Health Product Claims that do not settle, if any.

During the course of engaging in settlement discussions with
plaintiffs' law firms, the Company has learned, and may in future
periods learn, additional information regarding these and other
unfiled claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact
the Company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against
the Company.

Becton, Dickinson and Company develops, manufactures, and sells
medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment, and diagnostic
products worldwide. Becton, Dickinson and Company was founded in
1897 and is based in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.


BIG M CASINO: Court Conditionally Certifies Pecora FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL PECORA, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE BIG M CASINO, INC. and JOHN
DOE 1-10, individually, Defendant, Civil Action No.
4:18-cv-01422-RBH (D. S.C.), Judge R. Bryan Harwell of the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina, Florence
Division, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Conditional Class Certification under the FLSA and to Authorize
Notice to Putative Class Members.

The action arises from Pecora's allegations that the Defendants
have violated 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) "Fair Labor Standards Act"
or "FLSA") and/or S.C. Code Ann. Section 41-10-10 et seq. ("South
Carolina Payment of Wage Act" or "SCPWA").  On May 24, 2018, Pecora
brought suit against his former employer, Defendant Big M for
unpaid wages.  Pecora has sued both in his individual capacity and
on behalf of all other similarly situated putative class members.

According to the allegations within the complaint, Pecora was
employed by Big M, a casino boat cruise company, as a "dealer" and
"shift supervisor" for over ten years.  Pecora alleges that
Defendants paid him and others less than the statutory minimum wag
by taking the "tip credit" under the FLSA.  He further alleges that
Big M had a policy requiring dealers, including Pecora, to
participate in a mandatory tip pool, and Big M would then
redistribute those tips to shift supervisors.  Pecora further
alleges that he, as well as other employees, were not paid for time
spent working prior to and after the casino boat's departure and
return to the dock.  Within the complaint, Pecora alleges
violations of both the FLSA and SCPWA.

Pecora filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and as a collective
action under the FLSA and as a Rule 23 class action to recover
damages resulting from the failure to pay the proper minimum wage
and failure to pay overtime wages.  Pecora filed a motion to
certify the class under the FLSA only.

Pecora asserted in his motion that he and one other individual who
worked for Big M have joined the lawsuit.  Since the filing of the
initial motion, eight more former employees have filed a notice
evidencing their consent to become a party Plaintiff to the
lawsuit.  According to Pecora, Big M implemented a policy wherein
it would pay employees acting as "floor supervisors" less than
minimum wage by taking the Tip Credit provided for in the FLSA.  He
argues that because floor supervisors received funds from this tip
pool but were not regularly and customarily tipped employees, the
policy invalidated the use of the tip credit.

The Defendants refute these "facts" and, relying upon the affidavit
of Big M's general manager, Mary Slabinski, state that Pecora
worked as either a dealer or a supervisor and that there is no such
position as "floor supervisor."  She provides payroll records,
purportedly showing that Pecora was paid one rate as a supervisor,
and another rate, a tip credit wage rate, as a dealer.

The Plaintiffs now seeks to conditionally certify a class in the
matter and have filed a motion to certify the lawsuit as a
collective action.  The Plaintiffs wish to define the class as all
individuals who were employed by the Defendants as Dealers or Floor
Supervisors at any time within the three years prior to joining the
lawsuit, who were nonexempt employees paid a direct, or hourly,
rate less than the minimum wage of Seven and 25/100 dollars ($7.25)
per hour and participated in a mandatory tip pool created by the
Big M.

They further seek to provide and effectuate notice via several
methods of communication, and therefore requests the Court enters
an order requiring Big M to provide specific information, include
the full names and addresses of employees, dates of employment,
mailing addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers.
Further, they ask the Court authorizes the mailing of a specific
Notice and Consent.

Big M disagrees that conditional class certification is proper,
arguing that: (1) Pecora has failed to establish a class of
"similarly situated" individuals; (2) Pecora has only provided the
consent of one other individual interested in joining the lawsuit;
and (3) that the requested Notice is deficient.

After the filing of Big M's response, eight more individuals filed
a Notice of Joinder in the lawsuit.  Accordingly, in addition to
Pecora, there are now nine opt-in Plaintiffs, bringing the total
number of the Plaintiffs, including those seeking to opt-in, at
10.

Judge Harwell finds that the Plaintiffs have met that standard for
conditional class certification.  Taking into account the arguments
made by both parties, the class is defined as any individual
employed at Big M at any time since (Date 3 years prior to mailing)
who at any time was paid a direct, or hourly, rate less than the
statutory minimum wage of Seven and 25/100 dollars ($7.25) per hour
and held the position of dealer.

In reviewing all of the arguments made by the counsel, the Judge
Court orders that Big M transmit the following contact information
to the TPA for each member of the putative class: (1) full names of
each individual of the putative class, along with the
identification of whether each individual is a current employee;
(2) the dates of employment for each named individual; (3) the last
known mailing address on file, included in either payroll records,
W-2, or elsewhere in the employee file of each named individual;
and (4) all known e-mail addresses on file for each individual of
the putative class.

The Judge approves the Plaintiffs' revised Notice and Consent
attached as Exhibit 2, as well as the E-Mail Notice attached as
Exhibit 1, to their reply brief.  And, in order to be consistent
with respect to the mailed notice, he orders that the subject line
read as follows: "Big M Collective (Class) Action Lawsuit under the
Fair Labor Standards Act — Please Read."  This is the subject
line that the Court approves of in the e-mail notice.

For the reasons stated, Judge Harwell granted in part and denied in
part, subject to the modifications and limitations as outlined in
the Order.  He conditionally certified as a collective action under
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

The class will be defined as any individual employed at Big M at
any time since (Date 3 years prior to mailing) who at any time was
paid a direct, or hourly, rate less than the statutory minimum wage
of Seven and 25/100 dollars ($7.25) per hour and held the position
of dealer.

The revised Notice and Consent (Notice) attached to the Plaintiffs'
Reply as Exhibit 2 is appropriate to provide notice to the
potential members of the class, via U.S. mail and for allowing
potential members to of the class to opt-in, or join the class.

The revised E-mail Notice attached to the Plaintiffs' Reply as
Exhibit 1 is appropriate for sending notice to the potential class
members via e-mail. The subject line will read: Big M Collective
(Class) Action Lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act —
Please Read.  The email will include a .pdf attachment of the same
Notice sent via U.S. mail, and attached as Exhibit 2 to the
Plaintiffs' Reply [ECF #24-2], to the e-mail sent to the potential
class members.

The Judge directed that the Notice will be authorized to the
potential class members for a 30-day period of time.  The putative
class members will have 30 days from the date of the Notice to
return their Consent form.  The timeliness will be determined based
upon the date that the Consent is post-marked.

The parties will use the service of TPA Simpluris, Inc. to handle
distribution of Notice and Consent.  The Plaintiff will pay all
fees and costs of TPA, subject to reimbursement pending the outcome
of the lawsuit.  The TPA will need to insert appropriate dates
within the Notice wherein language is contained requesting the
insertion of a date.

Within five calendar days of the entry of the Order, the Judge
ordereed Big M to provide, in electronic format, if available, the
TPA, for all the potential class members the following information:
(a) full names of each individual of the putative class, along with
the identification of whether each individual is a current
employee; (b) the dates of employment for each named individual;
(c) the last known mailing address on file, included in either
payroll records, W-2, or elsewhere in the employee file of each
named individual; and (d) all known e-mail addresses on file for
each individual of the putative class.

The TPA, will within 10 calendar days of the entry of the Order:
(a) mail, via first class U.S. mail, a copy of the Notice and
Consent, attached as Exhibit 2 to the Plaintiffs' Reply to all
members of the potential class; and (b) e-mail to all members of
the potential class, a copy of the Notice and Consent.  The body of
the e-mail will reflect the language found in Exhibit 1 attached to
the Plaintiffs' Reply.  The mailing envelope will have a return
address as follows: Class Action Lawsuit Bruce E. Miller Bruce E.
Miller, P.A. 147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603 Charleston, SC
29412

Enclosed with the Notice will be a self-addressed, postage-paid
envelope using the name and mailing address of the Plaintiffs'
counsel for both the address and return address.

Within seven days of receiving the contact information from the
Defendant, the TPA will provide the Plaintiffs' counsel with the
following information: (a) the number of putative class numbers;
(b) the number of mailing addresses; (c) the number of e-mail
addresses.  If the TPA receives any completed Consents, the TPA
shall, within 24 hours of receiving the Consent, email a copy of
each to the counsel for the Plaintiffs to be filed with the Court.
Within five business days, the TPA will also mail the original
Consent to the Plaintiffs' counsel.

Within 65 days of the entry of the Order, the TPA will send the
identical report to counsel for the parties, showing all activity
of the TPA in the action, redacting the names and contact
information for all putative class members who did not opt-in to
the lawsuit.  This will include a list of all the potential class
members and whether the TPA mailed and/or e-mailed the Notice,
along with indications of which methods, if any, were unsuccessful.
This report will also include any telephone calls received from any
potential class members, along with what subsequent action, if any,
the TPA took.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/mmvkfT from Leagle.com.

Michael Pecora, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce E. Miller --
bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com -- Bruce E Miller Law Office.

The Big M Casino Inc, Defendant, represented by Allan Riley Holmes
-- aholmes@gibbs-holmes.com -- Gibbs and Holmes & Emma Ruth H.
Brittain, Thomas and Brittain.


BIG M CASINO: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Pecora FLSA/SCPWA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge R. Bryan Harwell of the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina, Florence Division, denied the Defendant's motion
to dismiss the case, MICHAEL PECORA, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE BIG M CASINO, INC. and
JOHN DOES 1-10, individually, Defendant, Civil Action No.
4:18-cv-01422-RBH (D. S.C.).

The action arises from Pecora's allegations that the Defendants
have violated 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) "Fair Labor Standards Act"
or "FLSA") and/or S.C. Code Ann. Section 41-10-10 et seq. ("South
Carolina Payment of Wage Act" or "SCPWA").  On May 24, 2018, Pecora
brought suit against his former employer, Defendant Big M for
unpaid wages.  Pecora has sued both in his individual capacity and
on behalf of all other similarly situated putative class members.

According to the allegations within the complaint, Pecora was
employed by Big M, a casino boat cruise company, as a "dealer" and
"shift supervisor" for over ten years.  Pecora alleges that
Defendants paid him and others less than the statutory minimum wag
by taking the "tip credit" under the FLSA.  He further alleges that
Big M had a policy requiring dealers, including Pecora, to
participate in a mandatory tip pool, and Big M would then
redistribute those tips to shift supervisors.  Pecora further
alleges that he, as well as other employees, were not paid for time
spent working prior to and after the casino boat's departure and
return to the dock.  Within the complaint, Pecora alleges
violations of both the FLSA and SCPWA.

Pecora filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and as a collective
action under the FLSA and as a Rule 23 class action to recover
damages resulting from the failure to pay the proper minimum wage
and failure to pay overtime wages.  Specifically, his complaint
alleges causes of action for: (1) Violation of the FLSA as an
"opt-in" collective action; and (2) Violation of SCPWA as a
collective class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

Big M has now filed a motion to dismiss the state law claim for
recovery of tips.  It argues that any state law claim is preempted
by the FLSA.  While Big M acknowledges that this issue has
previously been addressed by the Court, it argues that the issue
has not been properly framed for consideration, and further, that a
recent amendment to section 203(m) affects all related claims after
March 23, 2018.  According to Big M, the passage of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, which was effective March 23,
2018, amends section 203(m) of the FLSA and now provides a specific
remedy for a violation of this section.  Pecora denies that it is
proper to grant the motion and urges the Court to follow prior case
law, including its own previous orders.

Judge Harwell finds that the arguments made by Big M in the case
have been previously considered in one form or fashion several
times, and Big M has not provided any additional reasoning to
persuade the Court to rule any differently that in its prior
decisions.  He has thoughtfully considered Big M's arguments but is
unpersuaded to reject the sound reasoning articulated in its prior
orders and the orders from other judges within the district.

Additionally, as pointed out by Pecora, the Judge holds that the
fact that the FLSA may provide a remedy for potential claims
acquired after March 23, 2018 would not necessarily alter the
analysis in the cases previously analyzed finding that the
Plaintiff could bring both an FLSA and a state law claim.  Pecora's
employment ended Jan. 10, 2018.  The Court does not currently have
before it a plaintiff with claims that accrued after March 23,
2018.  Thus, Big M's argument may be premature, and the Judge
declines to make a ruling at this time on a claim that is not
presently before the Court.  While the Court is aware that a motion
for conditional class certification is pending, the Judge cannot
determine at this date whether any of the potential class members
seek to bring a claim accruing after March 23, 2018.  Accordingly,
for the foregoing reasons, he will deny the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the complaint at this time based upon the claims currently
before the Court.

Based on this, Judge Harwell denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/3HVWr8 from Leagle.com.

Michael Pecora, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce E. Miller --
bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com -- Bruce E. Miller Law Office.

The Big M Casino Inc, Defendant, represented by Allan Riley Holmes
-- aholmes@gibbs-holmes.com -- Gibbs and Holmes & Emma Ruth H.
Brittain, Thomas and Brittain.


BLUE NILE: Dennis Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Nile, Inc. The
case is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Blue Nile, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00678 (E.D. N.Y., Feb. 4, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Blue Nile, Inc. operates as an online retailer of diamonds and fine
jewelry worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     Shalom Law, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Phone: (516) 807-1748
     Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


BP EXPLORATION: Eldridge Suit Over Oil Spill Moved to N.D. Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana transferred the case,
ADAM LEE ELDRIDGE, v. BP EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INC. ET AL.,
SECTION "J" (2), Civil Action No. 18-8326 (E.D. La.), to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.

The BELO portion of the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement in In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in
the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL No. 2179, Record Doc.
No. 6427-1 at pp. 60-73, and the court's Case Management Orders,
Record Doc. No. 14099 in MDL No. 2179 and Record Doc. No. 3 in the
captioned case, provide for determination by the court, with the
input of the parties, of the appropriate venue for discovery and
dispositive proceedings.  The Defendants have filed a Motion to
Transfer Venue to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Mississippi, noticed for submission on Jan. 23, 2019.  The
Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition memorandum.  However,
his complaint argues that venue is proper in the Southern District
of Alabama.

Having considered the record, the applicable law, and the written
submissions of counsel for the parties, Magistrate Judge Wilkinson
granted the Defendants' motion, and transferred the instant matter
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Mississippi.

He finds that venue is both proper and most appropriate in the
Northern District of Mississippi.  The convenience of the parties
and witnesses and the interests of justice warrant transfer of the
case.  A magistrate judge is authorized to transfer a case of this
sort to another district.  Accordingly, he transferred the instant
matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Mississippi.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2019 Order and Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/sL1m4q from Leagle.com.

Adam Lee Eldridge, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Downs, Downs Law
Group, PA, Nathan Lee Nelson, Downs Law Group, PA & Vanessa
Elizabeth Diaz, Downs Law Group, PA.

BP America Production Company & BP Exploration & Production, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Don Keller Haycraft --
dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Catherine Pyune McEldowney
-- CPM@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley and Anderson LLC &
Kevin Michael Hodges -- khodges@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly,
LLP.


CALIFORNIA SERVICE: Settlement in West TCPA Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SANDRA WEST and HECTOR MEMBRENO, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA
SERVICE BUREAU, INC. Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-03124-YGR (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California granted (i) the parties' Motion
for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and (ii) the
Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and
Incentive Awards.

On Sept. 12, 2018, the Court granted preliminary approval of a
proposed class action settlement between the parties in the Action.
In the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court approved the
procedures for giving notice and the forms of notice.
Additionally, it concluded that the parties' proposed settlement,
as set forth in the Class Action Settlement Agreement, was within
range of possible final approval.

Now, pending before the Court is the parties' Motion for Final
Approval, and the Plaintiffs' Motion.  In accordance with the
Preliminary Approval Order and the parties' Class Action Settlement
Agreement, on Jan. 22, 2019, the Court held a duly noticed Fairness
Hearing.

Hving reviewed the papers filed in support of the Motions, heard
the arguments of the counsel, and good cause appearing therefore,
Judge Rogers granted (i) the Motion for Final Approval, and (ii)
the Plaintiffs' Motion.  Accordingly, she finally approved the
Class Action Settlement Agreement in all respects, and directed the
parties to implement and consummate the Class Action Settlement
Agreement according to its terms and provisions.

The Judge awarded $1,365,300 to Bursor & Fisher, P.A. and Martin &
Bontrager APC ("Class Counsel") as attorneys' fees.  Bursor &
Fisher, P.A. will be solely responsible for determining the amount
of monies to be paid, if any, to the other Plaintiffs' counsel.
She also awarded (i) to Plaintiffs Sandra West and Hector Membreno
$7,500 and $5,000 each as an incentive award for their
participation in the matter; and (ii) $214,457.10 to the Class
Counsel as reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs and expenses in
connection with the prosecution of the matter.  The Defendants will
pay the Fee Award and Incentive Awards pursuant to and in the
manner provided by the Class Action Settlement Agreement.

The Settlement Approval Order and Final Judgment constitutes a
judgment within the meaning and for purposes of Rule 54 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Subject to the terms and
conditions of the Class Action Settlement Agreement, the Judge
dismissed the Action with prejudice, without fees or costs to any
party, except the Fee Award and Incentive Awards provided by the
Class Action Settlement Agreement.

The Judge set a compliance hearing for Nov. 8, 2019 on the Court's
9:01 a.m. calendar in Courtroom 1 of the United States Courthouse
located at 1301 Clay Street in Oakland, California.  No later than
five business days prior to the date of the hearing, the parties
will file a Post-Distribution Accounting in compliance with the
District's Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements.  If
compliance is complete, the parties need not appear, and the
compliance hearing will be taken off calendar.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/58GMU4 from Leagle.com.

Sandra West, Plaintiff, represented by G. Thomas Martin, III --
tom@mblawapc.com -- Martin & Bontrager, APC, Lawrence Timothy
Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Yitzchak
Kopel -- ykopel@bursor.com -- Bursor Fisher & Nicholas J. Bontrager
-- Nick@mblawapc.com -- Martin & Bontrager, APC.

Hector Membreno, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence Timothy
Fisher, Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Nicholas J. Bontrager, Martin &
Bontrager, APC, Annick Marie Persinger, Bursor & Fisher, P.A.,
Thomas A. Reyda, Burosr and Fisher, P.A., Yeremey O. Krivoshey,
Bursor Fisher, P.A. &Yitzchak Kopel, Bursor Fisher.

California Service Bureau, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles
Robert Messer -- messerc@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer LLP, David
J. Kaminski -- kaminskid@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer LLP &
Stephen Albert Watkins WatkinsS@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson and Messer
LLP.


CANADA: Quebec Nursing Home Residents' Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Derfel, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that as a
resident of a long-term care centre in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu,
Daniel Pilote sometimes fears for his life.

Since the age of nine, Mr. Pilote has suffered from muscular
dystrophy. He's paralyzed from the neck down, and has a breathing
tube in his trachea that needs to be replaced every morning.

But there are days when the harried staff forget to replace the
tube, increasing the risk that Mr. Pilote might catch a
life-threatening infection. Then there are days when he's noted
errors in his medication.

"Fortunately, given my age and lucidity, I can notice these
things," said Mr. Pilote, who turns 57 in February. "But imagine a
person who suffers from Alzheimer's. I can tell the staff that my
cannula was not replaced in the morning, but someone with dementia
can't complain."

In July, Mr. Pilote became the lead plaintiff in a $500-million
class action against the government for its "shameful" handling of
the province's network of public nursing homes, known in French as
Centres d'hebergement de soins de longue duree, or CHSLDs.

In November, the class action -- which has yet to be authorized
-- was nonetheless given a boost when provincial ombudsman
Marie Rinfret released a report on the state of CHSLDs, using words
like "mistreatment" and "deficient" to describe the conditions of
some of the residences.

But regardless of the outcome of the legal action, Mr. Pilote and
other patients are urging the Quebec government to adopt a law that
would protect the elderly and disabled living in public and private
nursing homes. They note that Ontario adopted such a law in 2007,
which includes a "residents' bill of rights" as well as clauses on
nursing care, diet and hydration, among other services.

"We absolutely need to have law," Mr. Pilote said. "What we're
dealing with is organizational mistreatment, and the only way to
address this problem is a law."

For Mr. Pilote, the law would also be about restoring the dignity
of long-term care residents and giving them a place they can call a
real home.

Patients-right advocate Paul Brunet, of the Conseil pour la
protection des malades, is also lobbying for such a law. Brunet has
a meeting scheduled at the end of the month with Marguerite Blais,
the minister responsible for seniors and informal caregivers, to
discuss how Quebec could follow Ontario's lead in passing its own
nursing-home legislation.

"The spirit of such a law would be to render compulsory a minimum
quality of care and services that must be provided if you want to
operate a long-term care facility, whether it's public or private,"
Brunet explained.

He recommended that the law should have teeth, with severe
sanctions for nursing-home operators who flout its provisions
repeatedly.

"We do not want to hear anymore about the kinds of systemic
mistreatment that we have witnessed in the last few years," Brunet
added.

Premier François Legault pledged in an economic update in December
to allocate more resources to CHLSDs, but he hasn't commented on
the need for a law on nursing homes.

(In August, while campaigning in the last provincial election, Mr.
Legault promised to replace CHSLDs with what he called Maisons des
Aînes, smaller seniors' homes with air-conditioned rooms.)

Mr. Pilote is heartened by some of the comments that the CAQ
government has made about improving care in CHSLDs. But that talk
must now translate into action in the new year, he said.

"I know there are good intentions," Mr. Pilote added. "But the
government will have to do something about this problem, because at
the end of the day it's the residents of long-term care centres who
are suffering." [GN]


CAPITAL ONE: Court Denies Bid to Remand Langer PCC/MVSFA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harvey Bartle, III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand
the case, RANDY LANGER, et al., v. CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE, Civil
Action No. 16-6130 (E.D. Pa.), to the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County.

The Plaintiffs commenced the putative class action on Oct. 5, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against Capital
One.  They allege violations of the Pennsylvania Commercial Code
("PCC"), and the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act
("MVSFA"), in connection with the repossession by Capital One of
the Plaintiffs' and the class members' automobiles.  In April 2015,
Capital One repossessed a vehicle belonging to Plaintiffs James and
Randy Langer for failure to make payments on the loan financing the
vehicle.  The Plaintiffs allege that this repossession violated
certain of their rights under the PCC and MVSFA.

The Plaintiffs seek as compensation for these alleged violations of
Pennsylvania law the greater of actual or statutory damages.  They
contend that the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation would
not have transferred the title of the repossessed vehicles from
them to Capital One had the Department been aware of Capital One's
failure to comply with Pennsylvania law.  The Plaintiffs further
assert that any remaining indebtedness to Capital One for the
vehicles should be extinguished due to Capital One's failure to act
in a commercially reasonable manner. Thus, they seek to restrain
collection or enforcement by Capital One of any deficiency balances
and to vacate any deficiency judgments entered against the
Plaintiffs.

On Nov. 15, 2018, some two years after the action was brought, the
Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint pursuant
to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Plaintiffs
sought to add additional named Plaintiffs and to raise new claims
relating to alleged "hidden fees" charged by Capital One in
connection with the repossessions and Capital One's alleged failure
to disclose that vehicles were sold at public, rather than private,
auctions. Plaintiffs also included new claims regarding Capital
One's Post-Sale Notices under the laws of Ohio, Michigan, New
Jersey, New York, Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
Washington.

Capital One timely removed the action on Nov. 21, 2016 under the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.  On Dec. 31, 2018, the
Plaintiffs took a different tack by withdrawing their motion for
leave to amend and by filing the instant motion to remand on the
ground that the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction
because the Plaintiffs do not have standing to pursue the action.
They've also filed a putative class action complaint in the Court
of Common Pleas of Jefferson County, Pennsylvania in which they
raised claims similar to those asserted in the complaint pending
here as well as certain of the claims alleged in their
now-abandoned proposed amended complaint.

Judge Bartle finds that the Plaintiffs have not alleged an
attenuated risk of future harm or a bare violation of statute
divorced from any actual injury.  Instead, they have alleged a
particularized and concrete injury, that is, the repossession of
their vehicles in a manner contrary to Pennsylvania law.  The
Plaintiffs have further alleged that, in light of these violations,
they should not have lost title to their vehicles and that any
amounts due on loans made to finance the vehicles should be
extinguished.  The Plaintiffs have standing under Article III of
the United States Constitution, and the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the Judge denied the motion of
Plaintiffs to remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/dfKleW from Leagle.com.

RANDY LANGER & JAMES LANGER, Plaintiffs, represented by RICHARD E.
SHENKAN -- rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com -- SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS LLC.

CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE, A DIVISION OF CAPITAL ONE, N.A.,
Defendant, represented by SAMANTHA BETH KATS -- skats@stradley.com
-- STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG LLP, BURT M. RUBLIN --
RUBLINBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP,
DANIEL J.T. MCKENNA -- MCKENNADBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD SPAHR
ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP, JOSEPH THOMAS KELLEHER --
jkelleher@stradley.com -- STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP &
ROBERT EVAN HAIMES -- HAIMESRBALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD SPAHR
LLP.


CITY ISLAND YACHT: Thorne Files ADA Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City Island Yacht
Club. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne and On Behalf of All
Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. City Island Yacht
Club, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01073 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 4, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

The City Island Yacht Club (CIYC) was formed during the Winter of
1904-1905. At first, the Club was located at Herman Cordes'
boathouse on the west side of City Island Avenue, just north of
Ditmar Street. Ike Tabor designed the Club's burgee and it was
first raised on May 30, 1905.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


CONNLEY FISHING: Thorne Files ADA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Connley Fishing LLC.
The case is styled as Braulio Thorne and On Behalf of All Other
Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Connley Fishing LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01075 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 4, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Connley Fishing LLC manufactures custom fishing rods and outfit
saltwater tournament boats. They specialize in building high end
serious fishing equipment for fishing enthusiasts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Violates ADA, Dennis Suit Asserts
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Contextlogic, Inc.
The case is styled as Derrick U Dennis on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Contextlogic, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00694 (E.D. N.Y., Feb. 4, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

ContextLogic Inc., doing business as Wish, provides online services
that include media sharing and communication tools, personalized
and other content, and e-commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     Shalom Law, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Phone: (516) 807-1748
     Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


CORONA, CA: Failed to Apply Cash-in-Lieu Payments, Sevier Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN SEVIER, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF CORONA, the Defendant,
Case No. 5:19-cv-00190 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 30, 2019), alleges that
Defendant failed to apply the Cash-in-Lieu payments to Plaintiffs
in their "regular rate" of pay under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

According to the complaint, the City of Corona and the bargaining
units representing the City's employees, including the Plaintiffs,
have entered into agreements set forth in Memorandum of
Understandings, which allows for employees to choose a health
insurance "cash-out" option. The Defendant is obligated to follow
the terms of the MOUs. Under the City's Benefit Plans, employees of
the City, including Plaintiffs, were entitled to receive "cash-out"
payments in exchange for not using some or all of the medical
benefits provided by the City ("Cash-in-Lieu").

Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 207(e), the "regular rate" must
include all remuneration received by an employee unless it is
explicitly excluded. The California Central District Court in 2013
(affirmed by the Ninth Circuit in 2016) found this form or payment
to not be excludable in determining the "regular rate" when
calculating overtime payments. This was widely publicized in the
public employment sector and Defendant was aware of these
decisions.

The lawsuit contends that the Defendant knew or should have known
of their obligation to include the Cash-in-Lieu payments in
employees' regular rate of pay but nevertheless failed to do so.
Thus, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs for overtime
compensation at one and one half times their regular rate of pay.
In addition to the "cash-out" portion that was improperly excluded
from the overtime rate, the entire amount paid as either "cash-out"
or for medical benefits should have been included in the overtime
rate. This is so because the entire benefit amount is not part of a
"bona-fide plan" that is required for the City to exclude the
amount paid toward medical benefits from the overtime rate. The
City's medical benefit plan is not a "bona-fide plan" because the
cash payments made to employees is more than "incidental" to the
plan.

Corona is a city in Riverside County, California, United States. As
of the 2010 census, the city had a population of 152,374, up from
124,966 at the 2000 census.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

          Dieter C. Dammeier, Esq.
          DAMMEIER LAW FIRM
          9431 Haven Avenue, Suite 232
          Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
          Telephone: (909) 240-9525
          Facsimile: (909) 912-1901
          E-mail: Dieter@DammeierLaw.com

CRST EXPEDITED: 8th Cir. Appeal Filed in Sellars Harassment Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Leslie Fortune, Claudia Lopez and Cathy Sellars filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Cathy Sellars,
et al. v. CRST Expedited, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00117-LTS, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar
Rapids.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 4, 2019, Judge
Leonard T. Strand granted the Defendant's (i) motion for partial
summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' retaliation claim, and (ii)
motion for decertification of the Hostile Work Environment class.

CRST operates its transportation company by teaming together two
drivers per truck so one driver may sleep while the other is
driving.  CRST has a written policy prohibiting sexual harassment
in its workplace.  The policy also prohibits unlawful employment
discrimination and retaliation.  The policy is contained within the
handbooks that are distributed to CRST drivers and home office
employees, including driver managers ("DMs").

The Plaintiffs are female truck drivers who assert claims of
hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against their employer, CRST.  They
contend that CRST repeatedly failed to discipline DMs for failure
to follow its policy of immediately separating drivers upon receipt
of a sexual harassment complaint and escalate that complaint to HR.
They suggest that DMs are incentivized to keep the trucks moving
because stopping them due to sexual harassment complaints will
affect their compensation metrics.  They allege sexual harassment
is allowed to thrive under this purported policy, pattern or
practice of failing to discipline DMs for mishandling complaints.

The appellate case is captioned as Cathy Sellars, et al. v. CRST
Expedited, Inc., Case No. 19-8002, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Cathy Sellars, On behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated; Claudia Lopez, On behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated; and Leslie Fortune, On behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Joshua N. Friedman, I, Esq.
          Rebecca Houlding, Esq.
          Giselle Schuetz, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN & HOULDING LLP
          1050 Seven Oaks Lane
          Mamaroneck, NY 10543
          Telephone: (888) 369-1119
          E-mail: josh@joshuafriedmanesq.com
                  rebecca@joshuafriedmanesq.com
                  giselle@joshuafriedmanesq.com

               - and -

          Thomas Andrew Newkirk, Esq.
          NEWKIRK ZWAGERMAN PLC
          521 E. Locust, Suite 300
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Telephone: (515) 883-2000
          E-mail: tnewkirk@newkirklaw.com

Defendant-Respondent CRST Expedited, Inc., is represented by:

          Nicholas Petersen, Esq.
          Kevin James Visser, Esq.
          SIMMONS PERRINE MOYER BERGMAN PLC
          1200 Firstar Bank Building
          115 Third Street, S.E.
          Cedar Rapids, IA 52401-0000
          Telephone: (319) 366-7641
          E-mail: npetersen@simmonsperrine.com
                  kvisser@simmonsperrine.com


DANSKE BANK: March 11 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick&Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until March 11, 2019 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against Danske Bank A/S (OTC:
DNKEY), if they purchased the Company's American Depositary
Receipts ("ADRs") between January 9, 2014 and October 23, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

What You May Do

If you purchased ADRs of Danske and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/otc-dnkey/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by March 11, 2019.

                       About the Lawsuit

Danske and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On October 23, 2018, media reports revealed the full extent of
information provided by a whistleblower to Danske regarding money
laundering activities in 2013, which it subsequently concealed
while including profits from the illicit activities in its
reporting, exposing it to regulatory action and fines.

On this news, the price of Danske's ADRs plummeted, erasing more
than $2.54 billion in market capitalization.

The case is Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 773 Pension Fund v.
Danske Bank A/S, et al., No. 19-cv-00235.

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


DOLLAR TREE: Supplemental Pretrial Sched Order in Snipes Issued
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TERRY T. SNIPES, SR., an individual, residing in San
Joaquin County, California, Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR TREE DISTRIBUTION,
INC., A Virginia Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-00878-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Morrison C. England, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted the Plaintiff's Proposed
Supplemental Pretrial Scheduling Order.

On Nov. 28, 2017, the Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification, certifying six classes and five subclasses
related to various California Labor Code violations.  On Sept. 17,
2018, the Court denied the Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration
of the Certification Order.  Thereafter, on Nov. 20, 2018, the
Court granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental Pretrial
Scheduling Order in order to allow the Plaintiff to conduct such
post-certification discovery as may be necessary, and ordered the
Parties to meet and confer and submit a proposed Supplemental
Scheduling Order for the Court's consideration.  The deadline
provided by the Court for submission of the joint proposal was Jan.
8, 2018.

Beginning on Dec. 12, 2018, the Class Counsel met and conferred in
good faith with the Defendant's counsel in an attempt to reach an
agreement on a timeline for post-certification discovery.
Ultimately, the counsel were unable to agree.  The most generous
proposal of the Defendant's counsel was to set trial in June 2020,
which would have allowed the Plaintiff approximately nine months to
complete all post-certification non-expert discovery.  The Class
Counsel was not willing to stipulate to a period of that length.
Accordingly, the nine-month non-expert discovery period offered by
the Defendant's counsel was not adequate to account for the amount
of discovery to be done, nor the various delays expected to arise.

Therefore, the Plaintiff hereby submits his separate Proposed
Supplemental Pretrial Scheduling Order as follows, for the Court's
consideration: (i) all dispositive motions to be filed by April 15,
2020; (ii) non-expert post-certification discovery will be
completed by April 30, 2020; (iii) disclosure of expert witnesses
will be completed by May 31, 2020; (iv) disclosure of rebuttal
expert witnesses will be completed by July 10, 2020; (v) expert
discovery will be completed by Aug. 31, 2020; (vi) the Parties will
submit a Joint Pretrial Statement by Oct. 5, 2020, in accordance
with Local Rule 281; (vii) Final Pretrial Conference is set for
Oct. 12, 2020; (viii) trial briefs will be filed in accordance with
Local Rule 285; and (ix) trial is set for Nov. 16, 2020.

Furthermore, in recognition that the Class Period is open and
ongoing, supplemental Class Notices will be mailed by the Class
Administrator at regular intervals until the time of the Final
Pretrial Conference, to ensure that all putative Class Members are
properly notified of this Action. The supplemental Class Notices
will be mailed according to the following schedule: (i)
Supplemental Notice #1: On or around June 30, 2019; (ii)
Supplemental Notice #2: On or around Jan. 31, 2020; and (iii)
Supplemental Notice #3: On or around but not later than Aug. 31,
2020.

To the extent the Court does not enter an Order in accordance with
the foregoing proposed discovery timeline, the Plaintiff
respectfully requests that the Court schedules a conference during
which the Parties may further discuss the matter with the Court.

Having considered the Parties' Proposed Supplemental Pretrial
Scheduling Orders, Judge England set the following deadlines: (i)
all dispositive motions to be filed by April 15, 2020; (ii)
non-expert post-certification discovery will be completed by April
30, 2020; (iii) disclosure of expert witnesses will be completed by
May 31, 2020; (iv) disclosure of rebuttal expert witnesses will be
completed by July 10, 2020; (v) expert discovery will be completed
by Aug. 31, 2020; and (vi) the parties are ordered to file a Joint
Notice of Trial Readiness not later than 30 days after receiving
the Court's ruling on the last filed dispositive motion.  The
parties are to set forth in their Notice of Trial Readiness, the
appropriateness of special procedures, whether the case is related
to any other case(s) on file in the Eastern District of California,
the prospect for settlement, their estimated trial length, any
request for a jury, and their availability for trial. After review
of the parties' Joint Notice of Trial Readiness, the Court will
issue an order that sets forth new dates for a final pretrial
conference and trial.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/uQmaKq from Leagle.com.

Terry T. Snipes, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Eugene Guzman --
anthony@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation.  Terry T.
Snipes, Plaintiff, represented by S. Brett Sutton --
brett@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation, PC, Jared
Hague -- jared@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation, PC
& Joseph Vidal Macias -- joseph.macias@maxmintegrated.com -- Sutton
Hague Law Corporation, PC.

Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey
J. Mann -- jmann@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Kurt R.
Bockes -- kbockes@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Lindbergh
Porter, Jr. -- lporter@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Elena R.
Baca -- elenabacca@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP, George W.
Abele, Paul Hastings LLP & Ryan David Derry --
ryanderry@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP.


DURACELL CO: Siddle & Meeks Sue over Defective LED Flashlights
--------------------------------------------------------------
STANLEY SIDDLE and JEF MEEKS, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE DURACELL COMPANY,
BERKSHIRE-HATHAWAY, INC., THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORPORATION, HOME DEPOT, U.S.A., INC., AMAZON.COM
SERVICES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00568 (N.D. Cal.,
Jan. 31, 2019), is a class action brought by Representative
Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves, a California class, and a
national class, of all persons who purchased Duracell's LED
flashlight models 250, 300 or 350, with full sets of Duracell
batteries included, distributed by Duracell's retail partners
including COSTCO, HOME DEPOT, and AMAZON, within the last four
years. These flashlights are defective: they rapidly drain
batteries in less than 30 days when turned OFF.

Duracell Co. has been distributing Duracell LED flashlight models
250, model 300, and model 350 since at least 2014, (also marketed
by Duracell as "Durabeam Ultra"), with iterations of substantially
10 similar Duracell-branded LED flashlights appearing nationwide in
the U.S. market through the present time. All of these LED
flashlights were marketed by Duracell inside sealed single or, more
commonly, multi-packs containing three or four flashlights. Each of
these sealed retail packages of flashlights have also included a
full set of Duracell AAA-size "COPPERTOP Alkaline-Manganese
Dioxide" batteries (presently designated as model 16 MN2400), one
set for each of the flashlights, all made prominently visible in
the clear plastic packaging. Conveniently, these "bonus" sets of
Duracell batteries can be immediately installed and used for
powering these LED flashlights by the consumers. Duracell AAA
batteries are suggested by DURACELL as the best replacement
batteries to be purchased for use in these flashlights in the
future. Replacement Duracell alkaline AAA batteries, sold
separately from Duracell flashlights in many different multi-unit
packages, are available from DURACELL retail partners, as well as
in wide distribution, at virtually every type of retail outlet in
the USA and worldwide. In addition, COSTCO markets its own
"Kirkland" brand AAA alkaline batteries, manufactured for COSTCO by
DURACELL, and presently sold by COSTCO in 64-packs.

The packaging and marketing for the defective Duracell LED
flashlights promotes the reliability of these products, assuring
consumers that these products are "ideal" for use in "emergencies"
and boasting performance providing light continuously for up to 1
hour and 30 minutes at the high-intensity setting, and up to 7
hours at the low-intensity setting when used with Duracell
batteries. However, the defective Duracell LED flashlights do not
actually have the performance characteristics represented by
Duracell's promises related to either these flashlights or when
stored and not in use. Specifically, these flashlights are
defective in that they continuously and rapidly drain the installed
batteries when their LED lights are switched OFF, thus causing the
batteries stored inside these flashlights to become fully depleted
and dead, in less than 30 days, instead of the 10-year advertised
storage lifespan for the Duracell batteries sold with these
flashlights or the replacement batteries sold separately. In
contrast, batteries installed in non-defective LED flashlights
(made by either DURACELL or other manufacturers) do not suffer this
parasitic power drain defect, and can be safely stored inside such
non-defective flashlights for the advertised battery storage
lifespan at specified reasonable conditions, the lawsuit says.

Duracell Company is an American manufacturing company, with
principal executive offices in Chicago, Illinois (and subsidiaries
in the United Kingdom (UK) and China).  Duracell is 100% owned by
its parent holding company, Berkshire-Hathaway, Inc., headquartered
in Omaha, Nebraska, since completing its purchase of Duracell on
February 29, 2016, from Procter & Gamble, which owned Duracell
since 2005.[BN]

Attorneys for the Representative Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff
Classes:

          Timothy P. Rumberger, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY P. RUMBERGER
          1339 Bay Street
          Alameda, CA 94501
          Telephone: (510) 841-5500
          Facsimile: (510) 521-9700
          E-mail: tim@rumbergerlaw.com

DXC TECHNOLOGY: Feb. 25 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until February 25, 2019 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against
DXC Technology Company (NYSE:DXC), if they purchased the Company's
shares between February 8, 2018 and November 6, 2018, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Get Help

DXC investors should visit us at
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-dxc-technology-company-securities-litigation
or call toll-free (844) 367-9658. Lawyers at Kahn Swick&Foti, LLC
are available to discuss your legal options.

                      About the Lawsuit

DXC and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On November 6, 2018, the Company revealed a range of adverse
financial news including the loss of sales to significant
customers, quarterly revenue shortfall in the hundreds of millions
of dollars, and an $800 million reduction to its 2019 revenue
outlook as well as a lack of growth in the digital space and
ineffective sales strategies.

On this news, the price of DXC's shares plummeted.

The case is City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. DXC
Technology Company, et al., No. 18-cv-1599. [GN]


EPIC SYSTEMS: Lewis FLSA Suit Can't Proceed in District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, J. LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-82-bbc (W.D. Wis.), Judge Barbara B.
Crabb of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin (i) granted Jon Erik Haines' motion to withdraw consent
to join the action; (ii) granted the Defendant's motion for leave
to file a sur-reply; and (iii) denied the Plaintiff's motion to
proceed in the district court.

Lewis, a former technical writer for the Defendant, filed the
proposed collective and class action against the Defendant,
contending that it misclassified his position as exempt from the
requirement to pay overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

On April 2, 2014, the Defendant emailed an arbitration agreement to
its employees, including the Plaintiff.  The arbitration agreement
was attached to the email.  The agreement itself includes mutual
promises to arbitrate and states that the Defendant considers any
employee who continues to work for it to be subject to the
contract's terms.

The agreement includes a waiver of class and collective claims and
limited discovery.  Specifically, parties are limited to a single
interrogatory identifying potential witnesses, 25 requests for
production of documents, and a maximum of two eight-hour days of
witness depositions.  The agreement expressly provides that both
sides will have the right to legal representation in arbitration,
but states that neither would be entitled to attorney fees unless
provided for by law.  Finally, it states that Epic may change or
terminate the agreement after giving employees 90 days written or
electronic notice, but that any change or termination will not
apply to a pending claim.

In the end of the April 2, 2014 email directed employees to "review
and acknowledge" the agreement by selecting the "I understand and
agree" option included in the email.  Alternatively, employees
could select a "contact me" option if they had questions.  The
Plaintiff responded the day after he received the agreement by
selecting the "I understand and agree" option.  The Plaintiff has
identified one employee who did not respond to the email at all and
was never contacted by the Defendant.  He also has also identified
an employee who selected "I understand and agree," but responded to
the email with several questions about the scope of the arbitration
agreement that defendant never answered.

Neither the email nor the agreement itself identify a specific date
on which the terms of the contract would become effective.

In September 2015, Judge Crabb denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the case and compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's claims,
concluding that the class action waiver in the parties' arbitration
agreement violated the National Labor Relations Act.  On appeal,
the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed that the class
waiver violated the NLRA, but the United States Supreme Court
reversed the decision.  After the case was remanded to the court of
appeals, plaintiff argued that the Court should consider his
arguments that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable because
it is unconscionable and unsupported by consideration.  The court
of appeals remanded the case for that purpose.

Judge Crabb concludes that Plaintiff has failed to show that the
arbitration agreement is invalid.  Therefore, he must proceed with
his claims in arbitration.  Because it is clear that the parties'
entire dispute will be resolved by arbitration, the Judge will
direct the clerk of Court to close the case, subject to reopening
for purposes of confirmation of or challenges to the arbitration
decision.

The Judge (i) granted Jon Erik Haines' motion to withdraw consent
to join the action; (ii) granted the Defendant's motion for leave
to file a sur-reply; and (iii) denied the Plaintiff's motion to
proceed in the district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/m1E7Jm from Leagle.com.

J. Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Breanne Leigh Snapp --
bsnapp@habush.com -- Habush Habush & Rottier S.C., Caitlin Marie
Madden -- cmadden@hq-law.com -- Hawks Quindel, S.C., Daniel Anthony
Rottier -- rottier@habush.com -- Habush Habush & Rottier S.C.,
David C. Zoeller -- dzoeller@hq-law.com -- Hawks Quindel, S.C.,
Jason Joel Knutson -- jknutson@habush.com -- Habush Habush &
Rottier S.C., William Ernest Parsons -- wparsons@hq-law.com --
Hawks Quindel, S.C. & James R. Jansen -- jjansen@habush.com --
Habush Habush & Rottier S.C.

Epic Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Noah A. Finkel
-- nfinkel@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Andrew Lylburn
Scroggins -- ascroggins@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw.


FLIGHT SERVICES: Cook et al. Seek to Certify Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned STANLEY COOK, et al., on
behalf themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. FLIGHT SERVICES & SYSTEMS, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-15759-JTM-DMD, the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:

   1. conditionally certifying these putative classes:

      "(i) all hourly workers working for Defendant between May
      14, 2014 (three years prior to the filing of the Second
      Amended Complaint) and the present who have had edits or
      deductions to their time entries that have reduced the
      amount of work hours recorded in a workweek ("the Time
      Deduction Collective"); and

      (ii) all hourly workers working for Defendant between May
      14, 2014 (three years prior to the filing of the Amended
      Complaint) and the present who were not paid for time spent
      training while employed with Defendant, including recurrent
      training, on-the-job training, computer-based training, out-
      of-town training, classroom training, and training conducted

      remotely, including computer-based training ("the Training
      Collective").

   2. approving written notice and consent forms and to be sent to

      the putative collective action members via First Class Mail,

      e-mail, and text message;

   3. requiring Defendants to produce in Excel format the names,
      last-known addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers,
      and dates of employment/work of all putative collective
      action members for purposes of distributing the notice and
      consent forms;

   4. directing Defendants to post the attached written notice,
      along with the consent forms, in conspicuous spots at
      Defendant's headquarters and all of its locations; and

   5. prohibiting the Defendants and their managers from
      retaliating against any individuals who exercise their
      rights under the FLSA or opt-in to this lawsuit.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Christopher L. Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS LITIGATION, L.L.C.
          639 Loyola Ave., Suite 1850
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: 504.308.1438
          Facsimile: 504.308.1446
          E-mail: chris@williamslitigation.com

               - and -

          Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
          Mary Bubbett Jackson, , Esq.
          JACKSON+JACKSON
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 599-5953
          Facsimile: (888) 988-6499
          E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
                  mjackson@jackson-law.net

               - and -

          Imtiaz A. Siddiqui, Esq.
          IAS LAW LLC
          900 Camp Street, 3rd Floor
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 500-1876
          Facsimile: (504) 910-9919
          E-mail: ias@iaslawllc.com

FLOWERS FOODS: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Noll Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants CK Sales Co., LLC, Flowers Foods Inc. and LePage
Bakeries filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled Noll v. Flowers Foods Inc., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-00493-LEW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maine, Bangor.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 4, 2019, Judge
Lance E. Walker (i) granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, and (ii) denied the Defendants' Motion for
Decertification of the Conditionally Certified Collective Action.

In the action, Plaintiff Noll alleges that Defendants Flowers
Foods, LePage Bakeries, and CK Sales Company misclassify
Maine-based product distributors as independent contractors, and
that Maine and federal law require that he and other distributors
be compensated as employees.

The appellate case is captioned as Noll v. Flowers Foods Inc., et
al., Case No. 19-8001, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that appearance
form was due on February 13, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent TIMOTHY NOLL, individually and on behalf of
all similarly-situated individuals, is represented by:

          David Cialkowski, Esq.
          Gordon Rudd, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED PLLP
          80 S 8th Street
          1100 IDS Center
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
                  gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Clark, Esq.
          Susan E. Ellingstad, Esq.
          Rachel A. Kitze Collins, Esq.
          Scott A. Moriarity, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: bdclark@locklaw.com
                  seellingstad@locklaw.com
                  rakitzecollins@locklaw.com
                  samoriarity@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Jozwiak, Esq.
          Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
          BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP
          100 S 5th St., Suite 1200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 252-3570
          E-mail: cdjozwiak@baillonthome.com
                  sjwanta@baillonthome.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut St., Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Telephone: (212) 592-1500
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Rebecca S. Webber, Esq.
          LINNELL, CHOATE & WEBBER
          83 Pleasant Street
          P.O. Box 190
          Auburn, ME 04212-0190
          Telephone: (207) 784-3200
          E-mail: rwebber@lcwlaw.com

Defendants-Petitioners FLOWERS FOODS INC., LEPAGE BAKERIES, PARK
STREET, LLC, and CK SALES CO., LLC, are represented by:

          Peter Bennett, Esq.
          Frederick B. Finberg, Esq.
          BENNETT LAW FIRM
          121 Middle St., Suite 300
          Portland, ME 04112-7799
          Telephone: (207) 773-4775
          E-mail: pbennett@thebennettlawfirm.com
                  rfinberg@thebennettlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Margaret S. Hanrahan, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          201 South College St., Suite 2300
          Charlotte, NC 28244
          Telephone: (704) 342-2588
          E-mail: maggie.hanrahan@ogletree.com

               - and -

          Kevin P. Hishta, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          191 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 4800
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 881-1300
          E-mail: kevin.hishta@ogletree.com

               - and -

          Timothy H. Powell, Esq.
          BOWDITCH & DEWEY LLP
          311 Main St.
          PO Box 15156
          Worcester, MA 01615-0156
          Telephone: (508) 926-3477
          E-mail: tpowell@thebennettlawfirm.com


FORD MOTOR: Judge Tosses Swollen Lug Nuts Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ford
swollen lug nuts lawsuit has been dismissed in its entirety because
the judge ruled the plaintiffs "presented no legally viable claims"
in the 120-count complaint.

According to the proposed class-action lawsuit, the lug nuts
allegedly swell, deform and crack, making it nearly impossible to
remove the lug nuts to change the tires. The alleged problem is
blamed on vibrations from the road, temperature changes and
moisture that deform the lug nuts.

The plaintiffs claim the Ford F-150, F-350, Escape, Flex, Focus and
Fusion are all equipped with two-piece lug nuts that have steel
cores with chrome, aluminum or stainless steel caps. However, the
lawsuit alleges the automaker should have used one-piece solid
steel lug nuts instead of the two-piece nuts with caps.

Although the lawsuit claims Ford uses the two-piece capped lug nuts
to save money, attorneys for vehicle owners admitted in court the
two-piece nuts are in reality more expensive to purchase than other
lug nuts. That was an important point that wasn't missed by U.S
District Court Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III in his decision to
dismiss the case.

Based on court documents, the plaintiffs claim Ford owners must pay
labor costs to get the swollen lug nuts removed, then must pay to
replace the nuts that Ford allegedly should pay to replace. One of
the plaintiffs says he paid nearly $60 to replace the lug nuts for
just one wheel on his Ford Fusion.

In Ford's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the automaker says the 120
counts contain "nonsensical" claims that don't prove the lug nuts
are defective or a safety hazard.

The judge came down on the side of Ford, including for alleged
violations of the laws of each of 50 states even though the
plaintiffs make allegations for only 27 states.

According to the judge, the plaintiffs don't allege injuries in
states other than their own or base their claims on other states'
laws. This caused the judge to rule the plaintiffs lack standing to
bring claims under the laws of the remaining 23 states.

The plaintiffs didn't fare any better with breach of warranty
claims against the automaker because the judge ruled there were no
facts to support the claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act or
under state laws.

The plaintiffs claim Ford should have replaced and repaired the lug
nuts under warranty, but the judge noted none of the plaintiffs
presented their vehicles to Ford within the warranty periods.

Part of the requirement of the new vehicle limited warranty is that
an owner present the vehicle to a Ford dealer during the
3-year/36,000-mile warranty period, but only one plaintiff claims
he did anything within that period.

However, the plaintiff says he took the lug nuts to a dealer but
never took his vehicle, an action not covered under the clear terms
of the warranty.

The judge further ruled fraud and consumer protection claims fail
because the plaintiffs didn't allege necessary facts to plead the
claims. According to the dismissal order, the plaintiffs can't
prove Ford knew about alleged lug nut defects before the vehicles
were sold, and the plaintiffs "simply have not pleaded any
representations related to lug nuts."

According to the judge, the plaintiffs claim Ford must have known
about alleged lug nut problems because of negative reviews on
third-party websites and complaints made to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). However, the judge ruled
complaints made to NHTSA are not sufficient to allege Ford knew
about swollen lug nuts.

According to the Court, the plaintiffs fail to provide facts that
prove Ford was even aware of the complaints.

In addition, the judge referenced other legal cases where previous
courts found complaints made to NHTSA and third-party websites
don't rise above mere speculation that manufacturers had knowledge,
"let alone exclusive knowledge," of alleged product failures.

The swollen lug nuts lawsuit also failed in asserting claims of
unjust enrichment as the judge ruled there were no sufficient facts
to establish Ford benefited from customers complaining about the
lug nuts.

As mentioned earlier, attorneys claimed in the original lawsuit
that Ford used two-piece lug nuts to save money compared to
one-piece nuts, but those same attorneys conceded in Ford's motion
to dismiss the opposite is true.

"The lack of facts supporting the assertion that the two-piece lug
nuts are cheaper than other lug nuts— especially in light of
contradictory evidence presented during the motion hearing—fails
to raise the claim above the speculative level." - Judge Stephen J.
Murphy, III

In addition, the plaintiffs allege Ford unjustly benefits from not
having to purchase new lug nuts for customers and from not
reimbursing dealerships for replacing the lug nuts. But the judge
didn't see it the same way.

In dismissing the lawsuit, the judge ruled Ford couldn't have made
money by not having to purchase new lug nuts for customers or
dealers considering the vehicles were no longer under warranty.

"Because the Court already determined that Plaintiffs failed to
adequately plead presentment within the warranty period, the second
basis for the unjust enrichment claims necessarily is without
merit." - Judge Murphy

The Ford swollen lug nuts lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan - Wozniak, et. al, vs.
Ford Motor Company.

The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman, and the Miller Law
Firm, PC.

CarComplaints.com has complaints from drivers of the vehicles named
in the Ford lawsuit.

Ford F-150
Ford F-350
Ford Escape
Ford Flex
Ford Focus
Ford Fusion [GN]


GENWORTH LIFE: Court Dismisses Rhinehart Suit with Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERALD B. RHINEHART, an individual by and through his
Power of Attorney SUZANNE VILLANUEVA, and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. GENWORTH LIFE AND ANNUITY
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Virginia corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-01391-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (i)
denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court,
and (ii) granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss.

The complaint alleges unlawful sales practices by the Defendant in
failing to adequately include statutory disclosures in individual
life insurance policies.  According to the Plaintiff, the
California Insurance Code mandates that consumers of life insurance
policies who are 60 years or older must receive a 30-day "free
look" period, during which time a "Senior" can return the policy
for a full refund of premiums.  California Insurance Code Section
10127.10 requires notice of the "free-look" period to be given son
the cover page or policy jacket in 12-point bold print with one
inch of space on all sides or printed on a sticker that is affixed
to the cover page of the policy jacket.

On Jan. 11, 2011, when the Plaintiff was 72 years old, the
Defendant issued a life insurance policy to him.  According to the
Plaintiff, neither the policy cover page nor the policy jacket
contained disclosures regarding the 30-day free look period, and
the cover page makes no reference to surrender charges.  Instead,
the Rhinehart Policy's schedule of surrender charges appears at
least seven pages into the policy.  The Plaintiff alleges he would
not have purchased the Rhinehart Policy had he known there were
surrender charges and penalties that would be imposed upon lapse or
cancellation of the policy.  He avers the improper notice by the
Defendant is intended to be less evident to California senior
citizens than proper, code-compliant notice would be, and the
improper notice is intended by the Defendant to mislead seniors by
directing them to the wrong page of the policy.

Based on these allegations, the complaint sets forth a claim for
Unfair Business Practices pursuant to California Business &
Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq. and a claim for Financial
Elder Abuse pursuant to California Welfare & Institutions Code
Sections 15600 et. seq.  The Plaintiff's prayer for relief seeks to
enjoin the Defendant from pursing the complained-of practices; for
disgorgement and restitution of its "ill-gotten gains"; for an
unspecified amount of special and general damages, for punitive and
exemplary damages under the California Welfare & Insurance Code
Section 15657(a), California Civil Code Section 1780(a)(4), and
California Civil Code Section 3294; for a constructive trust;
reasonable attorney's fees and costs associated with the suit; and
pre- and post-judgment interest.

In October 2018, the Defendant removed the complaint to the Court
asserting subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act.  The Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to remand
the case to Merced County Superior Court arguing the Defendant had
not established by a preponderance of evidence that the amount in
controversy met the $5 million threshold required.

To address the Plaintiff's argument in this regard, the Court
ordered the Defendant to submit a supplemental declaration
clarifying the type of policies on which the calculated surrender
charges were incurred and delineating the surrender charges
incurred in each year from 2004 to present, rather than presenting
one cumulative amount of surrender charges.  The Defendant filed a
supplemental declaration addressing these issues, and the Plaintiff
filed a sur-reply reasserting that calculating the surrender
charges from 2004 to the present was unsupported by any evidence.

At the time the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, the Defendant
filed a motion to dismiss arguing the Plaintiff's claims were
barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.

Judge O'Neill finds that the Defendant's calculations of surrender
charges dating from 2004 is adequately supported by the allegations
of the complaint.  The surrender charges incurred on policies
issued to the putative class since 2004 on Count I total
$5,103,712.54.  Because of his review of the billing rates and work
performed, the Judge finds convincing evidence that a 25% award of
attorney's fees is a reasonable estimate of the amount placed into
controversy by the Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees.
Twenty-five percent of the surrender charges under Count I
($4,187,985.85) totals $1,046,996.46.

Adding the surrender charges ($4,187,985.85) in Count I to the
attorney's fees ($1,046,996.46), the total amount in controversy is
at least $5,234,982.31.  As the Defendant has established these
amounts by a preponderance of evidence, the amount in controversy
is satisfied, and the Plaintiff's motion to remand will be denied.

The Judge will grant in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  He
finds that (i) the Plaintiff's claims accrued in February 2011 when
the policy was purchased and received; and (ii) the Complaint's
allegations are insufficient to support application of the
discovery rule to toll the statutes of limitation.  And while the
Defendant urges the Court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice,
he finds that the Plaintiff will be given a single opportunity to
amend the complaint to plead facts that, if true, could allow a
reasonable trier of fact to find that the Plaintiff could not have,
with reasonable diligence, discovered the defective notices sooner
than January 2018.  The Plaintiff is cautioned that mere conclusory
allegations that he did not know or could not have known of the
policy's deficiencies are insufficient to trigger application of
the discovery rule.

For the reasons set forth, Judge O'Neill (i) denied the Plaintiff's
Motion to Remand; and (ii) granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  He dismissed the Plaintiff's
complaint with leave to amend.  The Plaintiff will file an amended
complaint within 14 days from the date of the Order.  If the
Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the action will be
dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2019 Memorandum Decision
and Order is available at https://is.gd/MsajaU from Leagle.com.

Gerald B. Rhinehart, and individual, by and through his Power of
Attorney Suzanne Villanueva, and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, represented by A.J. de Bartolomeo --
ajdebartolomeo@milberg.com -- Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP
& Ingrid M. Evans, Evans Law Firm, Inc.

Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company, a Virginia
corporation, Defendant, represented by Steven A. Erkel --
steven.erkel@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, Thomas A. Evans --
thomas.evans@alston.com --Alston & Bird LLP & Robert D. Phillips,
Jr. -- Robert.phillips@alston.com -- Alston & Bird.


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

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

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

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

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

Mullen proposes to represent a class consisting of all individuals
who, between Feb. 27, 2013, and Jan. 20, 2018, paid money to the
Defendants for youth volleyball instruction provided by or through
GLV in the State of Illinois.  In the alternative, she also
suggests a narrower class consisting of only individuals who paid
for volleyball instruction through the Sports Performance programs
that Rick Butler supervised.

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

The Judge found that the Plaintiff has satisfied the Rule 23(a) and
Rule 23(b)(3) requirements.  He also concluded that only the
narrower proposed class satisfies the predominance requirement in
light of the differences among GLV programs.

The Court also appointed the following attorneys as the class
counsel: Jay Edelson, Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, Christopher L. Dore, Alfred
K. Murray II, and Sydney M. Janzen.  The status hearing set for
Feb. 12, 2019 is advanced to Jan. 31, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.  The class
counsel are directed to provide a draft class notice to the
Defendants' counsel by no later than Jan. 23, 2019, and the
Defendants' counsel are directed to provide comments and objections
to the class counsel by Jan. 28, 2019.  The counsel are likewise
directed to confer regarding the information needed to send notice.
A joint status report regarding these matters is to be filed by
Jan. 30, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2019 Corrected Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/auYVpZ from
Leagle.com.

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

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


GOOGLE INC: Supreme Court Considering Role of Cy pres Awards
------------------------------------------------------------
John Campbell, writing for Law360, reports that in Frank v. Gaos,
the U.S. Supreme Court is considering the appropriate role of cy
pres awards in class actions. Cy pres awards occur when money a
defendant is obligated to pay to class members is unclaimed, or
when distribution of funds to the class is impracticable. In those
cases, after the judge confirms the money can't be distributed to
the class, the judge orders the residual money distributed to one
or more nonprofit organizations. The judge must conclude that
distribution to those organizations will provide a related benefit
to the class members, and that overall, the resolution is fair,
adequate and reasonable.

In Frank, the lawsuit was against Google, alleging that it violated
consumer laws prohibiting the distribution of its users' search
terms to third parties. Money could not be realistically
distributed to the class (the cost of mailing exceeded the amount
that would be returned). So, the court approved the distribution to
various cy pres recipients who agreed to use the money received on
initiatives relating to internet privacy.

Some corporations and other interested parties argue that the cy
pres distribution is inappropriate and have seized on Frank as a
chance to eliminate cy pres awards. Specifically, they argue that
the distribution of funds to nonprofit organizations violates the
rights of the absent class members. The argument is wrong on many
levels and ignores the fact that prohibiting cy pres awards creates
far more problems than it solves. Namely, eliminating cy pres
awards would reduce the deterrent effect of class actions, harm
honest companies, decrease compliance with the rule of law, and
overall, erode confidence in the judicial system as a mechanism for
righting wrongs. It simultaneously would be a reason to celebrate
for corporations that violate the law. Without cy pres awards,
defendants will be partially or completely immunized in many
cases.

To understand the issue more fully, it is useful to consider how a
cy pres award occurs. There are two requisite conditions: (1) The
defendant must be obligated to pay a specific sum, and (2) it must
be impracticable to distribute all of the money to the class
members. The defendant can be obligated to pay either because (a)
it settled the case and agreed to a certain amount, or (b) because
a verdict was entered against the defendant at trial. Money may be
unclaimed by the class when checks mailed to them are not cashed or
not all class members can be found. Other times, distribution may
be entirely impracticable in cases in which the cost of
distributing the benefit to the class is comparable to, or
sometimes exceeds, the benefit itself. This occurs, particularly in
cases with large classes, because there can be significant costs
for updating the addresses of thousands of people, designing
notice, printing notice, mailing notice, building a website,
creating a toll-free number and paying a company to accomplish
these tasks.

There are a variety of reasons why maintaining the long-established
practice of allowing cy pres awards is the most appropriate use of
residual funds.

First, and perhaps most important, the choice of how to distribute
the money ultimately is decided by the judge -- not the parties and
not the attorneys. The judge decides, considering all the
information available, which nonprofit organizations are most
likely to advance the interests of the absent class members. Most
federal judges do this by relying on American Law Institute
Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation (Section 3.07) which
provides guidelines for how to handle cy pres distribution. Indeed,
that section, assembled by a variety of class action experts,
concludes that "cy pres is preferable to other options available to
a court when direct distributions are not viable." Consistent with
this opinion, the Advisory Committee on Civil Rule's Subcommittee
on Rule 23, the rule authorizing class actions, recently rejected
new cy pres amendments to Rule 23, expressly concluding that judges
already have appropriate guidance available and routinely follow
it. Indeed, the 2018 version of Rule 23 contains an official
committee note suggesting that parties should plan for unclaimed
funds in their settlement agreements and should provide the court
with suggestions for distribution.

Second, parties who oppose cy pres awards fail to note that the
alternative to a cy pres is to either (1) return the money to the
defendant (called reverter), or (2) have the money escheat to the
state. Returning the money to the defendant should be a nonstarter.
The defendant either (a) agreed to pay the money, or (b) was
ordered to pay by a court as a result of a jury verdict or bench
trial. This happens only after a defendant is sued for allegedly
violating the law. If the defendant receives a reverter, the
defendant escapes fulfilling its end of the bargain and, more
troublingly at the macro level, the economic disincentive to break
the law is reduced or eliminated.

Escheating the money to the state is no solution either. It makes
it even less likely money will benefit class members, as there is
no class in which every member of the state has a claim. The result
is that the very problem that allegedly concerns those opposed to
cy pres awards -- the idea that the money might be used for
purposes that don't align with the class' interests -- is
amplified.

Third, in the cases in which returning money to the class is
entirely impracticable, the defendant could escape liability
altogether. In some cases, the amount taken from any single class
member is very small. For this hypothetical, let's assume $1. The
cost of distributing that amount back to class members may exceed
the refund, making distribution impossible. For example, if it
costs $1.10 to administer the settlement per class member, it would
be economically impossible to mail $1 checks. In those cases, if cy
pres were prohibited there would be no way to cause the defendant
to pay back money illegally obtained. This would be true even if
the case went to trial and even if a jury determined the company
broke the law.

This immunization effect is particularly troubling. It reduces the
economic disincentive to cheat, damaging the free market. In
particular, it handicaps honest companies who choose not to pad
their bottom line with illegal gains. Simultaneously, immunizing
defendants diminishes the rule of law. Having laws on the books
that can't be enforced is a characteristic of many struggling
countries. The U.S. should not willfully join their ranks.

Finally, the best way to consider whether the well-established cy
pres policy works is not to consider a parade of hypothetical
horribles, invented to color the issue. The better way is to view
an average, real-world example. I'll offer one from my time in
practice.

Mr. Campbell says, "I was involved in a series of lawsuits against
payday lenders. They charged an APR of 469 percent. They made loans
that routinely trapped borrowers in debt cycles on which the lender
recovered many multiples of the loan amount. We alleged the loans
violated the law. Some of the lenders ultimately agreed to settle
the claims, returning money to the class. Checks were sent to class
members. Some class members did not cash the checks and some class
members could not be found. This left money in the fund -- money
the defendant agreed to pay after extensive negotiations. We
petitioned the court to distribute the remainder to legal services
-- an organization that represented low-income individuals, often
in financial disputes about payday loans, debt collection and other
financial issues. The court distributed the money and the legal
services organization was able to add staff that worked on issues
that directly and indirectly benefited our class members. In the
absence of the cy pres vehicle, the money would have been returned
to the payday lender instead."

"The takeaway is this: The perfect can't be the enemy of the good.
It is true that not every cy pres will be perfectly distributed,
but it is equally true that eliminating cy pres awards is a net
negative. It prevents judges from making case-specific decisions,
immunizes defendants, neuters various laws meant to protect us all,
and makes it harder for the free market to reward good actors while
discouraging illegal behavior." [GN]


HAITI: Ex-Government Officials Involved in Wire Transfer Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Silva, writing for The Haitian Times, reports that when
Odlion Celestin, 43, sends money to his family in Haiti from his
residence in Miami, he always believed that the $1.50 wire transfer
fee enacted by former President Michel Martelly in 2011 would help
pay for his family's education.

However, on a trip back to Haiti since leaving for the United
States in 1998, he saw that nothing had changed. The school he once
traveled to for three hours after work growing up was gone.

"I said: 'god, what do we have to do to change something in
Haiti?'" he recalls

Wanting legal advice on the matter, Celestin reached out to
Brooklyn-based, Haitian-American attorney Marcel P. Dennis through
a radio show where he got his phone number and eventually flew up
to New York to pursue the lawsuit.

"I asked him: how could we come together to be the change, to find
a way to help me out with this," he says.

Celestin's testimony is one of a few that's stated in a
multi-million dollar class action lawsuit filed on Dec. 24 that
accuses Martelly, Jocelerme Privet and current President Jovenel
Moise of pocketing money that came from wire transfers companies
like Western Union, Unitransfer, Natcom and CAM that were meant to
fund education in Haiti.

The lawsuit doesn't come as a complete surprise given the string of
allegations where the Haitian government has been accused of
corruption lack of donations after the 2010 earthquake and the
August 2018 Petrocaribe scandal where $2 billion was embezzled.

Shortly after Martelly was elected President, he called for
education reform that would allow for free and universal education
for all students through a government subsidy program known as
PSUGO. According to court documents, his administration had
intended on building schools in 10 different regions that never
came to fruition.

In June 2011, Martelly began to impose fees to raise money for free
education. As a result, a fee of $1.50 for each wire transfer in
addition to five cents a minute on telephone calls were charged to
Haitians living abroad who routinely send money to their families.
At the time, Martelly claimed that the fees would generate $144
million over five years.

From the start, the act was met with skepticism from the Haitian
diaspora who wanted to provide aid in rebuilding Haiti but were
unsure about where the education money would go. As of 2017,
Haitians abroad send $2 billion annually to their country. Some
like Celestin, however, seemed optimistic that the fees to fund
schooling was a step in the right direction.

"Every money you send, you pay $1.50. Trust me, everybody is happy
to do that," he says.

Attorney Marcel P. Dennis, one of the two lawyers who filed the
lawsuit at Brooklyn Federal Court, explains why imposing fees has
failed.

"The reason why it's so poorly concocted is the fact that they do
not have an agent on sight at every money transfer agency or bureau
in Haiti," Dennis says. "Here, in the United States, we check out
the money that will be transferred over to the agent of Western
Union or CAM. That is the absurdity of the whole scam."

If Western Union, Unitransfer and CAM were complying with
Martelly's law, the blame would ultimately have to be shifted to
the Bank of the Republic of Haiti Central (BRH) who are responsible
for financing such a program.

Following the earthquake, Western Union had announced they would be
suspending transfer fees sent to Haiti from the United States,
Dominican Republic, France and Canada-countries with significant
Haitian populations outside Haiti. In addition, its foundation also
donated $250,000 to help provide basic necessities to the Haitian
people.

Dennis says while the idea to raise money for education is a good
one, more could've been done to ensure that the money had gone into
the right hands.

"The idea was a novel idea but it could've been done legally," he
says. "If it were done legally, it could not have reached us here
in the United States or elsewhere. This was something that
should've been limited to Haiti only."

Ultimately, Celestin hopes the money that had disappeared would
eventually come back and is optimistic about winning the lawsuit.

"We want to put this money back to the schools," he says. "We have
to come up with a plan. Now, we have to pull a plan for education.
For real education, not a fake one. That's why if we win a lawsuit
tomorrow, money will go back to education where people can get a
good education for the future, not for the corruption of
government." [GN]


HAVANA'S CUBAN: Spears Seeks Payment for Overtime Work
------------------------------------------------------
PRINCE KAREEM SPEARS, and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. HAVANA'S CUBAN CUISINE, INC., a Florida Corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-60284-KMW (S.D. Fla., Jan. 31,
2019), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages,
interests, costs and attorney's fees for Defendant's willful
violations of overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Spears and at least one other employee
of Havana's Cuban Cuisine would routinely handle or use restaurant
tools and materials, such as cooking utensils and tools, as well as
food supplies. The use of restaurant tools and materials, that were
routinely handled or used by Spears and at least one other employee
on a regular and consistent basis, had traveled in interstate
commerce.

The Defendant knew and/or showed reckless disregard of the
provisions of the FLSA concerning the payment of overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant was aware
of Plaintiff's work schedule and further aware that Plaintiff was
working more than 40 hours per week. The Defendant issued paystubs
to Plaintiff which did not reflect the total hours worked or the
rate of pay. These paystubs contain itemized columns for "Regular"
pay, "Bonus" pay and "Misc pay" in order to avoid reflecting that
Plaintiff was working overtime hours and was being paid overtime
wages. The Defendant paid other employees their overtime wages when
they worked overtime. Defendant was aware of their obligation to
pay overtime and/or failed to conduct a reasonable investigation as
to whether they were obligated to pay overtime wages. Despite the
obligation to pay overtime and that Plaintiff was working overtime,
the Defendant continued to fail to pay overtime wages, the lawsuit
says.

The Defendant operates a Cuban cuisine restaurant located in
Broward County, Florida.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and those similarly-situated:

          Isaac Mamane, Esq.
          MAMANE LAW LLC
          10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 350A
          Miami, FL 33161
          Telephone (305) 773 6661
          E-mail: mamane@gmail.com

               - and -

          Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
          DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
          2847 Hollywood Blvd.
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Telephone: (954) 361-8383
          E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

HEARTBEAT HEALTH: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heartbeat Health,
Inc. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Heartbeat Health, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00667 (E.D.
N.Y., Feb. 4, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Heartbeat Health Inc. provides cardiology services. The company was
founded in 2017 and is headquartered in New York, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ICON CO: Opal Tower Homebush Residents Mull Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
News.com.au's Ben Graham and Australian Associated Press report
that as shocking new pictures reveal how Sydney Opal Tower
residents' homes have been left in pieces, one firm has had to take
the extraordinary step of clarifying it has no connection with the
debacle.

Some of the grim photos posted on Facebook show how one unit has
had its ceiling and flooring torn away to allow equipment to prop
up the concrete slabs separating each floor -- as beds, furniture
and clothing were tossed in a pile near a window.

Others show wall panels torn out and ominous-looking wires dangling
from the ceiling of another home.

And, as anger grows over the evacuation and the manner of the
investigation, a construction company which shares its name with
the company at the centre of the scandal has been forced to take
the extraordinary step of clarifying it has no connection with the
Homebush tower.

Privately owned construction and maintenance services company Icon
Construction Group, says it is being confused with construction
group Icon Co.

It has been forced to post a prominent message on the landing page
of its website.

"Please be advised the matter surrounding the Opal Tower Homebush
was not built by our company.

"The building was built by a company with a similar trading name.
Note the two companies have nothing to do with each other."

It comes as the tower's real builder -- Icon Co -- has defended its
gutting of some apartments which has sparked fury among residents.

Having been in temporary accommodation for nearly two weeks, some
residents say they weren't notified before their possessions were
shifted, ceilings ripped apart and fridges emptied.

One woman told other residents in a social media group chat that
her locks were changed, even though she provided a spare key to
those working on her unit.

"It's absolutely trashed," she said in the chat. "We are so upset.
This is horrific."

Close to 50 units have been gutted and dozens more are also set to
be torn apart, Seven News reported.

"We're all very angry about this," one resident told AAP.

"I mean, at least send us a notice or something. It's just wrong
for them to do things like this."

However, construction firm Icon said the body corporate has been
kept abreast of their workers' movements through the building.

"That was their request and they were to communicate with
residents," a spokeswoman said in a statement.

"No locks have been removed, however some were damaged by emergency
services."

The builder also said it had taken photographs of apartments prior
to starting its investigations and another set of photos when
protection was laid out or furniture removed.

Fridges were cleared out in the interests of residents as power had
to be isolated and insurance claims for the cost of those goods can
be made immediately, Icon said.

It comes as subcontractors who worked on the crumbling building
have revealed some worrying details.

Australian Subcontractors Association spokeswoman Louise Stewart
said workers were employed at "bargain basement prices" and claim
they were not paid on time.

She told The Daily Telegraph on Jan. 5 that eight businesses
claimed they were expected to build the tower for "unreasonable
pay" and "when payment was due it was not forthcoming".

However an Icon spokeswoman said the firm "categorically rejected"
any claims of late payments to subcontractors.

"Icon is one of the best payers in the business," she told the
Telegraph -- adding that none of the variations were "unusual".

An independent investigation has found numerous faults with Opal
Tower.

An interim briefing by two engineering experts, commissioned by the
state government, has identified a number of problems in the
building.

The tower was evacuated on Christmas Eve after cracks were found in
the structure with residents still shut out of their apartments as
investigations continue.

In a statement issued by the planning minister's office on
Jan. 4, Professor Mark Hoffman and Professor John Carter said they
had identified issues that would require further investigation.

That came after a preliminary investigation found no evidence of
any issues with the foundations of the building.

"We are now able to focus our attention on these key areas to
determine what has caused the issues," the engineering experts
said.

"We have also met with the engineers working on these matters and
those who are working on the rectification proposals."

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian said she "wholeheartedly" encouraged
residents to explore their legal options as some consider a class
action against whoever's responsible for the building's faults.

She said those found responsible for the debacle should be held
accountable.

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

A final report was due on Jan. 11. [GN]


ILLINOIS: Court Dismisses Substantive Due Process Claim in Frazier
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gary Feinerman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied IDOC's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' substantive due process claim in the case,
ROBIN FRAZIER, BRANDI EDWARDS, JENNIFER TYREE, CELINA MONTOYA, and
SHARON FRAZIER, as guardian and next friend of T.G., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JOHN
BALDWIN, in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois
Department of Corrections, Defendant, Case No. 18 C 1991 (N.D.
Ill.).

Four women serving terms of mandatory supervised release following
their state court convictions for sex offenses bring the putative
class action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against John Baldwin in
his official capacity as the director of the IDOC, alleging that an
IDOC policy prohibiting them from having any contact with their
minor children for the first six months of mandatory supervised
release violates their procedural and substantive due process
rights.

The Plaintiffs, mothers of minor children, are either eligible for
or serving terms of mandatory supervised release ("MSR"), a
nondiscretionary form of parole, after having been convicted in
Illinois state court of crimes for which they must register as sex
offenders. An Illinois statute, 730 ILCS 5/3-3-7(b-1)(9), provides
that persons required to register as sex offenders must during
their MSR terms refrain from all contact, directly or indirectly,
personally, by telephone, letter, or through a third party, with
minor children without prior identification and approval of an
agent of IDOC.  In words nearly identical to the statute, the
Illinois Prisoner Review Board, the body responsible for setting
MSR conditions, imposed on the Plaintiffs what will be called "the
Contact Condition": "You will refrain from all contact, directly or
indirectly, personally, by telephone, letter, or through a third
party, with minor children without prior identification and
approval of an agent of IDOC.

To implement the Contact Condition, IDOC adopted a policy that
categorically prohibits all persons subject to the condition,
regardless of individual circumstances or risks, from contacting
their minor children for the first six months of their MSR term.
Pursuant to that policy, IDOC barred the Plaintiffs from contacting
their minor children by any means during the first six months of
MSR even though they had maintained regular contact through
letters, phone calls, and in-person visits with their minor
children while incarcerated.

IDOC moves under Civil Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the substantive due
process claim.  It contends that the substantive due process claim
should be dismissed because it must be brought, if at all, in a
habeas corpus petition, not a Section 1983 suit.

Judge Feinerman finds that the dispositive question is whether the
Plaintiffs' substantive due process challenge to the way IDOC
implements the Contact Condition may be brought under Section 1983
or instead must be brought in a habeas petition.  The answer is
that the challenge may proceed under Section 1983.

He explains that a prisoner challenging the fact or duration of his
confinement must seek habeas corpus relief, and for a parolee, the
conditions of parole are the confinement.  The Plaintiffs'
challenge, however, is not a challenge to their confinement because
it is not a challenge to the Contact Condition itself.  If they
succeed on their substantive due process claim, the Contact
Condition will continue to apply and IDOC will continue to
implement it, so long as it does so in a constitutional manner.
For the same reason, victory for the Plaintiffs on their claim will
not result in the "elimination or substitution" of the Contact
Condition.

Nor does the Plaintiffs' substantive due process challenge
necessarily imply the invalidity of their convictions or sentencs,
since a challenge to one way of implementing the Contact Condition
does not suggest that the condition itself, or any other aspect of
the Plaintiffs' convictions or sentences, is unlawful.  And
although the Contact Condition, like the Plaintiffs' other MSR
conditions, is among the "bars" of their metaphorical prison cells,
how IDOC has chosen to implement that condition is the equivalent
of what prison officials do within the confines of an actual prison
cell—the archetypical subject of a Section 1983 prison conditions
suit.

In addition, the Judge finds that IDOC offers no principled reason
for treating any differently discretionary decisions regarding
implementation of MSR conditions like the Contact Condition.  IDOC
does not seek dismissal of Plaintiffs' substantive due process
claims on any other ground, so any such argument is forfeited for
purposes of the motion.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Feinerman denied IDOC's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' substantive due process claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/Vt8sXo from Leagle.com.

Robin Frazier, Brandi Edwards, Jennifer Tyree, Celina Montoya &
Sharon Frazier, as guardian and next friend of T.G., a minor,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Mark G. Weinberg --
mweinberg@sbcglobal.net -- Attorney at Law & Adele D. Nicholas --
adele@civilrightschicago.com -- Law Office of Adele D. Nicholas.

John Baldwin, in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois
Department of Corrections., Defendant, represented by Sarah Hughes
Newman -- snewman@atg.state.il.us -- Illinois Attorney General &
Thomas A. Ioppolo -- tioppolo@atg.state.il.us -- Illinois Attorney
General's Office.


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Probes Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Immunomedics Inc. ("Immunomedics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:IMMU).
Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 9980.

The investigation concerns whether Immunomedics and certain of its
officers and/or directors have violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On December 17, 2018, FDAnews.com published an article entitled
"FDA Hits Immunomedics for Data Integrity Breach."  The article
reported, in part, that "[t]he FDA cited Immunomedics for a host of
violations -- including its handling of a data integrity breach --
observed at its Morris Plains, New Jersey, drug substance
manufacturing facility between August 6 and 14."  The article
further stated that the data breach included "manipulated bioburden
samples, misrepresentation of an integrity test procedure in the
batch record, and backdating of batch records, such as dates of
analytical results."  Following publication of this article,
Immunomedics' stock price fell sharply, damaging investors.

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Telephone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
         Website: www.pomerantzlaw.com
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


INFORMATION RESOURCES: May 31 Bakhtiar Class Cert. Bid Filing Due
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IRAM BAKHTIAR, Plaintiff, v. INFORMATION RESOURCES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-04559-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S.
Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California has issued an order amending deadlines for the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The parties have filed a joint stipulation to continue the
deadlines for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and
the Defendant's motion to decertify the conditional Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") collective, as well as competing proposals
for the briefing schedule on those motions.

Judge Tigar will adopt the parties' stipulated deadline for the
Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification.  He will
further adopt the Plaintiff's proposed briefing schedule on that
motion.  The Judge anticipates that the resolution of the
Plaintiff's motion will clarify the issues pertinent to FLSA
decertification and perhaps even remove some issues from dispute.
He will therefore entertain the Defendant's FLSA decertification
motion only after it decides the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

Accordingly, Judge Tigar set the following deadlines for the
Plaintiff's motion:

     a. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification due - May
31, 2019

     b. The Defendant's opposition due - July 2, 2019

     c. The Plaintiff's reply due - July 16, 2019

     d. Hearing on motion - Aug. 7, 2019 or any date thereafter

After the Court decides the motion for class certification, the
Defendant may file a motion for FLSA decertification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/UyZSLW from Leagle.com.

Iram Bakhtiar, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan Jeffrey Schwartz --
bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- Bryan Schwartz Law & Logan McMillan
Starr -- logan@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- Bryan Schwartz Law.

Information Resources, Inc., Defendant, represented by Janelle Jad
Sahouria -- Janelle.Sahouria@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
P.C., Fraser Angus McAlpine -- Fraser.McAlpine@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis P.C., Jinny S. Hwang -- Jinny.Hwang@jacksonlewis.com
-- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Mitchell F. Boomer --
Mitchell.Boomer@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C..


INTU CORP: More Massage Therapists Join Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Flush Draw reports that there are new developments in the
interesting class-action case pitting poker and casino massage
therapists against their former employer, Las Vegas-based INTU
Corporation. Among the developments present in a just-filed and
amended complaint against INTU is an increase in the number of
plaintiffs, from two to eight. Since the case was filed roughly
three weeks ago on behalf of original plaintiffs Krystal Johnson
and Shannon DeLelle, six more plaintiffs have joined the action.

The six new plaintiffs are Crystal Honeck, Dusty Dangerfield,
Jennifer Wakuzawa-Kida, Sarah Pascoe, Elizabeth Spangler, and
Shannon Thompson. As with Johnson and DeLelle, these six massage
therapists were former third-party contractors who were scheduled
to work at the World Poker Tour's WTP Five Diamond Classic at the
Bellagio in Las Vegas. Those plans went awry when INTU suddenly
lost its contract at the Bellagio just prior to the WPT event.

All eight of the former INTU-associated massage therapists were
immediately rehired by another prominent Las Vegas massage therapy
firm, Professional Massage, Inc. (PMI), which is familiar to many
of our readers as the massage service available at the WSOP. All
eight former therapists were barred from working at the Bellagio's
big poker event by the allegedly illegal invocation of a
non-compete clause located within the third-party contracts signed
by the therapists, as a mandatory condition of employment by INTU.

The Bellagio, under legal demand from INTU, was forced to block the
eight -- and perhaps more -- from working at the WPT event, causing
significant personal expense to some of them. Since then, and in
light of the filing of the case, the Bellagio has reinstated the
right of the plaintiffs to work at the casino if contracted by the
new service, PMI.

INTU President Deanna Edwards Added as Defendant
The class action has added a second defendant, INTU founder and
president Deanna Edwards, alleging that it was by Edwards' direct
hand that the illegal non-compete imposition was launched, perhaps
as a vindictive measure against the Bellagio and rival service PMI
as much as against the barred therapists themselves. Edwards
maintains multiple residences, spending time in Las Vegas and
Tennessee in addition to her native Mississippi.

The lawsuit also maintains, as a second primary point, that
conditions imposed upon the contracted massage therapists by
Edwards and INTU stretched far beyond the norms of
third-party-contractor relationships, and that the plaintiffs were
actual INTU employees who collectively are owed years of back
wages, overtime, and other benefits.

The amended complaint also introduces additional evidence relevant
to the various claims, including a 2013 threat of termination if
contracted therapists accepted work with a rival company at the
Wynn poker room, an expansion of INTU's "vacation" and "time off"
policies (highly unusual for supposed third-party contractors), and
even a "points system" (incentive program) where the contractors
were assessed penalty points and barred from certain incentives if
they failed to meet certain hours-worked goals.

Expanded allegations detail suspect employment conditions
The expanded section of general allegations against INTU and
Edwards offers new details and insight into INTU's operations and
alleged working terms. Included in the latest filing:

36. Specifically, on January 2, 2016, the Defendants notified all
of their massage employees that INTU is implementing an incentive
program where the individuals who log certain requisite numbers of
hours will be eligible for gift card drawings, but cautioned that
they will be disqualified from such drawings if they have "5 or
more points accumulated during" the qualifying month.

37. The "points" system is itself further evidence of the
Defendants' treatment of their massage employees as genuine
employees, with the massage employees being demerited in the form
of "points" if they cannot make a scheduled shift, arrive late, or
have to leave early (even if for medical reasons), and such points
cumulatively inviting various degrees of discipline including
employees being stripped of shifts and/or facing termination.

38. The employer/employee relationship is further evidenced by the
"time off" protocol used by INTU; while employees are permitted to
request certain times they wish to work in a given month, by
indicating availability through a software interface, INTU has made
clear that it maintains full control of scheduling, going so far as
to note in an e-mail, dated March 1, 2012:

Hi Ladies, There is some confusion about the time off request
policy. The policy is that you can request time off up to 6 month
in advance. This means if know you are going on vacation in July
you can send us an email and request the time off now. Since it is
March we are only taking time off request through September. We
understand that last minute trips and days off come up and those
can still be included in your monthly schedule requests. This is to
prevent all the therapists at one property taking the same day off
and if you want to take a long vacation you will know sooner than
later that it is approved.

39. The employer/employee relationship is further evidenced by the
precise demands of INTU on its employees, as evidenced by written
policies governing the use of cell phones during work hours,
prohibiting employees from spending break time on the casino floor,
prohibiting employees from congregating near slot machines during
the break time, and dictating employees keep their "conversations
with clients to a minimum."

40. The employer/employee relationship is further evidenced by a
strict uniform policy imposed by INTU on its employees, requiring
them to purchase conforming company-branded clothing from INTU,
dictating the colors of shoes employees are allowed to wear to
work, dictating the style of pants employees are allowed to wear to
work, and even dictating the degree to which a jacket may be
unzipped so as to note the showing of any cleavage is
impermissible.

Edwards Demanded Compliance with Non-Compete Clause
The amended complaint also references a memo sent from Edwards to
the affected massage therapists, demanding compliance. The November
17, 2018 message implies that the ending of INTU's contract with
the Bellagio ended in late Novemeber, rather than in early December
as conjectured in the initial complaint. This new passage details
Edwards' expectations that the out-of-work therapists would still
be unable to work the Bellagio WPT event:

52. Upon information and belief, INTU took this action at the
direction of Ms. Edwards, its owner, who has involved herself in
the day-to-day operations of INTU at all times relevant, approved
all operational decisions of INTU of any significance at all times
relevant, maintained the personal relationships that gave rise to
INTU's contract with the Bellagio poker room, and personally
e-mailed her employees making note of the Covenant Not to Compete
and the demand of INTU and herself that the Covenant Not to Compete
be treated with "compliance" by the various massage employees.

53. Specifically, on November 17, 2018, Ms. Edwards e-mailed each
of the Plaintiffs, writing, inter alia, "We understand there may be
apprehension regarding the signed non-compete agreement therapists
have with Bellagio. Compliance is expected."

Separately, Edwards and INTU sent the same non-compete legalese to
the Bellagio, which led to the Bellagio's temporary decision to bar
the former INTU therapists from working the Five Diamond event.

Six Claims of Action Now Filed
Also expanded under the amended complaint are the actionable claims
against INTU and Edwards. Now numbering six, these include:

   -- Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

   -- Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations

   -- Violation of the Anti-Retaliation Provision of the Fair Labor
Standards Act

   -- Failure to Pay Overtime Wages/ Wages

   -- Failure to Pay Minimum Wages - Violation of the Nevada
Constitution

   -- Declaratory Judgment

Prior to the filing of the amended complaint, INTU already had been
granted an extension of time to respond, to January 14, 2019. This
amended complaint will push that response time later, likely to a
date in late January or early February. The case is filed in the US
District Court for the District of Nevada. [GN]


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Says California Securities Suit Now Concluded
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the case
entitled, In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, No.
5:13-cv-1920, has been concluded.

On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Abrams
v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed against
a number of the Company's current and former officers and directors
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The case has since been re-titled In re Intuitive Surgical
Securities Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-1920. The plaintiffs sought
damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 6,
2012, and July 18, 2013.

The amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading statements
and omitting certain material facts in certain public statements
and in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC).

On June 11, 2018, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
enter into a settlement agreement which stipulates a payment of
$42.5 million by the Company.

The court granted preliminary approval on October 4, 2018, and on
December 20, 2018, the court granted final approval.

During the year ended December 31, 2018, the Company recorded a
pre-tax charge of $42.5 million for this matter. In connection with
the settlement, the Company deposited $42.5 million into an escrow
account established for disbursements, which was recorded in
prepaids and other current assets in the accompanying Consolidated
Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2018.

The appeals period expired on January 21, 2019 and the matter has
been concluded.

Intuitive Surgical, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets da
Vinci surgical systems, and related instruments and accessories.
The company was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Sunnyvale,
California..


KANSAS: Judge Certifies Lawsuit Againts Dep't of Corrections
------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco Chronicle reports that up to 15,000 paroled inmates
who were sent back to jail for parole violations could be eligible
for relief after a federal judge certified as a class action a
lawsuit that argues the inmates were re-incarcerated without
hearings or legal representation.

The certification of the case as a class action by U.S. District
Judge Stephen Bough puts pressure on the state to resolve the
lawsuit, which was filed in 2017 by the MacArthur Justice Center in
St. Louis, KCUR reported . The center argues the state's
corrections department and its Division of Probation and Parole
ignored U.S. Supreme Court decisions establishing procedures to
protect parolees' due process rights.

"These cases have been around since the'70s, so there's really no
excuse for Missouri being this behind the times in providing these
constitutional rights to parolees," said Amy Breihan, Esq.--
amy.breihan@macarthurjustice.org -- director of the McArthur
Justice Center's Missouri office.

The Missouri Attorney General's Office will not comment on ongoing
litigation, spokesman Drew Dziedzic said.

Breihan said many parolees have been re-incarcerated for technical
violations such as crossing the state line -- like going from
Missouri to Kansas to work.

"They're most often for those kinds of alleged violations and not
for committing other crimes," she said.

In 2017, about 6,600 parolees went through the revocation process,
Breihan said, "and of those, at least 90 percent had their parole
revoked and were sent back to prison."

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the early 1970s that parole
revocation hearings trigger certain minimum due process
requirements, including a preliminary hearing and a formal
revocation hearing.

Breihan said many of the parolees being re-incarcerated without due
process have mental health or addiction issues that aren't being
addressed.

"They're just being re-incarcerated and their lives and their
communities are continually disrupted," she said. "It's not a
central focus of the case, but I think it's important to think
about why these folks are being sent back to prison and how it is
impacting their lives and their ability get back on steady ground."
[GN]


KEURIG DR. PEPPER: Facing False Advertising Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------
Joseph Brean, writing for National Post, reports that rather than
go to trial to defend its ginger content, Canada Dry ginger ale
will no longer claim to be "Made from Real Ginger," as part of a
proposed settlement to a series of U.S. class action lawsuits over
false advertising.

The company that makes the popular soft drink, Keurig Dr. Pepper,
will also offer payments to people who purchased Canada Dry for
personal use in the United States since 2013.

Those payments are capped at $5.20 per household without proof of
purchase, and at $40 per household with proof of purchase,
according to the proposed settlement, which does not apply to
Canadian sales.

The company is now trying to give broad notice to anyone who might
qualify for these payments, in anticipation of final court approval
in April, according to Van Beckwith, Esq. --
van.beckwith@bakerbotts.com -- a lawyer for Keurig Dr. Pepper.

A minuscule amount of a ginger flavour extract

That follows the decision of a California court last year to let
the case proceed to trial, which was slated to begin this week. It
would have aimed to resolve several related lawsuits from various
states, from Massachusetts to Missouri.

The New York lawsuit, for example, alleges violations of state
business law including "common law fraud, deceit and/or
misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranties and
unjust enrichment."

As a brand, Canada Dry dates to the 1890 opening of a carbonated
water plant in Toronto by John J. McLaughlin. His "Canada Dry" Pale
Ginger Ale was widely sold in Canada by 1904, and soon expanded to
New York, where it was a popular mix for home brew liquor during
Prohibition, and globally by the 1930s. New York remains its retail
"heartland," according to court records.

Today, Canada Dry is made with carbonated water, high fructose corn
syrup, citric acid, preservatives and natural flavours, which one
of the lawsuits claims include only "a minuscule amount of a ginger
flavour extract." Research by the New York complainant's lawyer
pegs the actual ginger compound content of Canada Dry at two parts
per million, which is below the threshold for human taste, and far
lower than any amount that could have health benefits.

Health benefits are a key aspect of the dispute. Flat ginger ale is
a common folk remedy for an upset stomach, for example, and lawyers
in the New York case have claimed Keurig Dr. Pepper added the "Real
Ginger" claim to the labelling to "cultivate a wholesome and
healthful image." The aim, according to the lawsuit, was to
position Canada Dry as a "BFY" option, meaning "Better For You."

The claims on packaging 'deceive and mislead reasonable customers'

This included a television ad, "Jack's Ginger Farm," about a woman
taking a ginger ale out of a cooler at a picnic and finding it was
connected, through the ground, to a handsome ginger farmer.

It appears to have worked. Court records in the New York action
allege Keurig Dr. Pepper saw sales increase by almost 9% in just
the first six months of adding the "Made from Real Ginger" claim to
the packaging.

The California judge cited internal company documents that
suggested 30% of Canada Dry consumers who increased their
consumption did so because of expected health benefits from real
ginger.

"In truth, DPSG's soft drink is not made from real ginger," reads
the claim in New York District Court. The claims on packaging
"deceive and mislead reasonable customers into believing that
(Canada Dry is) made using ginger root -- i.e. the spice made by
chopping or powdering the root of the ginger plant -- and not
minuscule amounts of flavouring ‘extracts.'"

This lawsuit was brought by Julie Fletcher of Bolivar, N.Y., near
the border with Pennsylvania. She claimed to have often bought it
for her sick children, thinking it was a "healthier alternative to
regular sodas."

Katie Gilroy, director of corporate communications at Keurig Dr.
Pepper, did not respond before deadline to a request for
comment.[GN]


LELAND, NC: Responds to Builders' Suit Over Illegal Impact Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johanna Ferebee, writing for PortCityDaily, reports that Leland has
formally denied allegations it charged builders illegal impact fees
in its response to a lawsuit, brought against the town in
September.

According to the town's first legal filing answering Plantation
Building Corporation's complaint, Leland states all impact fees it
charged in recent years have been legal.

Leland argues court opinions that lead to a 2016 North Carolina
Supreme Court ruling in favor of a builder, used as the base of the
plaintiff's case, are not a persuasive or controlling authority to
resolve the matter.

The case was initiated on Sept. 7, 2018, by Plantation Building
Corporation, a prominent Wilmington-based development company.
Filed as a class action lawsuit, no additional builders have joined
in, according to available court filings reviewed by Port City
Daily.

After Leland's 30-day extension was granted on Oct. 17, the town
offered its first legal response to Plantation Building
Corporation's complaints on Dec. 3.

So, what are impact fees?
The case alleges Leland charged Plantation Building Corporation and
other developers and contractors illegal water and sewer impact
fees as a prerequisite to development.

"Impact fees," also referred to as "capacity fees" and more
recently, "system development fees," refer to charges that do not
relate to regular utility use. These fees are typically charged to
parties who want to connect to a municipalities' existing utility
system before building new commercial or residential development.

According to state law and legal precedent, the fees are now legal
as long as they are calculated via a professional analysis and
represent the actual projected cost required to meet the new
customer's needs; in other words, they cannot be an arbitrary
amount or based on an unfounded estimate of future costs.

In 2016, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled in favor of a
builder in a similar matter. The case, Quality Built Homes, Inc.
vs. Town of Carthage, concluded existing state statutes empowered
Carthage to charge for "contemporaneous" utility service, but not
to collect fees for "future spending."

The impact fees Carthage collected were found to be illegal. And
the court ruled the town's ordinances used to collect them were
invalid, exceeding Carthage's legal authority.

Later, on Oct. 2017, the North Carolina General Assembly further
clarified and legalized "system development fees." House Bill 436
allows municipalities to recoup capital improvement costs -- that
include some future utility plans -- to service new development
through system development fees.

The law does not, however, retroactively authorize municipalities
to charge these fees collected prior to Oct. 1, 2017. The North
Carolina Supreme Court recently left the door open for future
similar suits, ruling in May 2018 that the builder had a three-year
statute of limitations to bring forth their complaints.

Plantation vs. Leland
Plantation Building Corporation's suit cites 19 properties it built
in Brunswick Forest that Leland collected impact fees for within a
three year period from the suits filing; Sept. 2014 through Sept.
2017. Leland admitted to collecting such fees within this period on
all but two of the properties, but denies the fees were charged
illegally.

This isn't the first time Leland has gotten into a legal spat with
developers; In Oct. 2015, four LLCs, all connected by the same
Fayetteville-based property management company, brought a lawsuit
against the town in regards to its newly implemented FlexCode
zoning.

That suit claimed Leland's Town Council did not give the Ocean Gate
Plaza owners proper and adequate notice in their effort to
involuntarily re-zone the property. The case was settled one month
after it was filed.

In its response to the impact fees suit, Leland admits to
"formerly" charging impact fees. However, the town denies the fees
were used to fund future utility costs.

"Leland did not, and does not, charge impact fees for future
expansion," the filing states.

On Jan. 19, 2017, Leland acknowledged the Supreme Court's ruling
and new law, two months after it passed. It created new fees,
called "capacity fees," to "recover the outflow of utility capital
costs."

"Once the town became aware of the ruling [Quality Built Homes vs.
Town of Carthage], the town immediately ceased assessment and
collection of impact fees," Leland's Jan. 2017 resolution, used as
an exhibit in the lawsuit, states.

The lawsuit alleges the town did not come into compliance with the
new state law until at least June 1, 2018. State law granted local
governments until July 1, 2018, to conform to new legal
requirements associated with system development fees.

In the town's December legal filing, it argues the builder's claims
are barred by a statute of limitations. Also, the town argues
Plantation Building Corporation unreasonably delayed in filing its
action.

Leland denies the builder's assertion that the 2016 Supreme Court
case concludes municipalities may not charge for future expansion
of utility systems or services -- a conclusion the Aug. 2016
opinion explicitly makes.

Still, the town rejects the opinion's authority in the matter.

"Defendant expressly denies that [Quality Built Homes vs. Town of
Carthage] is persuasive or controlling authority for the resolution
of this case," Leland's filing states.

Similar cases
Impact fees have added millions to Leland's utility fund in recent
years. But by the town's 2016-2017 audit, specific line items that
account for "impact fees," "capacity fees," or "system development
fees," were gone. Specific reference to such fees is absent from
the town's most recent audit, released in December.

Leland isn't the only utility operator defending itself against
builders. In August, a similar suit was introduced against Cape
Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA), filed by the same Raleigh
law firm, Whitfield, Bryson, and Mason, LLP. The law firm is also
involved in nine similar cases against towns that allegedly charged
illegal fees.

Mecklenburg-based J.A.C.K. Development, LLC, and Wilmington-based
Coastal Cypress Building Company, founded by Steve Swain, are suing
CFPUA for charging allegedly illegal impact fees. The suit alleges
CFPUA's collection of fees "shocks the conscience" and were charged
arbitrarily.

CFPUA denies it broke the law in charging the fees. It filed a
motion in Nov. 2018 to throw out the case entirely. Leland also
argued its case should be tossed. In one of its final affirmative
defenses, the town claims Plantation Building Corporation lacks
standing to maintain the case and that all claims should be
dismissed. [GN]


LIFESTYLE PUBLICATIONS: Lowe Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A case, Christopher Lowe, an individual on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Lifestyle
Publications, LLC, a Kansas Limited Liability Company and Does 1 to
100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.:
30-02019-01044249-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of
Orange County, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana) on Jan. 31, 2019. The
Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:19-cv-00198-JVS-ADS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge James V. Selna. The suit alleges labor related
violations.

Lifestyle Publications, LLC publishes community-based monthly
magazines. The company also provides electronic publishing and
advertising services.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Aaron A. Bartz, Esq.
          Ross E. Shanberg, Esq.
          Shane C. Stafford, Esq.
          SHANBERG STAFFORD AND BARTZ LLP
          5031 Birch Street
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 205-7515
          Facsimile: (949) 205-7144
          E-mail: abartz@ssbfirm.com
                  rshanberg@ssbfirm.com
                  sstafford@ssfirm.com

Attorneys for Lifestyle Publications, LLC:

          Carrie M. Francis, Esq.
          STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
          1850 North Central Avenue Suite 2100
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 212-8535
          Facsimile: (602) 586-5214
          E-mail: carrie.francis@stinson.com

LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Smith Suit Still Ongoing in Utah
---------------------------------------------------
LifeVantage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself against a class action suit entitled,
Smith v. LifeVantage Corp.

On January 24, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut,
entitled Smith v. LifeVantage Corp., Case No. 3:18-cv-a35 (D.
Conn., filed Jan. 24, 2018).  In this action, plaintiff alleged
that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Sales Officer
and Chief Marketing Officer operated a pyramid scheme in violation
of a variety of federal and state statutes, including RICO and the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

On April 16, 2018, the Company filed motions with the court to
dismiss the complaint against LifeVantage, dismiss the complaint
against the Company's executives, transfer the venue of the case
from the State of Connecticut to the State of Utah, and contest
class certification.

On July 23, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation with the Court
agreeing to transfer the case to the Federal District Court for
Utah. On September 20, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
in Utah. As per the parties stipulated agreement, plaintiff's
amended complaint dropped the RICO and Connecticut state law claims
and removed the Company's Chief Sales Officer and Chief Marketing
Officer as individual defendants (the Chief Executive Officer
remains a defendant in the case).

However, the amended complaint adds a new antitrust claim, alleging
that the Company fraudulently obtained patents for its products and
is attempting to use those patents in an anti-competitive manner.

LifeVantage filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on
November 5, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a response to LifeVantage's
Motion to Dismiss on December 17, 2018, and LifeVantage filed a
reply brief on January 10, 2019.

LifeVantage said, "With the matter now being fully briefed for the
Court, the Court can issue a ruling based on the briefs submitted
by the parties or schedule a hearing for oral argument before
entering a decision on the motion. The Company has not established
a loss contingency accrual for this lawsuit as it believes
liability is not probable or estimable, and the Company plans to
vigorously defend against this lawsuit. Nonetheless, an unfavorable
resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on
the Company's business, results of operations or financial
condition."

LifeVantage Corporation engages in the identification, research,
development, and distribution of nutraceutical dietary supplements
and skin care products.  LifeVantage Corporation is headquartered
in Sandy, Utah.


LOUISIANA: Landry's Bid to Alter/Amend Judgment in Campbell Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAURA CAMPBELL, ET AL., v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, ET AL,
Civil Action No. 17-1261-JWD-EWD (M.D. La.), Judge John W.
DeGravelles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana denied Attorney General of Louisiana Jeff Landry's
unopposed Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment.

In the case, Campbell and other pro se Plaintiffs filed a class
action seeking to declare the current method of judicial elections
in St. John the Baptist Parish unconstitutional and to enjoin
judicial elections in the parish, until such time as remedial
legislation, providing for at-large election of judges, can be
passed.  The Plaintiffs alleged that the 40th Judicial District, in
and for the Parish of St. John the Baptist, was subject to
re-districting/sub-districting as a result of the ruling in Clark
v. Roemer, which was decided on June 12,1990.

The Plaintiffs further claim that shortly after the ruling in Clark
v. Roemer occurred, an at-large judicial election took place and
resulted in the election of a Black/African American female to the
bench, the Hon. Madeline Jasmine.  But, they state that despite the
result of the foregoing parish-wide judicial election, St. John the
Baptist Parish was divided into three subdistricts -- Division A,
Division B, and Division C -- with only those voters domiciled and
residing in each district able to cast a ballot for candidates
running for judgeships within each division/subdistrict.  District
A was a majority African-American district, but Divisions B and C
were comprised of purportedly contiguous and compact areas where
White voters constituted a majority.  According to the Plaintiffs,
the problem of vote dilution currently exists by election of state
judges by subdistrict, rather than at-large, in St. John the
Baptist Parish, because minorities, such as Pro Se Plaintiffs, who
reside outside of Divisions B and C, are precluded from casting a
vote for candidates running in these subdistricts.

The Plaintiffs sought the following relief:

     a. Under the totality of the circumstances, St. John the
Baptist Parish's method of electing members for the 40th Judicial
District by subdistrict, rather than at-large, has the purpose and
effect of denying a substantial percentage of registered Black
voters the opportunity to participate in the political process and
to elect representatives of their choice, in violation of Section 2
of the Voting Rights Act, and the constitutional guarantees of the
Fourteenth and Fifteen Amendments.

     b. Unless enjoined by order of the Court, the Defendants will
continue to act in violation Of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
and the constitutional guarantees of the Fourteenth and Fifteen
Amendments by administering, implementing, and conducting future
elections for the 40th Judicial District using a method of
election, which, history shows, was never needed, and, which, if
allowed to continue, violates the equal protection and voting
rights of Pro Se Plaintiffs and other Black/African American
residents situated similarly to them in St. John the Baptist
Parish.

The Plaintiffs also prayed for the following: (1) a declaration
that the Defendants' method of electing members for the 40th
Judicial District by subdistrict violates Section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution; (2) a declaration that the method of electing judges
to the district has the result of denying or abridging the right to
vote on account of race or color in violation of the same laws; (3)
an injunction prohibiting the Defendants from enforcing or
conducting any future elections to that district under the current
subdistrict method of election; (4) an order setting an immediate
and reasonable deadline for the State to enact and adopt an
at-large method of election for the district, or, alternatively, an
order for the implementation of an election system for the district
that complies with the above laws; and (5) an order retaining
jurisdiction over the case and requiring the parish to obtain
preclearance from the Court or U.S. Department of Justice for all
future changes in voting law affecting the district, until there is
compliance with the above laws.

After suit was filed, Plaintiff Deborah Weber moved to dismiss
herself from the case.  On Dec. 6, 2017 that motion was granted.

On the same day, the Attorney General filed an answer.  He prayed
for, among other things, the following: (i)the Court reopens Clark
v. Roemer and order joinder of the parties thereto to the extent
protection of their interests may be impaired by a ruling; and (ii)
the Court enters judgment declaring that subdistricts for the
election of district court judges are no longer legally viable and
ought to be dissolved and that the method of electing district
judges district wide should be restored and reinstated beginning
with the first regular primary election following a final decision
in the case.

Subsequently, other Plaintiffs moved to dismiss themselves.  The
Court granted these requests.  Then, on Jan. 8, 2018, the parties
filed a Joint Motion to Retrieve Case Record in Clark v. Roemer.
They represented that the record was believed to be located in the
Records Center Archives, National Archives and Records in Fort
Worth, Texas, and they asked for the Court to direct the Clerk of
Court to retrieve them.  The motion was granted.

Subsequently, more Plaintiffs moved to dismiss themselves, without
opposition.  The Court granted the motion.  Following the answer by
Defendant Governor Edwards, on Feb. 20, 2018, the remaining
Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss themselves.  The following
day, on Feb. 21, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion and
dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.

On March 20, 2018, the Attorney General filed the instant motion.
He argues that, in his answer, he pled a cause of action
independent of the Plaintiffs' and prayed for affirmative relief to
declare that the current method of electing judges in the 40th
Judicial District by sub district no longer legally viable.  He
further contends that while the Attorney General did not style his
affirmative plea for relief as a counterclaim, the nature of the
pleading as a counterclaim with an independent prayer for
affirmative relief allows the pleading to be treated as a
counterclaim under Rule 8(c)(2) and (e).

The Attorney General maintains that, to the extent the Court
dismissed the counterclaims asserted in his answer, such a
dismissal would constitute a manifest error of law and fact, and
the judgment should be altered or amended to allow the claims and
demands of the Attorney General to go forward as a counterclaim.
He concedes that the motion is unusual both from a procedural
standpoint and from the standpoint of a defendant petitioning to
re-open a case where the plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed
their claims, but he relies on the state's vital interest in how
district judges are elected and his duty to pursue those
interests.

Judge DeGravelles will deny the Attorney General's motion on two
grounds.  First, he disagrees with the Attorney General's
characterization of his answer as asserting a counterclaim.
Second, the instant action is no longer justiciable.

The Judge has reviewed the relevant portions of the Attorney
General's answer and finds that he did not assert a counterclaim.
Moreover, he finds that the relief the Attorney General seeks
cannot possibly be adjudged separately from the Plaintiffs' claims.
At the very least, the Attorney General has not shown that the
Court manifestly erred in reaching this result.

In addition, he finds that the Plaintiffs have voluntarily
dismissed their claims because they can obtain the relief they seek
legislatively.  Thus, there is no longer a case or controversy at
issue. The Attorney General essentially seeks an advisory opinion
based on a hypothetical dispute -- one which would carry the added
unfairness of requiring pro se parties to litigate a complex area
of statutory and constitutional law.  For this additional reason,
the Court's order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss was
not manifestly erroneous.

Again, the Judge holds that reconsideration of a judgment after its
entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.  In
sum, the Attorney General has failed to demonstrate entitlement to
such seldom-granted relief.  Consequently, the Attorney General's
motion will be denied.  Accordingly, he denied the Motion to Alter
or Amend Judgment filed by Defendant Attorney General.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2019 Ruling and Order is
available at https://is.gd/XoMOdg from Leagle.com.

Laura Campbell, Emelda Gray Pierce, Mary Ann Gray, Richard Gray,
Paula Murray, Michelle James & Ron James, Plaintiffs, represented
by Nghana Lewis Gauff, Nghana Lewis Gauff, LLC.

John Bel Edwards, in his Official Capacity as Governor of the State
of Louisiana, Defendant, represented by Matthew F. Block, Office of
the Governor, Megan Kathleen Terrell, Office of the Governor & Tina
Marie Vanichchagorn, Office of the Governor.

Jeff Landry, in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of the
State of Louisiana, Defendant, represented by Angelique Duhon
Freel, Louisiana Department of Justice, Alicia Edmond Wheeler,
Louisiana Department of Justice Office of Attorney General & Carey
T. Jones, Carey T. Jones, Attorney.

Tom Schedler, in his Official Capacity as Secretary of State of
State of Louisiana, Defendant, represented by Celia R. Cangelosi,
Celia R. Cangelosi, Attorney at Law.


LOVED ONES: Court Allows Filing of 3rd Amended Mayhew FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAMELA MAYHEW, BETSY FARNSWORTH, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LOVED ONES
IN HOME CARE, LLC, and DONNA SKEEN, Defendants, Civil Action no.
2:17-cv-03844 (S.D. W.V.), Judge John T. Copenhaven, Jr. of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
Charleston Division, granted the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to
file a third amended complaint.

On July 28, 2017, Ms. Mayhew initiated an individual action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), related to pay practices of
Loved Ones regarding their payment of overtime wages.  On Aug. 30,
2017, Ms. Mayhew filed her first amended complaint expanding her
prior claims to include a collective action under the FLSA.  Betsy
Farnsworth joined the action as a named Plaintiff in the second
amended complaint, filed Oct. 31, 2017.

On Dec. 1, 2017, the Court conditionally certified the collective
action in the case.  The Defendants subsequently moved to limit the
conditional collective action certification on the grounds that it
was too broad.  After full briefing, the Court ordered, on Feb. 23,
2018, that the collective action be limited to employees who worked
for defendants in home health aide in two or more programs during
the course of the same pay period at any time between July 28, 2014
and May 31, 2017.

A proposed notice of the collective action was filed by the
Plaintiffs on March 5, 2018 and was approved by the Court on March
6, 2018.  Importantly, the Notice set a June 1, 2018 deadline for
potential Plaintiffs to mail consents to sue.

Named Plaintiffs Mayhew and Farnsworth did not file consents to sue
in accordance with the Notice approved by the Court.  The Court,
however, in its Dec. 27, 2018 memorandum opinion and order on the
Plaintiffs' motion to file consents to sue outside the opt-in
period, found that Ms. Mayhew was deemed to have consented to
joining the collective action on Aug. 30, 2017.  Further, the Court
permitted Ms. Farnsworth to file her consent to sue outside of the
timeframe provided by the Notice.

In December 2018, Loved Ones distributed to currently-employed
collective class members and other employees two employment-related
documents: an "Arbitration Agreement" and an "Addendum to
Arbitration Agreement.  The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants
"contemporaneously" distributed these two documents to employees.
These documents were the subject of the Plaintiffs' Dec. 13, 2018
motion to issue a clarifying notice to the Plaintiffs in the
action.

On Dec. 19, 2018, the Court approved the Clarifying Notice that the
Plaintiffs' counsel was to distribute to collective action
Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs seek to amend their complaint to include FLSA
retaliation claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 215(a)(3), which
arise out of the distribution of the "Arbitration Agreement" and
"Addendum."  They maintain that Loved Ones informed employees who
are also members of the class that if an employee failed to sign
both documents, Loved Ones would terminate their employment on Dec.
21, 2018.  The Plaintiffs also contend that Loved Ones, apart from
the two documents noted, threatened conduct to terminate the
employment of the collective class Plaintiffs who refuse to agree
to or to execute the two described documents, which they believe is
retaliatory in nature based on the Plaintiffs' status and
participation in the litigation.  Further, they assert that
distributing these documents invades the exclusive province of the
Court to control and to direct communications relative to the
collective action with the collective class Plaintiffs, and that
the invasion is employment-related retaliation and discrimination
against the collective class Plaintiffs.

The Defendants filed three separate responses to the Plaintiffs'
motion, one on Jan. 2, 2018 and two on Jan. 10, 2018.  The Jan. 2,
2018 response and the first Jan. 10, 2018 response are identical
and argue that inasmuch as no named Plaintiff filed a consent to
sue during the timeframe set in the Notice, the statute of
limitations in the matter has run and the entire case should be
dismissed.  The Defendants' second response of Jan. 10, 2018 states
that because the Clarifying Notice that was approved on Dec. 19,
2018 resolved the conflict between the terms of the "Arbitration
Agreement" and the "Addendum," the issues raised in the amended
complaint are moot.

Judge Copenhaven finds that it cannot be said that the Plaintiffs'
allegations of retaliation would be futile inasmuch as it appears
that a prima facie showing of the required elements laid out in
Darveau v. Detecon, Inc. are met.  Further, there is no indication
of bad faith on the part of the Plaintiffs and inasmuch as it is
the Defendants' alleged misconduct, which took place in December
2018, that prompted the proposed amendment, that amendment does not
unduly prejudice the Defendants.  The Plaintiffs' FLSA retaliation
claims against the Defendants are appropriately included in the
complaint.  For these reasons, he finds that good cause exists to
modify the Court's scheduling order, entered March 8, 2018.

Accordingly, Judge Copenhaven granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to file the third amended complaint.  He directed the Clerk
to file as of the date the complaint attached to the Plaintiffs'
motion as the third amended complaint in the action.

Although the Defendants include, in their second Jan. 10, 2018
response, answers to the additional allegations raised in the
proposed complaint, the Judge ordered the Defendants to file their
answers to the third amended complaint within 10 days of the entry
of the Order.

The parties confer and submit to the Court, by Feb. 15, 2019, a
document akin to a Rule 26(f) report that reflects the schedule the
parties envision in light of the amendment.  Finally, it is ordered
that the final settlement conference, scheduled for Feb.  11, 2019,
and the trial, scheduled for Feb. 12, 2019, be continued until the
further order of the Court.

The Clerk is directed to forward copies of the Order to all the
counsel of record.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/zHArDF from Leagle.com.

Pamela Mayhew & Betsy Farnsworth, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark A. Toor
-- mark@marktoor.com -- MARK A. TOOR.

Loved Ones In Home Health Care, LLC & Donna Skeen, Defendants,
represented by Andrew L. Ellis -- drew.ellis@wwdhe.com -- WOOTON
DAVIS HUSSELL & ELLIS, Charles Whittaker Neely --
RNeely@NeelyCallaghan.com -- NEELY & CALLAGHAN, Michael O.
Callaghan -- mcallaghan@neelycallaghan.com -- NEELY & CALLAGHAN &
Richard Neely, NEELY & CALLAGHAN.


LOXO ONCOLOGY: Stevens Sues over Eli Lilly Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL STEVENS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LOXO ONCOLOGY, INC., JOSHUA H.
BILENKER, STEVE ELMS, KEITH T. FLAHERTY, AVI Z. NAIDER, LORI A.
KUNKEL, ALAN FUHRMAN, TIM MAYLEBEN, and STEVE D. HARR, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00207-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 31, 2019),
alleges the Defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with a proposed
acquisition of Loxo by Eli Lilly and Company.

According to the complaint, on January 5, 2019, the Company
announced that it had entered into an agreement and plan of merger
with Eli Lilly, by which Lilly will acquire all of the outstanding
shares of Loxo common stock through an all-cash tender offer at a
purchase price of $235 per share. The January 5 Press Release
disclosed that the Proposed Transaction would be accomplished
through a tender offer rather than a shareholder vote. The Tender
Offer commenced on January 17, 2019 when the Company filed a
Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 with the SEC,
recommending that the Company's stockholders tender their shares
for the Tender Offer price. The Tender Offer is set to expire on
February 14, 2019.

The Plaintiff alleges that the 14D-9 is materially false and/or
misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose certain
material projected internal financial information about the
Company, relied on by the Individual Defendants to recommend the
Tender Offer and by the Company's financial advisor, Goldman Sachs
& Co. LLC to render an opinion that the Tender Offer is fair to
Loxo stockholders, and certain material information regarding the
sale process leading up to the Tender Offer, which omissions render
the 14D-9 incomplete and/or misleading.

In particular, the 14D-9 omits material information regarding: (i)
certain of the Company's financial projections and/or explanation
of the manner in which the projections were calculated, which
appear to differ from Loxo's financial metrics reported to
shareholders in prior SEC filings; (ii) the valuation analyses
performed by Goldman Sachs in support of its fairness opinion; and
(iii) certain information regarding the background of the
transaction. These omissions render the 14D-9 materially
misleading, including the basis for the Board's recommendation that
shareholders tender their shares and the non-GAAP financial
disclosures that were relied on and utilized by the Board and
Goldman Sachs to recommend the Proposed Transaction.

The failure to adequately disclose such material information
constitutes a violation of sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, among other reasons, because Loxo stockholders are entitled to
such information in order to make a fully-informed decision
regarding whether to tender their shares in connection with the
Tender Offer, the lawsuit says.

Loxo Oncology, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops and
sells medicines for patients with genetically defined cancers in
the United States.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com
                  mvangorder@faruqilaw.com

MAHARD EGG FARM: Miranda Suit Asserts Civil Rights Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Isabel Transito Miranda, Cesar Bautista, and Cesar Islas,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Mahard Egg Farm, Inc., and Mahard Pullet Farms,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00092 (E.D. Tex., February 4,
2019) is an action on behalf of Plaintiffs and a class of similarly
situated current and former Hispanic employees against Defendants
for subjecting the Hispanic Workers to an objectively hostile and
abusive work environment on account of their Hispanic race, in
violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Mahard Egg Farm, Inc. operates a poultry farm. The complaint notes
that the Hispanic Workers assigned to the hen and pullet houses
were required to eat in the filthy farm environment, and were
provided no hand washing facilities or clean break area. If
Hispanic Workers assigned to the hen and pullet houses attempted to
eat indoors, Mahard supervisory or management personnel kicked them
out.

Mahard's actions constitute a continuing violation that began at
least as early as 1999 and continues to this day, the complaint
relates. Mahard unlawfully discharged Named Plaintiffs and other
Class Members because they opposed or resisted Mahard's
racially-motivated harassment, adds the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed at Mahard's egg and pullet farm and
processing plant in Chillicothe, Texas at various times since
February 4, 2015.

Mahard Egg Farm, Inc. and Mahard Pullet Farm, Inc. are a domestic
for-profit corporations formed and existing under the laws of the
State of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Aaron Johnson, Esq.
     Rebecca Eisenbrey, Esq.
     EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER and TRANSNATIONAL WORKER RIGHTS CLINIC
     510 S. Congress Ave., Ste. 206
     Austin, TX 78704
     Phone: (512) 474-0007
     Fax: (512) 474-0008
     Email: ajohnson@equaljusticecenter.org
            reisenbrey@equaljusticecenter.org

          - and -

     Shana Khader, Esq.
     EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER and TRANSNATIONAL WORKER RIGHTS CLINIC
     1250 W. Mockingbird Ln., Ste. 455
     Dallas, TX 75247
     Phone: (469) 228-4223
     Fax: (469) 941-0861
     Email: skhader@equaljusticecenter.org


MARKEL CORP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned Bergen v. Markel Corporation et al., (Case No.
1:19-cv-00319), on behalf of persons and entities that: a)
purchased or otherwise acquired Markel Corporation (NYSE: MKL)
("Markel" or the "Company") securities between July 26, 2017 and
December 6, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues
claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date
of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

On December 6, 2018, the Company disclosed that "after having been
contacted on November 30, 2018, it is fully cooperating with
inquiries by US and Bermuda authorities into loss reserves recorded
in late 2017 and early 2018 at Markel CATCo Investment Management
Ltd and its subsidiaries." On this news, the Company's share price
fell $99.70 per share, more than 8%, to close at $1048.23 per share
on December 7, 2018, on unusually high trading volume, thereby
injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company's subsidiaries did not
appropriately record loss reserves; (2) that, as a result, the loss
reserves would need to be adjusted and/or restated; (3) that these
misleading accounting practices would lead to regulatory scrutiny
and financial loss to investors; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased Markel securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice
to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member
of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may
retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

         Lesley Portnoy,Esq.
         GlancyProngay and Murray LLP
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, California 90067
         Telephone: 310-201-9150
                    888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com [GN]


MARKEL CORP: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Markel
Corporation (Markel or the Company) (NYSE: MKL) for violations of
Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between July 26, 2017
and December 6, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before March 12, 2019.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Markels subsidiaries failed to record
loss reserves as appropriate. This failure would cause the Company
to have to restate or adjust its loss reserves. This misleading
accounting also opened up the Company to the risk of regulatory
scrutiny. Based on these facts, the Companys public statements were
false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When
the market learned the truth about Markel, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         SherinMahdavian, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: 310-301-3335
         Email: brian@schallfirm.com.
                sherin@schallfirm.com [GN]


MCKESSON CORP: Seeks Extension of Time to File Writ
---------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corporation and McKesson Technologies, Inc. requested a
58-day extension within which to file a petition for a writ of
certiorari to review a judgment entered by the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.   

True Health Chiropractic, Inc. and McLaughlin Chiropractic sued
McKesson under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act based on
unsolicited fax advertisements that a McKesson business unit sent
during 2009 and 2010 in violation of the TCPA. The case is
captioned True Health Chiropractic, et al., Plaintiffs v. McKesson
Corporation, et al., filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California under Case No. 13-02219-HSG.

The District Court denied True Health's request to certify a class
under Rule 23(b)(3).  Consequently, the Court of Appeals granted
True Health's petition for interlocutory appeal under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(f) and reversed in part.

McKesson Corporation is represented by:

     Joseph R. Palmore, Esq.
     SEth W. Lloyd, Esq.
     MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
     425 Market Street
     San Francisco, CA
     Phone: (415) 268-7000

          - and -

     Tiffany Cheung, Esq.
     MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
     2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
     Washington, DC 20006
     Phone: (202) 887-6940
     Email: JPalmore@mofo.com


MDL 2785: Sanofi's Suggestion of Remand Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing,
Sales Practices and Antitrust Litigation, ()This Document Applies
to the Sanofi case), MDL No: 2785, Case No. 17-md-2785-DDC-TJJ (D.
Kan.), Judge Daniel D. Crabtree of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas denied without prejudice Sanofi's Motion for a
Suggestion of Remand.

On Aug. 3, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") transferred four lawsuits to the Court for coordinated and
consolidated proceedings.  The JPML concluded that centralization
in the District of Kansas will serve the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation by eliminating duplicative discovery; preventing
inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserving the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.  The JPML transferred
the actions to the District of Kansas for coordinated and
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Individual consumers or third-party payors filed all but one of the
lawsuits in the MDL.  Those consumers or third-party payors allege
they purchased EpiPens for use by themselves, their families, or
their members, employees, insureds, participants, or beneficiaries.
Among other things, the consumer class cases assert that the
Defendants-Sellers and Manufacturers of the EpiPen—violated
federal and state antitrust laws, the federal RICO Act, and various
state consumer protection laws.  The Plaintiffs in the consumer
class cases also seek certification of multiple classes.

The other case in the MDL differs from the consumer class cases.
It is Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Mylan Inc. et al., No. 17-2452
("Sanofi case").  Sanofi filed the lawsuit in the District of New
Jersey on April 24, 2017.  It alleges that Mylan engaged in a
variety of anticompetitive conduct designed to prevent
Auvi-Q®—Sanofi's product that competed with the EpiPen—from
gaining access to the epinephrine autoinjector market, and designed
to prevent consumers from acquiring the Auvi-Q®.  

Sanofi asserts three Sherman Antitrust Act Section 2 claims against
Mylan.  These claims assert: (1) exclusive dealing; (2) deceptive
conduct to further monopolization; and (3) monopolization. Sanofi
brings the action only for itself, and not on behalf of any other
Plaintiffs or putative class members.  So, Sanofi's Complaint
neither asserts class action allegations nor seeks certification of
a class.

On Sept. 14, 2017, the Court determined that the differences
between the consumer class cases and the Sanofi case warranted
separate litigation tracks.  Thus, it established two separate
tracks for the MDL -- i.e., the consumer class cases and, distinct
from them, the Sanofi case.  Indeed, the JPML's Transfer Order
envisioned that the court might use this approach:

To the extent Sanofi presents unique factual and legal issues, the
transferee judge has the discretion to address those issues through
the use of appropriate pretrial devices, such as separate tracks
for discovery and motion practice.  Also, the JPML recognized, the
Court may recommend Section 1407 remand of Sanofi in advance of
other actions if he deems it appropriate.

On Oct. 19, 2017, the Court entered Scheduling Order No. 2.  The
Scheduling Order applies to both litigation tracks, and it
established deadlines for coordinated fact discovery.  Among other
things, the Scheduling Order established an Oct. 31, 2018, deadline
for completing coordinated fact discovery and a Nov. 30, 2018,
deadline for filing a motion to remand the Sanofi case.  After
Sanofi asked the Court to accelerate the briefing schedule for the
Sanofi remand motion, the Court accelerated the deadline for a
remand motion to Nov. 1, 2018.

The parties completed coordinated fact discovery by the Oct. 31,
2018 deadline.  On Oct, 18, 2018, the Court entered Scheduling
Order No. 4.  It established a schedule governing expert discovery
for the Sanofi case only.  Also, on Nov. 26, 2018, the Court
entered Scheduling Order No. 6.  It established deadlines for
dispositive and Daubert motions for the Sanofi case only.  Sanofi
represents that the parties currently are engaged in
non-coordinated discovery of experts in the Sanofi case.
Meanwhile, the consumer class plaintiffs have filed their Motion
for Class Certification.  The Defendants' response to that motion
is due March 18, 2019, and the class plaintiffs' reply is due April
22, 2019.

With its current motion, Sanofi asserts that the Court now should
follow the JPML's proposal and file a suggestion of remand of the
Sanofi case, suggesting that the JPML should remand its case to its
original district—the District of New Jersey.  Sanofi argues that
remand is appropriate at this stage because the parties have
completed all coordinated proceedings.  And, Sanofi contends, each
of the [separate litigation tracks] have gone their separate ways.
Thus, Sanofi asserts, its continued participation in the MDL will
produce no additional efficiencies.

Mylan disagrees.  Mylan argues that, consistent with Section 1407,
the JPML transferred the MDL cases to the Court for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.  It contends that the MDL's
coordinated pretrial proceedings are not yet complete. And, Mylan
argues, issues in the Sanofi case still overlap with issues in the
consumer class cases.  Thus, Mylan contends, remanding the Sanofi
case is not yet appropriate because continued consolidation and
coordination of all the MDL cases will maximize efficiencies,
prevent duplication, and avoid inconsistent rulings.

Judge Crabtree concludes merely that a suggestion of remand is not
appropriate now.  He finds taht the Court is not deciding when
remand of the Sanofi action will become appropriate.  The delay
also concerns the Court.  That is why it has ordered the cases to
proceed on separate litigation tracks -- so that the Sanofi case is
not delayed while the parties litigate the class certification
issues in the consumer class cases.  Finally, while remand is not
appropriate now, the Judge finds that it will become appropriate at
some point.  Sanofi can renew its motion when circumstances change
and after additional coordinated pretrial proceedings have
concluded.  Thus, his fair warning to Mylan: Any future argument
that it's devoting energy and attention to work in the consumer
class cases is unlikely to justify postponement of work in the
Sanofi case.

For reasons explained, Judge Crabtee denied Sanofi's Motion for a
Suggestion of Remand, but without prejudice to refiling at a later
stage in the litigation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/hnBRZW from Leagle.com.

All Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, represented by Lynn Lincoln Sarko,
Keller Rohrback, LLC, Paul J. Geller -- Pgeller@kellerrohrback.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Rex A. Sharp --
rsharp@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA, Ryan C. Hudson --
rhudson@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA & Warren T. Burns --
wburns@burnscharest.com -- Burns Charest, LLP.

Consumer Class Cases Plaintiffs, (For Filings as to All Consumer
Class Cases Plaintiffs), Plaintiffs, represented by Alison
Elizabeth Chase -- achase@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback,
LLP, Arthur L. Shingler, III -- ashingler@rgrd.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Brian O. O'Mara -- bomara@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Daniel E. Gustafson --
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Daniel C.
Hedlund -- dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC,
Eric Fierro -- efierro@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP,
Joseph C. Bourne -- jbourne@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek
PLLC, Lynn Lincoln Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback, LLC, Mahde Youssef Abdallah -- mya@miller.law.com -- The
Miller Law Firm, PC, Rex A. Sharp , Rex A. Sharp, PA, Ryan C.
Hudson , Rex A. Sharp, PA, Ryan McDevitt --
rmcdevitt@kellerohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLC, Sharon S.
Almonrode -- ssa@miller.law.com -- The Miller Law Firm, PC, pro hac
vice, Stuart A. Davidson -- sdavidson@kellerrohrback.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Tanya Korkhov --
tkorkhov@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP & William L.
Kalas -- WK@miller.law.com -- The Miller Law Firm, PC.

Mylan N.V., Defendant, represented by Adam K. Levin --
adam.levin@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, pro hac vice,
Benjamin Frederick Holt -- benjamin.holt@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Brian C. Fries -- bfries@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop
Gage LLP, Brian R. Richichi -- brian.richichi@hoganlovells.com --
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Carolyn Anne DeLone --
carrie.delone@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Chad E.
Blomberg -- cblombe@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop Gage, LLP,
Christopher D. Edelman , Hogan Lovells US LLP, Daniel Thomas Graham
-- dgraham@clarkhill.com -- Clark Hill, PLC, pro hac vice, David M.
Foster -- david.foster@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP,
pro hac vice, James Moloney -- jmaloney@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop
Gage LLP, Jon Myer Talotta -- jon.talotta@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Justin Bernick ,Kathryn M. Ali , Hogan Lovells US
LLP, pro hac vice, Sue Lin -- tony.lin@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Timothy Robert Herman -- therman@clarkhill.com --
Clark Hill, PLC, pro hac vice & Yuri Fuchs --
yuri.fuchs@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US, LLP.


MDL 2848: Skoczlas Asks Court to Remand Zostavax Case to N.D. Tex.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff designates the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, as the place of remand for
the case captioned, KAREN H. SKOCZLAS, the Plaintiff, vs. MERCK &
CO., INC. and MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00455-HB (E.D. Pa, Jan. 31, 2019).

The Skoczlas case is being consolidated in MDL No. 2848 Re:
Zostavax (Zoster Vaccine Live) Products Liability Litigation. The
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created
the order on August 2, 2018. All actions involve common factual
questions arising out of allegations that Zostavax, a live vaccine
for the prevention of shingles, caused plaintiffs to develop
shingles or other injuries triggered by exposure to the live,
attenuated varicella zoster virus contained in the vaccine, and
that defendants did not provide sufficient warning of the risks to
healthcare providers or consumers. Issues concerning the design,
testing, manufacture, regulatory approval, labeling, and marketing
of Zostavax are common to all actions. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings on Daubert issues and other pretrial matters; and conserve
the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

In its August 2, 2018 order, the MDL Panel found that these actions
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The Panel concluded
that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is an appropriate
transferee district for this litigation. Seven actions are pending
in this district, and they are the earliest filed and most advanced
actions in this litigation. The record indicates that the Merck
facilities involved in the development, manufacturing, labeling,
and marketing of Zostavax are located in Pennsylvania and nearby at
its New Jersey headquarters. Thus, many of the common documents and
witnesses likely will be located in this area.

Merck & Co. is an American pharmaceutical company and one of the
largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Nicholass R. Rockforte, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, L.L.P.
          24110 Eden Street
          Plaquemine, LA 70765
          Telephone: (225) 687-6396
          Facsimile: (225) 687-6398
          E-mail: nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com

MERCK & CO: Settles 7-Year Equal Pay Class Action for $6.2MM
------------------------------------------------------------
More than seven years ago, female sales representatives who worked
for Merck filed a class and collective action alleging
discrimination in pay on the basis of their gender in violation of
the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Title VII. After years of litigation
that resulted in a class and collective of 672 opt-in plaintiffs,
the parties in Smith, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., recently reached
a settlement of $6.2 million. We now wait to see if the court will
approve the settlement. What do employers need to know about this
proposed resolution?

Plaintiffs' Equal Pay Claims

Plaintiff Kelli Smith filed a class action complaint against Merck
in New Jersey's federal court in May 2013 alleging gender
discrimination. The complaint was thereafter amended to include a
total of four named plaintiffs -- all female sales representatives
-- and allege class and collective claims under the EPA, Title VII,
the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Employee
Retirement Income and Security Act (ERISA).

The complaint alleged that Merck systematically paid its female
sales representatives less than similarly situated male sales
representatives who performed the same job duties and worked under
the same conditions. To support these claims, the complaint alleged
that female sales representatives were routinely assigned to lower
tiers than male sales representative -- resulting in a lower salary
range -- and pointed to flaws in the compensation and evaluation
decision making processes which negatively impacted compensation
and promotional opportunities for women.

The complaint further alleged that Merck fostered a "boys' club"
environment where women were excluded from promotional
opportunities, denied access to leadership positions, and were
particularly vulnerable if they became pregnant or take maternity
leave.

In April 2016, the court conditionally certified a collective
action regarding the EPA claims. As a result, notice of the
collective action was mailed, and ultimately 672 female sales
representatives opted in to the lawsuit.

Prior to reaching a settlement, the parties engaged in discovery
that consisted of an exchange of documents, interrogatories, and
almost 100 depositions. These depositions included 17 Merck fact
witnesses, eight Rule 30(b)(6) deponents (corporate
representatives), the four named plaintiffs, 66 opt-in plaintiffs,
and four expert witnesses.

Settlement Details

Under New Jersey law, all settlements under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) -- which includes the EPA as an amendment to
the FLSA -- must be approved by the court. On Dec. 19, 2018, the
parties filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement,
which defines the class as including all female employees who are
or were employed by Merck and its affiliates and worked in assorted
sales representative capacities for at least one day between Dec.
8, 2010 and Oct. 1, 2018.

According to the documents filed with the New Jersey court, the
$6.2 million total settlement amount is comprised of the
following:

   -- Class Member Awards determined pursuant to an allocation
formula based on the total number of weeks worked during the
liability period;

   -- Service awards of $25,000 to each of the four class
representatives;

   -- Service awards of $4,000 for each of the 66 collective action
members who were deposed;

   -- Service awards of $1,000 for each of the 55 collective action
members who submitted written discovery but were not deposed, and
for the one collective action member who submitted a declaration
but was not deposed;

   -- Service awards of $100 for each of the 550 opt-in collective
action members who did not participate in discovery;

   -- Attorneys' fees and reasonable litigation expenses not to
exceed $3 million; and

   -- Settlement administration fees not to exceed $50,000.

If the court approves the settlement, notice will be issued to the
entire class/collective of current and former female sales
representatives. All sales representatives who do not opt out of
the settlement will receive a class member award and a service
award, if applicable, following the final approval of the
settlement.

Conclusion

The Smith lawsuit was at the forefront of the recent wave of EPA
litigation that we have seen across the country. Since this 2013
filing, lawsuits alleging claims of discrimination based on similar
fact patterns have become commonplace. In fact, the plaintiffs'
attorneys in this case (Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP) have filed
dozens of high profile EPA class and collective actions against
large employers throughout the country, and routinely obtained
multimillion dollar settlement awards for their clients.

Your organization might even be more at risk of a pay equity
dispute in New Jersey now -- or at least a costlier one -- than was
Merck in the above -- described case. That's because Smith's
lawsuit was filed before New Jersey enacted the Diane B. Allen
Equal Pay Act (effective July 1, 2018), which provides more
extensive remedies than the EPA and Title VII. Now that a
heightened standard and greater potential damages are in play, you
have every incentive to ensure full and complete pay equity
compliance.

      Sarah Wieselthier, Esq.
      Fisher & Phillips LLP
      Email: swieselthier@fisherphillips.com [GN]


MERCK SHARP: Cannot Compel Arbitration in Rotavirus Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE ROTAVIRUS VACCINES ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Civil
Action No. 18-CV-1734 (Consolidated) (E.D. Pa.), Judge J. Curtis
Joyner of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied Merck's motion to compel each individual
Plaintiff to arbitration and to stay these proceedings pending such
arbitrations.

As averred in the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint filed
by Sugartown Pediatrics, LLC and Schwartz Pediatrics S.C., the
lawsuit challenges Merck's anticompetitive vaccine bundling scheme
whereby Merck leverages its monopoly power in multiple pediatric
vaccine markets to maintain its monopoly power in the Rotavirus
Vaccine Market and, consequently, to charge supracompetitive prices
to purchasers of its rotavirus vaccines.  In essence, the
Plaintiffs allege that as to its RotaTeq Rotavirus vaccine, instead
of lowering the price which it was charging when it held 100% of
the Rotavirus market, Merck responded to the entry of
GlaxoSmithKline's competing vaccine, Rotarix, by adding an
exclusionary RotaTeq Bundled Loyalty Condition to its buying
contracts, thereby bundling RotaTeq with its other pediatric
vaccines.  In so doing, they aver that Merck penalized any of its
customers who would buy Rotarix from GSK by forcing them to pay
substantially higher prices for all of the vaccines in the Merck
Bundle, including those for which Merck is the sole seller.

The Plaintiffs allege that they suffered anti-trust injury because
they, like most physicians, practices and hospitals, purchase the
vaccines which they administer to their patients through Physician
Buying Groups ("PBGs") and Merck has effectively co-opted the PBGs
to impose and enforce its anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct
with the result that they and the proposed class members have
repeatedly paid artificially inflated prices for rotavirus vaccines
since Rotarix entered the market and continuing through the
present.

By the motion that is now before the Court, Merck seeks to stay the
matter and compel the Plaintiffs to submit its claims to
arbitration on the basis of arbitration clauses contained within
Merck's contracts with the three Physician Buying Groups through
which the Plaintiffs purchased their vaccines.  The Defendant
appears to be arguing that, insofar as the PBGs purportedly signed
the Agreements with it on behalf of themselves and their members,
the PBGs were therefore acting as the Plaintiffs' agents and/or
that the Plaintiffs were therefore the third-party beneficiaries of
the Agreements and should be estopped from avoiding the arbitration
clauses.

The Plaintiffs rejoin that the matter should not be submitted to
arbitration because they were not signatories to any agreements
directly with Merck and the agreements which they entered into with
the Physician Buying Groups of which they were members did not
contain any such clauses requiring submission of any of their
disputes to arbitration.

Judge Joyner finds that although these clauses obviously reflect
Merck's desire to impose the terms and conditions of its buying
agreements with the PBGs on the individual medical
practices/"vaccine clinics" with whom the PBGs have relationships,
in and of themselves, however, they do not evince an agency
relationship between Plaintiffs and the PBGs.  Likewise, they do
not demonstrate that the Plaintiffs either consented or had
knowledge that, by becoming PBG members, they were giving authority
to the PBGs to enter into an agreement with Merck to arbitrate.

Furthermore, there is no other evidence to suggest that either a
parent-subsidiary, ownership, or any other significant relationship
existed between the signatory and the non-signatory parties, nor is
there any other evidence that Plaintiffs (acting as principals)
said or did anything which might have caused Defendant to believe
that they had granted the PBGs the authority to act broadly on
their behalves.  Given that the burden of proving agency rests upon
the party seeking to assert it, without more, the Judge cannot find
that the Defendant has established as a matter of law that the PBGs
were the agents of the Plaintiffs.

He also cannot find that the requisite showing of relatedness or
congruence has been made.  Although the Plaintiffs are PBG members,
there is no evidence that they are closely related in terms of
their ownership, administration, mission, business functions or
otherwise.  The Plaintiffs are private medical practices presumably
independently owned and operated by either larger, medical practice
groups or some or all of the individual physicians who practice
with them.  There is absolutely no evidence on the record that they
have any relationship whatsoever with Merck or with the PBG(s) to
which they belong aside from having entered into contractual
agreements for membership in the PBGs.  Accordingly, he cannot find
that the claims at issue are intimately founded in and intertwined
with the underlying obligations of the contract(s) to which the
Plaintiffs were not a party.

Based upon all of the foregoing, Judge Joyner simply cannot find
that sufficient grounds exist to compel the Plaintiffs to arbitrate
their anti-trust claims in the case.  Accordingly, he denied the
Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/aaoo4o from Leagle.com.

SUGARTOWN PEDIATRICS, LLC, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by BART D. COHEN --
bcohen@nussbaumpc.com -- NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP PC, DANIEL J. WALKER --
dwalker@bm.net -- BERGER MONTAGUE PC, ERIC L. CRAMER --
ecramer@bm.net -- BERGER MONTAGUE PC, LINDA P. NUSSBAUM --
lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com -- NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP PC, BRENT W. LANDAU
-- blandau@hausfeld.com -- HAUSFELD LLP, GARY I. SMITH, Jr. --
gsmith@hausfeld.com -- HAUSFELD LLP, MICHAEL J. GAVIN, GAVIN LAW
LLC & ZACHARY D. CAPLAN -- zcaplan@bm.net -- BERGER MONTAGUE PC.

SCHWARTZ PEDIATRICS S.C., Plaintiff, represented by DANIEL H.
SILVERMAN, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, DANIEL A. SMALL,
COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD AND TOLL, GARY L. AZORSKY, COHEN MILSTEIN
SELLERS & TOLL PLLC & ERIC L. CRAMER, BERGER MONTAGUE PC.

MARGIOTTI & KROLL PEDIATRICS, P.C., Plaintiff, represented by
JOSHUA H. GRABAR -- jgrabar@grabarlaw.com -- Grabar Law Office,
MARC H. EDELSON -- medelson@edelson-law.com -- EDELSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLC & ERIC L. CRAMER, BERGER MONTAGUE PC.

MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., Defendant, represented by ASHLEY E. BASS
-- abass@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING LLP, ANDREW D. LAZEROW --
alazerow@cov.com -- COVINGTON & BURLING LLP & LISA DYKSTRA --
lisa.dykstra@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS.


MESA LABORATORIES: Orrington Settlement Receives Initial Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mesa Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the company has
received preliminary court approval of the settlement of a class
action lawsuit by Dr. James L. Orrington II in the amount of
$3,300.

In February 2018, Dr. James L. Orrington II filed a purported civil
class action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging that the company
sent unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines.
The complaint includes counts alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act,
Conversion, Nuisance, and Trespass to Chattels.  The plaintiff
seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

Additionally, in June 2018, Rowan Family Dentistry, Inc. filed a
purported class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado making substantially the same
claims as Dr. James L. Orrington II and seeking substantially the
same relief.

During the nine months ended December 31, 2018, the company
recorded an expense of $3,300 as an estimate of our potential loss
associated with the matter. The expense is recorded as estimated
legal settlement on its condensed consolidated statements of
operations and a corresponding liability is included as estimated
legal liability on our condensed consolidated balance sheets.

In January 2019, the company received preliminary court approval of
a class action settlement with Dr. James L. Orrington II in the
amount of $3,300.

Mesa Laboratories said, "We will continue to vigorously defend the
aforementioned cases and while we believe that the liability
recorded as of December 31, 2018 approximates the amount that we
will ultimately pay, it is possible that we will be subject to
liabilities greater or less than the current amount accrued."

Mesa Laboratories, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets quality
control instruments and disposable products. Mesa Laboratories,
Inc. was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Lakewood,
Colorado.


MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Sued over Misleading Reports, Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KJELL ROJVALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., SANJAY
MEHROTRA, ERNEST E. MADDOCK, and DAVID A. ZINSNER, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00990 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2019), is a class action
on behalf of persons and entities that acquired Micron securities
between September 26, 2017 and November 19, 2018, inclusive.

Micron purports to sell high-performance memory and storage
technologies, including dynamic random access memory. On November
19, 2018, Financial Times reported that Chinese investigators said
they had found "'massive evidence' of anti-competitive behavior" by
Micron and two other companies.  On this news, the Company's share
price fell $2.61 per share, nearly 7%, to close at $36.83 per share
on November 19, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout
the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company engaged in anti-competitive
behavior, including artificially restricting supply growth of DRAM;
(2) that these anti-competitive efforts were reasonably likely to
lead to regulatory scrutiny; (3) that the Company's
anti-competitive efforts artificially boosted its operating
metrics; (4) that, as a result, the Company's financial
performance, including revenue, was overstated; and (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages, the lawsuit says.

Micron Technology is an American global corporation based in Boise,
Idaho. The company is a holding company for subsidiaries engaged in
the design and production of computers, semiconductors, and other
related products.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
          Facsimile: (215) 638-4867

MONSANTO COMPANY: Alexy Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
DWIGHT ALEXY, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00149 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 31, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
          9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Lombard Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
JIMMY LOMBARD, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00139 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 30, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



MONSANTO COMPANY: Martin Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
WENDELL P. MARTIN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00133 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 29, 2019), seeks
to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Martinez Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALONZO MARTINEZ, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00150 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 31, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
          9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Outlaws Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES M. OUTLAW and KAREN OUTLAW, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00128 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 29,
2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Peetzs Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES I. PEETZ and LINDA G. PEETZ, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00129 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 29,
2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Scotts Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARGARET C. SCOTT AND DEL SCOTT, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00131 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 29,
2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Smith Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS W. SMITH, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00138-CAS (E.D. Mo., Jan. 30, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Susaks Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
FRANK SUSAK and JENNIFER SUSAK, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00140 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 30,
2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



NANO: Faces 2nd Class Action Over BitGrail Hack
-----------------------------------------------
P. H. Madore, writing for CCN, reports that for the second time,
Nano's developers and other parties are facing a class action
lawsuit. The lawsuit names Francesco Firano, Nano as an entity,
BitGrail, and four others in a lawsuit proposed on Jan. 4 in a
California federal court. Among the allegations against them are
fraud and violations of the Securities Act. The lawsuit alleges the
defendants tricked investors. Nano was once worth more than $50 but
today is around $1.

For Firano's part, he last tweeted about the BitGrail situation
back in June 2018:

Criminal activity is a good method of justifying a lawsuit. Early
on in the complaint, the plaintiffs, who are led by James Fabian,
say:

"Throughout the Class Period as defined below, Defendants directed
the investing public to purchase XRB through BitGrail by providing
specific investment instructions and assurances that the
cryptocurrency exchange was secure and could be trusted to
safeguard investment assets."

NANO LAWSUIT: THE SEQUEL
Fabian is a litigation secretary in San Francisco. He was also an
investor in Nano. Fabian lost $260,000 in the BitGrail hack.

According to Law360, the current suit draws heavily on the
activities of Nano developers and on a lawsuit that was withdrawn
last year. In the other suit, a plaintiff named Alex Brola said he
had invested $50,000 into Nano. His investment grew to $237,000
before he lost everything in a breach of BitGrail.

According to James Fabian's lawyer David Silver, Nano became liable
when they violated securities law and encouraged people to buy and
store their Nano on BitGrail. Social media posts by Nano and others
plays a prominent role in the complain. You can read the whole
complaint below. Silver told Law360:

Mr. Fabian suffered damages, and we believe Nano, its core team,
BitGrail and the owner of BitGrail are liable.

SECURITIES VIOLATIONS CRUCIAL TO NEW SUIT
A law firm called Levi & Korsinsky LLP are involved in this case as
well. Levi & Korsinsky have conducted other crypto security cases.
One such case involves Cloud With Me. Silver points out that the
claims made in the previous suit are different from the current
one. Primarily using the Securities Act as an underpinning for the
claims, a court can understand that the investors had no
protection.

In short, if the plaintiffs can prove that Nano were acting
illegally, their chances of winning the suit are increased. Being a
registered or unregistered security is like the difference between
hitting someone with and without car insurance. In the latter case,
you are 100% liable. In the former, your insurance may absorb some
or all of your responsibility.

FUNDS SEIZED BY ITALIAN GOVERNMENT STILL IN LIMBO
Italian authorities continue to hold the remainder of BitGrail's
funds following the hack of more than 80% of its Nano. Nano have
said told people they are trying to get it back, but their efforts
"have gone nowhere" according to David Silver.

CCN conducted an interview with Colin LeMahieu, a lead developer at
Nano and one of the defendants, last year. At the time, LeMahieu
was confident that Nano development would continue:

While the BitGrail situation is extremely unfortunate, it has not
impeded the project. We allocated significant resources towards
both determining what exactly happened, as well as investigating
legal options, but as far as protocol development and overall
project milestones are concerned we have continued to move
forward.

Nano developers were still posting updates as of early December.

NANO DEVELOPERS TRY TO "ERASE THE FACT" OF BITGRAIL INVOLVEMENT
According to the lawsuit, Nano developers have made efforts to
distance themselves from BitGrail. BitGrail once provided a large
amount of liquidity for Nano.

[T]he Nano Defendants have made every effort they could conceive of
to distance themselves from BitGrail and erase the fact that each
was substantially involved with BitGrail's operations related to
XRB. Indeed, the Nano Defendants have even gone so far as to fund a
lawsuit against its former partner-in-crime, the BitGrail
Defendants, so as to avoid unwanted attention for their actions.
For example, on April 6, 2018, a putative class action (which has
since been settled on an individual non-public basis) was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. A mere three (3) days later, on April 9, 2018, the Nano
Defendants announced that the Company was "sponsoring" a "legal
fund" purportedly designed to "provide all victims of the hack of
the cryptocurrency exchange BitGrail with equal access to
representation" and enable such investors to seek recourse against
the exchange.

Today, more than 70% Nano's volume takes place on massive exchange
Binance.

THE RESCUE FORK OPTION
The lawsuit talks about a technical solution that Nano developers
have so far not pursued:

Defendants can rewrite the XRB code and simply restore ownership to
Plaintiff and the Class. In crypto terms, Defendants can create a
"rescue fork" to protect Plaintiff's and the Class' property
rights. Defendants, however, have refused to implement that
strategy because it is not in their own best interests. The reason
is simple: Defendants still own and control millions if not tens of
millions of XRB and do not want to sacrifice any financial
advantage they currently hold over the average XRB investor
victimized by the XRB disappearance at BitGrail, which Defendants
would do by "rescue forking" and returning the stolen digital
assets.

The previous lawsuit demanded as much. A rescue fork never
materialized.

INTERNATIONAL INVESTORS NOT REPRESENTED
The lawsuit only represents US investors. If it comes out in favor
of the plaintiffs, international victims of the same class would
have something to base yet another lawsuit on.

Its outcome will depend heavily on how the courts view Nano's
standing with the SEC and its decision to never become a registered
security. Its unknown what level of damages would come out of a
decision favorable to plaintiffs. Losses total more than $170
million in the BitGrail hack, but that figure may only play
nominally into a decision. As the suit says:

Between January 2015 and March 2018, in connection with the offer
and sale of XRB, Defendants unlawfully made use of means or
instruments of transportation or communication in interstate
commerce or of the mails for the purposes of offering, selling, or
delivering unregistered securities in direct violation of the
Securities Act.

UNTOLD DAMAGES SOUGHT
The relief sought in the suit is multi-fold. They want their XRB
back as well as they want pre-judgement and post-judgement interest
and "equitable compensation" for losses incurred. Fabian and his
class want the defendants declared liable under the Securities Act,
which opens a new can of worms for Nano and other co-defendants.
Also:

An award of any and all additional damages recoverable under law --
jointly and severally entered against Defendants -- including but
not limited to compensatory damages, punitive damages, incidental
damages, and consequential damages.

Overall, the suit appears directed more at recovering lost money
for members of the class. While it mentions that a rescue fork was
one solution that Nano developers never pursued, its actual
"relief" demands do not include a rescue fork.

The entire market capitalization of Nano at time of writing was
just under $140 million. The amount lost in the BitGrail hack was
more than that. It seems evident that the damages sought could go
much higher than these figures combined. [GN]


NAVIENT CORP: Johnson Fistel Probes Securities Claims vs 3 Companie
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating
potential claims against the following companies:

Navient Corporation
Synchrony Financial
Ebix, Inc.

Navient Corporation (NAVI)

Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating
potential violations of federal and state laws by Navient
Corporation (NASDAQ:NAVI) and certain of its officers.  Navient
provides asset management and business processing services to
education, health care, and government clients at the federal,
state, and local levels in the United States.

Several years ago a securities class action complaint was filed
alleging that during the Class Period, defendants materially
misstated the Company's business metrics and financial prospects.

Then in October 2018, a consumer class action lawsuit was filed
against Navient for misleading borrowers regarding their loan
servicing options in violation of numerous state and federal laws.

If you have held Navient shares continuously long-term, you may
have standing to hold Naviant harmless from the damage the officers
and directors caused by making them personally responsible. You may
also be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate
governance to prevent future wrongdoing.

If you are interested in learning more about your legal rights and
remedies, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at
619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Synchrony Financial (SYF)

Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating
potential violations of federal and state laws by Synchrony
Financial (NYSE:SYF) and certain of its officers.

Recently a securities class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Synchrony from October 21, 2016
through November 1, 2018, (the "Class Period"). According to the
lawsuit, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that Synchrony misrepresented that its
consistent and disciplined underwriting practices had led to a
higher quality loan portfolio than those of its competitors. In
truth, Synchrony had relaxed its underwriting standards and
increasingly offered private-label credit cards to riskier
borrowers in order to sustain growth, which consequently damaged
its relationship with retail partners.

On July 26, 2018, news outlets reported that Walmart had chosen a
competitor to replace Synchrony. Then, on November 1, 2018,
Wal-Mart sued Synchrony, accusing it of improper underwriting in
connection with a Wal-Mart/Synchrony credit card program.

If you are a long-term shareholder of Synchrony continuously
holding shares before February 2017, you may have standing to hold
Synchrony harmless from the alleged harm caused by the officers and
directors of the Company by making them personally responsible. You
may also be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate
governance to prevent future wrongdoing.

If you are interested in learning more about your legal rights and
remedies, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at
619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Ebix, Inc. (EBIX)

Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating
potential violations of federal and state laws by Ebix, Inc.
(NASDAQ:EBIX) and certain of its officers.

On October 5, 2018, Ebix announced that the company had approved
the appointment of T R Chadha & Co. LLP as Ebix's independent
registered public accounting firm replacing Cherry Bekaert LLP.
Following this news, Ebix's share price plummeted more than 19%.

Then, in December 2018, Viceroy Research Group published a series
of reports, asserting, among other things, that Ebix is "Over the
course of our investigation we uncovered evidence of what we
believe is a scheme to incorrectly book revenue and earnings."
Following these reports, the Company's share price declined
further.

If you are interested in learning more about your legal rights and
remedies, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at
619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

         Jim Baker, Esq.
         Johnson Fistel, LLP
         Telephone: 619-814-4471
         Website: http://www.johnsonfistel.com
         Email: jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]


NESTLE INDIA: Says Noodles Does Not Contain Lead Amid Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Times reports that under the spotlight again, Maggie on
Jan. 7 said that its noodles are safe and it does not contain lead.


Nestle, the maker of Maggie noodles, in an advertisement (published
in the Economic Times) said: "Your Maggie Noodles' safety has been
confirmed and reaffirmed many times through rigorous testing by
laboratories accredited by NABL (National Accreditation Board for
Testing and Calibration Laboratories)."

"We do not add lead to Maggi noodles in any form at any stage,"
Nestle added in the advertisement.

In the ad, Nestle said that "lead occurs naturally in the Earth's
crust (present in the air, soil, water, grains and other
materials)".

Nestle said that to ensure food is safe, Food Regulations specify
safe-limits for several elements including lead. "Maggi noodles has
consistently cleared these tests," Nestle claimed in the ad.

The ad campaign came after the Supreme Court instructed the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commision (NCDRC) to revive a
three-years-old class-action suit against Maggi noodle makers,
filed by the Centre, for allegedly selling noodles which fell short
of the existing food standards.

The Centre had filed a class action suit against the company in
2015 in an unprecedented move seeking Rs 640 crore by way of
compensation for allegedly selling noodles containing excessive
lead and flavour enhancer MSG to consumers. [GN]


NESTLE INDIA: Supreme Court to Reopen Maggi Noodles Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mydigitalfc.com reports that the Supreme Court is to reopen the
class action suit against Nestle India in its case of Maggi
Noodles. The company has been accused of having excessive lead and
flavour enhancer MSG in its products. The case had surfaced in
January 2015. The peak of the share price in January 2015 was Rs
7,425, which fell to Rs 4,990 by February 2016. The share peak in
December 2018 was Rs 11,700, which has fallen to Rs 10,878 as of
Friday, the 4th of January. How long this case would last or come
to a logical end is anybody's guess, but there would be price
damage for sure. Depending on the outcome, this share is likely to
be in focus till the case gets over. [GN]


NESTLE USA: Tomasella Sues Over Non-disclosure in Product Packaging
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Danell Tomasella, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nestle USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-1269-ADB (D. Mass., February 4, 2019)
is a lawsuit against Defendant alleging violation of Massachusetts
General Laws and a claim for unjust enrichment based on Nestle's
failure to disclose on its product packaging that its chocolate
products likely contain cocoa beans farmed by child and slave
labor.

Some of the cocoa beans that Nestle sources from West Africa come
from Cote d'Ivoire (also known as the Ivory Coast), where children
and forced laborers engage in dangerous tasks while harvesting
cocoa.

Some children become laborers after being sold by their parents to
traffickers, while others are kidnapped and then sold into
conditions of bonded labor. The children who labor on cocoa farms
in Cote d'Ivoire are frequently not paid for their work, forced to
work long hours, held against their will on isolated farms, and
punished by their employers with physical abuse, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff purchased Nestle's chocolate products from various retail
stores in Plymouth, Massachusetts from 2014 through the present.

Nestle is one of the largest and most profitable food manufacturers
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Elaine Byszewski, Esq.
     Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
     301 N. Lake Ave, Suite 920
     Pasadena, CA 91101
     Phone: 213-330-7150
     Email: elaine@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
     1301 2nd Ave, Suite 2000
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: 206-623-7292
     Fax: 206-623-0594
     Email: steve@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

     Hannah W. Brennan, Esq.
     Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
     55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
     Cambridge, MA 02142
     Phone: 617-482-3700
     Email: hannahb@hbsslaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     Bryan A. Merryman, Esq.
     White & Case LLP
     555 S. Flower Street, Suite 2700
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: 213-620-7700
     Email: bmerryman@whitecase.com

          - and -

     Julian A. Lamm, Esq.
     White & Case LLP
     555 South Flower Street, Suite 2700
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: 213-620-7700
     Email: jlamm@whitecase.com

          - and -

     Lauren M. Papenhausen, Esq.
     White & Case, LLP
     24th Floor
     75 State Street
     Boston, MA 02109
     Phone: 212-819-7077
     Email: lauren.papenhausen@whitecase.com

          - and -

     Michael Kendall, Esq.
     White & Case, LLP
     24th Floor
     75 State Street
     Boston, MA 02109
     Phone: 617-939-9310
     Email: michael.kendall@whitecase.com


NEW ERA CAP: Dennis Hits Blind-inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------
Derrick U Dennis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. New Era Cap Co., Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00685 (E.D. N.Y., February 4, 2019) is a civil rights
action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), says the complaint.

Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

Defendant is and was at all relevant times a New York Corporation
doing business in the United States, including New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NPSG GLOBAL: Reese Sues Over Unpaid Hourly, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
DeVonte' Reese, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NPSG Global, LLC, a Foreign
Limited-Liability Company, NPSG Construction LLC, a Foreign
Limited-Liability Company, Does I-X and Roe Corporations I-X,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00209 (D. Nev., February 4, 2019) is a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Defendants have engaged in an illegal, willful and malicious
policy and practice of failing to properly classify their salaried
employees as hourly employees, including Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated, and, therefore, failing to pay said employees
hourly wages and overtime for all hours worked, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff started his employment with Defendant in April 2015.

NPSG Global delivers e-fulfillment warehouse implementation
services, from design consultation to technical integaration, to
buildout, to retrofits -- providing facility operators maximum site
efficiencies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jenny L. Foley, Ph.D., Esq.
     Marta D. Kurshumova, Esa.
     HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
     1785 East Sahara, Suite 300
     Las Vegas, NV 11415
     Phone: (702) 625-3893
     Facsimile: (703) 625-3893
     Email: jfoley@hkm.com
            mkurshumova@hkm.com


OKLAHOMA: National Experts Release Foster Care Reform Report
------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Jones, writing for Tulsa World, reports that transitioning
the Laura Dester Children's Center from a shelter to a treatment
facility has garnered the spotlight, but the state also is
grappling with improving the quality and array of foster care while
screening out unsafe homes, according to a report.

An oversight panel expressed concern about a "significant number"
of foster home approvals despite prior cases of confirmed child
maltreatment. It lamented that the state's pool of therapeutic
foster homes has shrunk throughout most of the reform period,
calling for a "long overdue" plan that is more focused and robust.

"The department has been unable to increase the safety of children
placed in foster homes during the course of this reform effort,"
the panel wrote. "DHS' highest priority during the next period must
be child safety, and specifically strengthening practice in the
field to monitor and assess the safety of children placed in foster
homes."

In response to child maltreatment concerns, the Oklahoma Department
of Human Services conducted a comprehensive review of 4,000 foster
homes toward the end of 2017 that resulted in some closures and
child placement moves. The agency also said it has since installed
additional layers of protection and checks and balances to identify
and address indicators that a foster child may be unsafe.

Regarding the declining number of therapeutic foster homes, the
agency touts a focus on the quality -- not an expansion -- of the
program for children with behavioral issues.

Three national experts released another six-month progress report
on how DHS is reforming its child-welfare system in accordance with
a class-action lawsuit settlement struck in 2012.

Dubbed as "co-neutrals," the experts applauded the state for
"marked improvement" recently in its care of foster children. This
report followed the release of an unflattering update over the
summer.

Four of the five areas considered to lack good-faith efforts in the
latest report centered on child maltreatment and numbers of
therapeutic foster homes.

Child maltreatment
The co-neutrals reported that reviews of foster homes with
confirmed maltreatment cases consistently found extensive histories
of maltreatment allegations that were screened out, ruled out or
unsubstantiated by DHS.

The case histories often presented a documented pattern of safety
risks to children that were either overlooked or not fully
considered. The co-neutrals found the quality and depth of reviews
of allegations to be a challenge.

Tricia Howell, DHS' deputy director of foster care and adoptions,
said the comprehensive review of every open resource foster home --
4,000 -- ended in December 2017.

Since then, the agency has developed a quality assurance team for
foster care and adoption. It also has begun conducting random
reviews of foster kinship and adoption homes, which Ms. Howell said
are the areas officials felt needed to be "shored up" in the
approval process.

In kinship homes -- in which relatives take in children who would
otherwise be placed with strangers in foster care -- any history
involving domestic violence, substance abuse or sexual allegations
now are reviewed at a higher level of management, she said.

Resource workers previously contacted families at least quarterly
to update cases, identify concerns or add supports to keep children
safe. Now they meet in person with the family at least quarterly
and talk on the phone at least monthly, Ms. Howell said.

The agency also developed an alert system for injuries to notify
all caseworkers assigned to a home or child. The alert system makes
it easier to identify patterns that may cause concern.

"We have a better handle on the day-to-day activities of the family
and what their stress level is," Ms. Howell said.

Therapeutic foster homes
The co-neutrals report that the state has been unable to increase
the number of therapeutic foster homes and the quality of care
provided to children with behavioral needs in those placements.

The report acknowledges that budget and staff cuts over the past
several years have adversely affected the Developmental
Disabilities Services program and its ability to recruit more
therapeutic homes.

However, DHS spokeswoman Sheree Powell emphasized that therapeutic
foster homes are just one treatment service and aren't needed by
most of the state's children.

Powell said the child-welfare system has matured during the reform
period and is developing continuum of care options for children
with a variety of needs. She said DHS isn't receiving credit for
transitioning the Laura Dester facility to a treatment option for
foster children with co-occurring intellectual disabilities and
severe behavioral challenges.

"We're looking at this from an entire system standpoint and only
being measured on the number of therapeutic foster care homes," Ms.
Powell said.

A DHS assessment two years ago found that therapeutic home families
often lacked the skills and abilities to meet the higher level
behavioral health needs of children.

The agency introduced an enhanced training module six months ago
that focuses on foster families managing behavior on a day-to-day
basis because of the past trauma experienced by the children.

Millie Carpenter, interim child welfare director, said the agency
is developing a Medicaid waiver program for children with
intellectual disabilities to treat them in home or a small
residential setting.

Each child would have an individual plan, which may include a
psychologist, psychiatrist, therapy or behavioral supports.
Carpenter said the ultimate goal is to achieve enough wraparound
service success for the child to either stay in or return home to
benefit further from family support.

"We do find that families become fatigued, and there, quite
frankly, isn't the level of support in the state that we would
desire for children with intellectual disabilities,"
Ms. Carpenter said. [GN]


ONTARIO: Court Certifies Class Action Over Youth Segregation
------------------------------------------------------------
On Dec. 17, 2018, Mr. Justice Perell certified a class action
against the government of Ontario on behalf of all persons who,
while under the age of 18, were placed in Youth Segregation at
Youth Justice Facilities that were directly operated by the
Ministry of Children and Youth Services between Apr. 1, 2004 and
Dec. 17, 2018, including:

-- Bluewater Youth Centre,
-- Brookside Youth Centre;
-- Cecil Facer Youth Centre;
-- Donald Doucet Youth Centre;
-- Invictus Youth Centre;
-- Justice Ronald Lester Youth Centre;
-- Roy McMurtry Youth Centre;
-- Sprucedale Youth Centre;
-- Toronto Youth Assessment Centre

"Youth Segregation" refers to the segregation at one of the above
Youth Justice Facilities of a person under the age of 18 alone in a
designated room or area for more than 6 consecutive hours without
any meaningful human contact. It does not include segregation by
reasons of a lock-down at a Youth Justice Facility and the routine
locking of youth in their rooms overnight at Youth Justice
Facilities, as authorized by statute.

The claim alleges, among other things, that Ontario has been
negligent, breached its fiduciary duties, and violated sections 7,
9 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by
subjecting inmates to Youth Segregation at the above Youth Justice
Facilities.

C.S. has been appointed as the lead representative plaintiff in the
action. While C.S. was under the age of 18, C.S. was incarcerated
at Roy McMurtry Youth Centre and Brookside Youth Centre. C.S.
claims that he was placed in Youth Segregation on multiple
occasions during his incarceration.

Kirk M Baert, Esq. -- kmbaert@kmlaw.ca -- lead counsel at
KoskieMinsky LLP, stated: "The class members are all young people
who are subject to segregation for extended periods of time. This
practice is shocking and unacceptable. We will continue to push the
case forward seeking justice for all class members."

The allegations have not been proven in court. Now that a class
action has been given the approval to go ahead by the Court, the
next step will be for the parties to litigate the case on its
merits.  

KoskieMinsky LLP and StrosbergSassoSutts LLP have been appointed as
class counsel.[GN]


PALM BEACH, FL: School Board May Drug Test Substitute Teachers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn J. Russo, Esq. -- Kathryn.Russo@jacksonlewis.com -- of
Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that a federal appeals court has held that a public school
district may drug test applicants for substitute teacher positions,
concluding that such testing does not violate the Fourth
Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Friedenberg v. School Bd. Of Palm Beach County, 9:17-cv-80221-RLR
(11th Cir. Dec. 20, 2018).

Joan Friedenberg applied for a position as a substitute teacher in
the Palm Beach County School District. Among other things, the
School District required her to take and pass a pre-employment drug
test. She refused to do so. Friedenberg subsequently sued the
School Board in federal court, claiming that the suspicionless drug
testing of applicants violated the Fourth Amendment. She sought
class action relief, describing the putative class as including
"all job applicants for non-safety-sensitive positions with the
Palm Beach County School District." She sought declaratory and
injunctive relief. The district court denied injunctive relief,
noting that the School Board had established a "special need" to
conduct drug testing of substitute teacher applicants because even
"a momentary lapse of attention . . . could be the difference
between life and death," and that the balance of the interests
weighed in the School Board's favor. Ms. Friedenberg appealed.

In reviewing whether injunctive relief was appropriate, the Court
first analyzed whether there was a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits, i.e., whether the drug testing constituted
an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth
Amendment. Given that the drug test was conducted without
individualized suspicion, the School Board was required to
demonstrate a "special need" to conduct the drug testing. The Court
agreed with the School Board that a "special need" existed, given
that the School Board has a "compelling interest in ensuring that
teachers -- including substitutes -- are not habitual drug users."
Among other things, the Court focused on the safety-sensitive
aspects of the substitute teacher's job, including: being alone
with students; monitoring students for safety purposes such as
preventing or stopping fights; reporting and addressing hazards or
other unsafe circumstances; detecting and promptly responding to
student health issues; detecting and reporting student drug use or
possession; and reporting suspected child abuse.

Once the "special need" was established, the Court then weighed the
competing private and governmental interests implicated by the
search. Noting that public school teachers "enter a heavily
regulated field with diminished privacy expectations," the Court
examined the testing protocol adopted by the School District and
the efficacy of the testing regime. The drug testing was performed
in accordance with the requirements of the Florida Administrative
Code, Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-24.005(3), and pursuant to the School
District's written policy. The Court concluded that the urine drug
testing regime was "minimally intrusive" and that the School
District had a "compelling interest" in weeding out applicants who
abuse drugs "in order to better achieve the basic safety and
tutelary obligations of our schools."

In sum, the Court held: "[a]s we see it, ensuring the safety of
millions of schoolchildren in the mandatory supervision and care of
the state, and ensuring and impressing a drug-free environment in
our classrooms, are compelling concerns. Because we recognize today
a special need to conduct such testing, and because the balance of
interests weighs heavily in its favor, we hold that the
suspicionless testing of substitute teacher applicants in Palm
Beach County is permissible. . . ." [GN]


PARBALL NEWCO: Settlement in Slack FLSA Suit Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM SLACK, HARRY STROCK, and EDWARD CHAMPA
Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PARBALL NEWCO LLC dba BALLY'S, PARBALL CORP.,
PARBALL LLC, PHWLV, LLC dba PLANET HOLLYWOOD LAS VEGAS RESORT AND
CASINO, and "JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS" 1 to 50, name fictitious,
actual name and number unknown, Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-02324-JAD-CWH (D. Nev.), Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted (i) the
parties' Joint Motion for an Order Granting Final Approval to Class
Action Settlement, and (ii) the Plaintiffs' Counsel's Unopposed
Motion for Order Granting Proposed Award of Attorneys' Fees and
Costs and Approval of Plaintiff Service Awards.

On Jan. 25, 2019, the Court heard the motions.  Pursuant to the
FLSA, Judge Dorsey granted final approval of the settlement.  She
confirmed the appointment of Leon Greenberg and Dana Sniegocki of
Leon Greenberg Professional Corp. as the class counsel for the
settlement class, and approved their requests for attorneys' fees
of $32,000 and an expenses payment of $2,000 from the Settlement
Fund for their services on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the Class.


She also confirmed the appointment of William Slack, Harry Strock,
and Edward Champa as the Class Representatives and approves, and
directed the payment of $1,000 to each of them, to be paid from the
Settlement Fund, as the Class Representative Service Awards for
prosecuting the case successfully and securing the recovery for the
Class and such awards will be so paid as set forth in the
Stipulation.  The Judge further approved the payment of $700 each
to Paul Trovato, Josianne Mills, and Andrew Craig, who provided
deposition testimony during the discovery process and whose
testimony aided and assisted the Class Counsel in successfully
securing the Settlement for the Class.

Upon entry of the Order, the case will have resulted in a Final
Judgment in respect to all claims and all parties and the Complaint
will be dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/KI75es from Leagle.com.

William Slack & Harry Strock, Plaintiffs, represented by Dana
Sniegocki -- dana@overtimelaw.com -- Leon Greenberg & Leon Marc
Greenberg -- leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com -- Leon Greenberg
Professional Corporation.

Michael Sugarman, Vicky Woodruff, Gurminder Singh, Andrew Craig,
Edward Champa, Tony Exposito, Shawn Kelley, Milton Turner, Scott
Kleven, Lourdes Fear, Hani Toutounji, Michael Willoughby, Steve
Logsdon, Chris Reynolds, Linda Cross, Louis Darrin, Richard Balint,
John A Bigando, Maria Cecilia Bouffard, Nicholas Brancato, Mark
Brasi, Elena Brewer, Cathryn Cai, Chuck Camtan, Wei G Chen, Man
Chen, Donny Cheng, Sovannah Chheng, Brian Corcoran, Travis
Cottrill, Paul Cournoyer, Tina Felps, Richard Fitzpatrick, Debra
Flugstad, Corrie Foley, Vincent Fonner, Arlene Frances, Karl
Francis, Maynor Gonzalez, Xenia Guam, Lorraine Horton, Virginia
Hyatt, Sevan Kassabian, Crystal Labbe, Larry Lemberg, Wai C Leung,
Daniel Liberatore, Cristina Marker, Shelli Martinez, Joe Martinez,
Craig Massimino, Sam Mathavorn, Lynn Mills, Josiane Mills, Gerardo
Navarro, Russell Nelson, Mark Neyman, Anh Kim Nguyen, LaRon O'Neal,
James Owens, Terry Potts, Jim Rafferty, Chris Reyolds, Bob Richey,
Stephanie Robuza, Connie Rohn, Javier Ruiz, Jr., Joseph Russo, Joel
Sanchez, Dawn Sapien, Sherman Shea, Michael Su, Carol Sukert, Tan
Weiling, Alin Tanasecu, Paul J Trovato, Andy Phan Truong, Job
Weiss, Gerri Young-Barnes, Xiao Zhang, Kenneth Gersh & Judy
Steward, Plaintiffs, represented by Leon Marc Greenberg, Leon
Greenberg Professional Corporation.

Parball Newco LLC, doing business as Bally's & PHWLV, LLC, doing
business as Planet Hollywood Las Vegas Resort and Casino,
Defendants, represented by Allison Somers Papadopoulos --
apapadopoulos@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP,
Daniel L. Nash -- dnash@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld, Elayna J. Youchah -- Elayna.Youchah@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis P.C & Nathan Joshua Oleson -- noleson@akingump.com --
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.

Parball Corp. & Parball LLC, Defendants, represented by Allison
Somers Papadopoulos, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP & Elayna J.
Youchah, Jackson Lewis P.C.


PARKWOOD ENTERTAINMENT: Blind Woman Files Discrimination Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Osborne, writing for ABC News, reports that a blind woman has
filed a class action lawsuit against Beyonce Knowles' Parkwood
Entertainment LLC, claiming the singer's website discriminates
against those who are visually impaired.

Mary Conner, who is legally blind, filed the lawsuit in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York -- where both
Beyonce's entertainment company is located and Conner lives -- on
Feb. 3.

The website does not allow blind fans to buy tickets, get tour
updates, buy merchandise or learn more about the pop superstar,
according to the lawsuit.

"Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Parkwood for
their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons," according
to the lawsuit.

"Defendant are denying blind and visually-impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Parkwood provides to their non-disabled customers through
http//:www.Beyonce.com."

The suit cites the Americans with Disabilities Act, signed by
George H.W. Bush in 1990, and New York state law, which "requires
places of public accommodation to ensure access to goods, services,
and facilities by making reasonable accommodations for persons with
disabilities."

Ms. Conner, on behalf of the class, is asking for an injunction
against the website for violating the ADA and in order to take the
necessary steps to make the singer's site accessible to the blind.

The suit also asks for a payout of "compensatory damages in an
amount to be determined by proof, including all applicable
statutory damages and fines."

Ms. Conner is represented by Dan Shaked of the Shaked Law Group in
Brooklyn.

ABC News reached out to Beyonce's representatives for comment on
Feb. 4, but have not heard back.

ABC News' Andrea Dresdale contributed to this report. [GN]


PEPSICO INC: Removed Riddle Case to Middle District of Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pepsico, Inc. removed the case captioned KEVIN AND VALERIE RIDDLE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. PEPSICO, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2019-CA-000296 (Filed Jan. 9, 2019) from the State Court of
Hillsborough County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on Jan. 30, 2019. The Middle District of
Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.: 8:19-cv-00250-SDM-TGW to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege that Pepsico violated the Consolidated
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 and the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 because it failed to provide
its health plan participants and beneficiaries with legally
sufficient required notices of their right to continued health care
coverage under COBRA and ERISA.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602

Attorney for Defendant:

          Alex S. Drummond, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          adrummond@seyfarth.com
          1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3958
          Telephone: (404) 885-1500
          Facsimile: (404) 892-7056

PRIMESOURCE HEALTH: Pfefferkorn Suit Has Conditional Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Erin Pfefferkorn, et al., the
Plaintiff, vs. PrimeSource Health Group LLC, et al., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01223 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 29, 2019), the Hon. Judge
John Robert Blakey entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on Jan. 29, 2019,
the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification.
The Court also grants Plaintiffs' request to equitably toll the
statute of limitations as of June 29, 2017, for all Plaintiffs who
joined this case after that date and for all opt−in plaintiffs
who have yet to join.  Before the parties issue notice, the
Defendants shall produce to Plaintiffs two lists (in Microsoft
Excel format) of all persons employed by PrimeSource (1) as
Clinical Assistants, and (2) as Patient Assistants, from June 29,
2014 through present. The lists should contain each persons name,
address, email address, and dates of employment. The lists should
be produced to Plaintiffs within 7 days of this order. The parties
are directed to meet and confer regarding revised notices that
accord with this Courts rulings. The parties should file the
revised notices within 7 days of this order. The parties are also
directed to meet and confer about case management dates. The
parties should file a joint status report with a proposed case
schedule to include deadlines for the close of discovery,
dispositive motions, and motions for decertification of the
collective action within 7 days of this order. The status hearing
set for Jan. 31, 2019 is stricken and reset to Feb. 19, 2019 at
9:45 a.m. in Courtroom 1203.[CC]

RASH CURTIS: Court Denies Bid for Sanctions in McMillion TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SANDRA McMILLION, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. RASH CURTIS &
ASSOCIATES, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-03396-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
terminating sanctions.

Plaintiffs McMillion, Jessica Adekoya, and Ignacio Perez bring the
class action against Rash Curtis, alleging that the Defendant
called the Plaintiffs and the class members without consent.  On
Sept. 6, 2017, the Court certified four classes with Perez as the
class representative, both for injunctive relief pursuant to Rule
23(b)(2) and damages pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3).2

On Feb. 2, 2018, the Court ruled on parties cross-motions for
summary judgment.  In that order, it granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for partial summary judgment regarding the dialer systems defendant
used to make the alleged phone calls and held that those dialers
constitute Automatic Telephone Dialing Systems within the meaning
of the TCPA.  It also granted the Plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment on the issue of prior express consent regarding
Perez and held that Rash Curtis never possessed prior express
consent to call Perez.  On June 18, 2018, the Court denied Rash
Curtis's motion to reconsider that summary judgment order.

On Aug. 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for
terminating sanctions based upon the allegation that Nick Keith,
Robert Keith, and Dan Correa, through their testimony regarding
calls placed to phone numbers found in fields 5 through 10,
committed coordinated perjury on the most central issue in the
case.  The Plaintiffs filed their motion along with the testimony
of Colin B. Weir, which contained his statistical analysis of the
call logs produced by Rash Curtis6 that the Plaintiffs claim
reflect over 14 million "matches" between phone calls made by Rash
Curtis and phone numbers listed in phone fields 5 through 10 of the
Defendant's account database.

The Defendant's account database supports storage of up to 10
telephone number fields for each account.  Phone fields 1 through 4
are reserved for phone numbers that the Defendant purportedly
receives from its creditor-clients, whereas phone numbers obtained
via skip tracing are loaded into phone fields 5 through 10, a
policy which it instituted sometime in 2013.  The Defendant's
collection managers chose which telephone number fields, and
therefore which numbers contained therein, are loaded into the
Dialers according to criteria set for any given call campaign.

Defendant opposes the instant motion for sanctions on the grounds
that Weir's methodology is flawed because he did not disqualify
from what was considered a `match' calls that were placed to phone
numbers not only stored in fields 5 to 10 but also stored in phone
fields 1 to 4, or calls placed where Rash Curtis separately got the
number not from skip tracing or otherwise obtained the prior
express consent of the called party.  However, at the time of their
opposition, the Defendant had not produced, in full, the phone data
held in fields 1 through 4.

A discovery dispute ensued in which the Plaintiffs averred that
they had no reason to suspect that there were any potential matches
between phone numbers in phone fields 5 through 10 and phone fields
1 through 4 and did not raise the issue when the account storage
data was originally produced because they had assumed that the data
for phone fields 1 through 4 was either non-existent or irrelevant.
The Defendant countered that the Plaintiffs' counsel never
requested the data in fields 1 through 4 and had confirmed to the
Court on several occasions that plaintiffs were only requesting
fields 5 through 10, as well as the associated account number and
debtor name.

On Sept. 27, 2018, after hearing oral argument, Magistrate Judge
Jaqueline Scott Corley found that to allow the Defendant to
withhold documents central to its defense under these circumstances
would be contrary to the purpose of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to secure the just determination of every action and
proceeding, and ordered the records produced at the Plaintiffs'
expense.  On Oct. 11, 2018, the Defendant moved for relief from
Judge Corley's non-dispositive pretrial order.  The Plaintiffs did
not file any response or opposition thereto.

The parties subsequently filed several discovery letter briefs, two
from the Defendant on Oct. 3, 2018 and Oct. 10, 2018 and one from
the Plaintiffs on Oct. 11, 2018, regarding a dispute among the
parties as to precisely what the Defendant needed to produce in
light of Judge Corley's Sept. 27, 2018 order.  Specifically, the
dispute concerned whether the Defendant needed to produce
"historical" records of account files as they existed in November
2017 or the Defendant's account records for all previously produced
accounts as they are kept today.

Despite the dispute, the Defendant agreed to produce both sets of
records and completed its production on Oct. 19, 2018.  On Nov. 6,
2018, pthe Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to enter into the
record in support of their motion for sanctions a supplemental
declaration from Weir regarding his analysis of the newly produced
data.

Judge Rogers finds that the Plaintiffs focus primarily on
terminating sanctions.  Such sanctions violate due process when
imposed merely for punishment of an infraction that did not
threaten to interfere with the rightful decision of the case.  The
Defendant has not attempted to "use" the allegedly false statements
during summary judgement, or at any other juncture.  Accordingly,
she says the Plaintiffs have failed to show how the allegedly false
statements could have interfered with the disposition of the case.

Although she does not agree with the Plaintiffs that the issue of
whether the Defendant called numbers in phone fields 5 through 10
is the only issue left to be proved at trial, the Judge finds that
it is certainly central to determining whether Rash Curtis violated
the TCPA as to a member of the class by autodialing a cellular
phone number which it obtained via skip tracing and did not either
separately acquire via another method or receive prior express
consent of the called party.

Accordingly, although there is a nexus between the alleged
misconduct and the matters in controversy for the reasons stated,
she finds that the Plaintiffs have not established that the alleged
misstatements constituted an extraordinary circumstance resulting
from willfulness, bad faith, or fault, which could not be addressed
by lesser sanctions, as required to support terminating sanctions.
Therefore, to impose terminating sanctions would constitute an
unnecessary and drastic substitute for the adversary process of
litigation.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rogers denied the Plaintiffs'
motion for sanctions.  The Order terminates Docket Numbers 211,
212, 241, and 247.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/gQdMHT from Leagle.com.

Sandra McMillion, Plaintiff, represented by Yeremey O. Krivoshey --
ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- Bursor Fisher, P.A. & Lawrence Timothy
Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Jessica Adekoya & Ignacio Perez, on Behalf of Themselves and all
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Yeremey O.
Krivoshey, Bursor Fisher, P.A., Blair E. Reed, Bursor and Fisher,
P.A., L. Timothy Fisher, Bursor & Fisher P.A. & Lawrence Timothy
Fisher, Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Rash Curtis & Associates, Defendant, represented by Andrew M.
Steinheimer, Ellis Law Group, LLP, Anthony Paul John Valenti --
AValenti@EllisLawGrp.com -- Ellis Law Group, LLP & Mark Ewell Ellis
-- mellis@ellislawgrp.com -- Ellis Law Group, LLP.

Kourtney Richardson, Movant, represented by Yeremey O. Krivoshey,
Bursor Fisher, P.A.


RCR TOMLINSON: EGL to Acquire Energy Assets Amid Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Williamson, writing for Stockhead, reports that the
Environmental Group is picking up gear in the RCR Tomlinson fire
sale, following the latter's descent into voluntary administration
in November last year.

The smaller company (ASX:EGL), which runs a gas turbine engineering
company, and water and air pollution divisions, is buying RCR's
(ASX:RCR) energy assets.

Those assets include the original Tomlinson Boilers arm, which
handles maintenance and installation of renewable- and
conventionally-fired generators and water heaters.

RCR went into voluntary administration last year after the weight
of cost blowouts at its solar projects became too heavy for the
troubled company to carry any longer.

It came two days after a class action was launched by shareholders
angry about a "catastrophic decline in their share value".

The Environmental Group expects to have the assets in hand, and
will pay for it out of existing debt.

RCR's energy services made sales of $21.5m in fiscal 2018 and
earnings before tax and interest of $1.5m.

The Environmental Group made sales of $32m in the same period and
profit of $1.5m, down 9 per cent on the year before.

"The acquisition is part of EGL's strategy to establish a footprint
in each Australian state and build an environmental business to
improve air quality, reduce carbon emissions, enhance waste to
energy production and lift water quality," the company said.

"RCR Energy Service is an essential link in our strategy to build a
bio/waste-to-energy platform as part of the technology acquired
enables a combination of gasses and waste energy sources to be used
to produce electrical power or steam."

The company has been contacted for comment.

The Environmental Group shares opened flat at 3.5c on Jan. 7
morning. [GN]


SEMPRA ENERGY: Plumley Appeals S.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Richard Berkowitz, Stephen Graham and Craig M. Plumley
filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Craig
Plumley, et al. v. Sempra Energy, et al., Case No.
3:16-cv-00512-BEN-AGS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, San Diego.

The appellate case is captioned as Craig Plumley, et al. v. Sempra
Energy, et al., Case No. 19-55121, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Sempra Energy
is a publicly traded energy-services holding company whose
operating units invest in, develop, and operate energy
infrastructure, and provide gas and electricity services to
customers in North and South America.  Southern California Gas
Company (SCG) is one of Sempra's operating units.  SCG is a natural
gas distribution utility and operates over 20,000 square miles
throughout Central and Southern California.  SCG's operation
includes the storage of natural gas. It owns four natural gas
storage facilities, the largest located at the Aliso Canyon, which
contains approximately 115 underground wells. One of its well, the
SS-25 had a gas leak.

Sempra/SCG discovered the Aliso Canyon gas leak at the SS-25 well
on or about October 23, 2015, when residents in the nearby Porter
Ranch neighborhood reported what they believed to be a home with a
major gas leak.  Sempra/SCG did not immediately report the gas leak
to the appropriate government agencies, but instead, SCG went
door-to-door reassuring residents that all was under control and
that no danger existed.  Three days later, on October 26, 2015,
Sempra/SCG reported the gas leak to the appropriate authorities.

The gas leak persisted for months. On December 4, 2015, Sempra/SCG
began constructing a relief well.  On January 6, 2016, Governor
Brown declared or made a proclamation of a state of emergency
regarding the gas leak. The proclamation directed additional
immediate actions to respond to the leak, and ordered a
comprehensive independent review of the safety of the storage wells
and the air quality of the surrounding community.  The proclamation
also charged SCG with payment of the costs related to the gas leak,
as well as the funding of a program to mitigate the emissions.
Sempra/SCG sealed the gas leak on February 18, 2016.

Sempra and SCG have been jointly or separately named as defendants
in at least 138 lawsuits related to the gas leak, including this
lawsuit.  The first amended complaint claims violations of Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by February 27, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on March 29, 2019;

   -- Appellants Richard Berkowitz, Stephen Graham and Craig M.
      Plumley's opening brief is due on May 8, 2019;

   -- Appellees Dennis V. Arriola, Debra L. Reed, Sempra Energy
      and Southern California Gas Company's answering brief is
      due on June 7, 2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants CRAIG M. PLUMLEY, STEPHEN GRAHAM and RICHARD
BERKOWITZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, are represented by:

          Adam M. Apton, Esq.
          Adam McCall, Esq.
          Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          E-mail: AApton@zlk.com
                  amccall@zlk.com
                  nporritt@zlk.com

               - and -

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          Jennifer Banner Sobers, Esq.
          Matthew L. Tuccillo, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  jbsobers@pomlaw.com
                  mltuccillo@pomlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees SEMPRA ENERGY and SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS
COMPANY are represented by:

          Robert Elliott Gooding, Jr., Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 830-0600
          E-mail: robert.gooding@morganlewis.com

Defendant-Appellee DEBRA L. REED is represented by:

          Jack P. DiCanio, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP
          525 University Avenue
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (650) 470-4500
          E-mail: jack.dicanio@skadden.com

               - and -

          Allen Louis Lanstra, Jr., Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 687-5513
          E-mail: allen.lanstra@skadden.com

Defendant-Appellee DENNIS V. ARRIOLA is represented by:

          Matthew W. Close, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          E-mail: mclose@omm.com


SOGOU INC: Johnson Fistel Files Securities Class Actions vs 3 Cos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP disclosed that class actions have commenced on
behalf of shareholders of the following companies:

Sogou Inc.
Immunomedics, Inc.
Ternium S.A.

Sogou Inc. (SOGO)

Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Sogou Inc. (NYSE:
SOGO) pursuant and/or traceable to Sogou's November 9, 2017 Initial
Public Offering ("IPO"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Sogou investors under the federal securities laws.

According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with Sogou's IPO was materially false and
misleading and failed to disclose that: (1) Chinese regulators were
analyzing Sogou for regulatory action for various reasons,
including an increase in counterfeit goods sold by Sogou merchants,
and Sogou's existing software and procedures were insufficient to
safeguard against compliance violations; (2) Sogou's cost of
revenues were skyrocketing primarily due to significant increases
in Traffic Acquisition Cost, a primary driver of Sogou's cost of
revenues; (3) Sogou was going to alter its strategy concerning
smart hardware and push its artificial intelligence ("AI")
capabilities to increase product competitiveness; (4) as a result
of altering its smart hardware strategy, Sogou decided to phase out
non-AI-enabled hardware products, such as legacy models of Teemo
Smart Watch, and transition to use products integrating AI
technologies, which Sogou hoped would reduce its hardware revenues
in the second half of 2018; and (5) as a result, Sogou's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Shareholders have until March 11, 2019, to seek appointment as a
lead plaintiff. There is no cost or obligation to you. Your ability
to share in any future recovery is not dependent upon serving as a
lead plaintiff.  

If you are interested in learning more about your legal rights and
remedies, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at
619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

Immunomedics, Inc. (IMNU)

Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Immunomedics,
Inc. (NASDAQ: IMMU) from August 23, 2018 through December 20, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that
the FDA cited Immunomedics in August 2018 for a host of violations
observed at its Morris Plains, NJ facility. According to the
complaint, these violations included the manipulation of bioburden
samples, misrepresentation of an integrity test procedure in the
batch record, and the backdating of batch records.

Shareholders have until February 25, 2019, to seek appointment as a
lead plaintiff. There is no cost or obligation to you. Your ability
to share in any future recovery is not dependent upon serving as a
lead plaintiff.

If you are a long-term shareholder of Immunomedics continuously
holding shares before August 23, 2018, you may have standing to
hold Immunomedics harmless from the alleged harm caused by the
officers and directors of the Company by making them personally
responsible. You may also be able to assist in reforming the
Company's corporate governance to prevent future wrongdoing.

If you are interested in learning more about your legal rights and
remedies, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at
619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number.There
is no cost or obligation to you.

Ternium S.A.

Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Ternium S.A.
(NYSE: TX) from May 1, 2014 through November 27, 2018, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

According to the lawsuit, Defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (1) Defendant Rocca,
Ternium's Chairman, knew that one of his company's executives paid
cash to government officials from 2009 to 2012 to expedite
compensation payments for the sale of Ternium'sSidor unit; (2) this
conduct would lead Rocca to be charged in a graft scheme and
subject Ternium, its affiliates, and/or its executives to
heightened governmental scrutiny; and (3) as a result, Ternium's
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.

Shareholders have until January 28, 2019, to seek appointment as a
lead plaintiff. There is no cost or obligation to you. Your ability
to share in any future recovery is not dependent upon serving as a
lead plaintiff.

If you are interested in learning more about your legal rights and
remedies, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at
619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

         Jim Baker, Esq.
         Johnson Fistel, LLP
         Telephone: 619-814-4471
         Email: jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]


STONEMOR PARTNERS: Continues to Defend Anderson Suit in E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
StoneMor Partners L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend itself in a case entitled, Anderson v. StoneMor Partners,
LP, et al., No. 2:16-cv-06111 pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and filed on
November 21, 2016.

The plaintiffs in this case (as well as Klein v. StoneMor Partners,
LP, et al., No. 2:16-cv-06275, filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on December 2, 2016,
which has been consolidated with this case) brought an action on
behalf of a putative class of the holders of Partnership units and
allege that the Partnership made misrepresentations to investors in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by, among other things and in general, failing to clearly disclose
the use of proceeds from debt and equity offerings by making
allegedly false or misleading statements concerning (a) the
Partnership's strength or health in connection with a particular
quarter's distribution announcement, (b) the connection between
operations and distributions and (c) the Partnership's use of cash
from equity offerings and its credit facility.

Plaintiffs sought damages from the Partnership and certain of its
officers and directors on behalf of the class of Partnership
unitholders, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.

Lead plaintiffs have been appointed in this case and filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on April 24, 2017.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss that Consolidated Amended
Complaint on June 8, 2017. The motion was granted on October 31,
2017, and the court entered judgment dismissing the case on
November 30, 2017. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on December
29, 2017. Oral argument was held before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit on November 1, 2018.  

The Partnership expects the court to render a decision within
90-120 days of the argument, but there can be no assurance as to
when the court will issue its ruling.

StoneMor Partners L.P., together with its subsidiaries, owns and
operates cemeteries and funeral homes in the United States. It
operates through two segments, Cemetery Operations and Funeral Home
Operations. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in
Trevose, Pennsylvania.


TELACU MANAGEMENT: Sanders Seeks Payment of Overtime Wage
---------------------------------------------------------
COTRINA SANDERS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TELACU MANAGEMENT, a California
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00766 (C.D. Cal., Jan.
31, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Virgin Islands Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, TELACU failed to pay overtime as
required by FLSA and VIFLSA. Instead, TELACU paid Cotrina Sanders,
and other workers like her, at the same hourly rate for all hours
worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek and 8 hours a
day. This practice violates the overtime requirements of the FLSA,
and the VIFLSA, the lawsuit says.

TELACU is a provider of construction management services to capital
improvement projects throughout the United States and its
territories.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          409 S. Fair Oaks Ave.
          P.O. Box 540907 (77254)
          Pasadena, CA 91105
          Telephone: 713 999 5228
          Facsimile: 713 999 1187
          E-mail: matt@parmet.law

               - and -

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

TEXAS: Court Dismisses J.R. Gray's Suit for Lack of Jurisdiction
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gray H. Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, dismissed the case, JOHN
ROBERT GRAY, Petitioner, v. LORIE DAVIS, Respondent, Civil Action
No. H-18-4815 (S.D. Tex.).

The Petitioner, a state inmate proceeding pro se, filed the section
2254 habeas petition challenging the execution of his 1988
conviction and 27-year sentence for indecency with a child.  After
reviewing the pleadings under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the Court
concludes that the case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
as an unauthorized successive petition.

The Petitioner claims in the proceeding that (1) he has been
unlawfully and jointly confined under state and federal custody
since Aug. 9, 2014; (2) the United States and State of Texas
unlawfully interfered with his right to over "90 years" of good
time credit for purposes of mandatory supervised release; (3) the
federal and state courts improperly reviewed his earlier state
habeas cases; and (4) he is entitled to "class action" relief for
unlawful joint detentions by the State, the U.S. Attorney General's
Office, the Department of Justice, and federal district courts.  As
habeas relief, the Petitioner seeks immediate release from state
prison with orders for correction of certain records.

Judge Miller finds that the Plaintiff raised, or could have raised,
these or similar claims in his unsuccessful 2016 section 2254
habeas petition and appeal.  The primary distinction between the
2016 and the instant petition is that the Petitioner adds claims
against the United States for "joint federal and state custody"
based on an unidentified federal funding statute he "discovered" in
2017.  His pending claims against the State must be dismissed as
the claims presented in a second or successive habeas corpus
application under Section 2254 that were presented in a prior
application.  To the extent petitioner is raising new claims
challenging the execution of his 1988 conviction and sentence, the
claims are successive.  The Petitioner does not state, and public
records for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals do not show, that he
has obtained authorization from the Fifth Circuit to file a
successive habeas challenge to his 1988 conviction or execution of
his sentence.  Consequently, the Judge holds that the Court is
without jurisdiction to consider his claims.

To any extent the Petitioner's claim of "joint custody" could be
construed as a section 2241 habeas claim, the Judge finds that the
Petitioner's allegations and public state prison records show that
he is in custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
pursuant to a state conviction.  Neither the Petitioner nor
available public records show that he currently is in federal
custody, and no grounds for section 2241 jurisdiction are shown.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Miller dismissed the lawsuit for lack
of jurisdiction as an unauthorized successive habeas petition.  He
denied as moot any and all pending motions.  He denied a
certificate of appealability.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/K4Q0dq from Leagle.com.

John Gray, Petitioner, pro se.

Lorie Davis-Director TDCJ-CID, Respondent, represented by Edward
Larry Marshall, Office of the Attorney General.


THREE STARON: Ortiz Seeks Payment of Minimum Wage
-------------------------------------------------
MARIO CESAR VARGAS ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THREE STARON FIRST INC.
(D/B/A 3 STAR DINER), IOANNIS (A.K.A. JOHN) KIRIAKAKIS, GEORGIA I.
KIRIAKAKIS and JIMMY KIRIAKAKIS, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00928 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the New
York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants own, operate, or control
a diner, located at 1462 1st Avenue, New York, NY 10021 under the
name "3 Star Diner". Vargas is a former delivery worker of the
Defendants. However, he was required to spend a considerable part
of his work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not
limited to dishwashing, stocking deliveries, preparing food,
cleaning, sweeping and mopping and taking out the trash
("non-tipped duties").

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants without appropriate minimum
wage compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate record-keeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours
worked at the straight rate of pay. The Defendants employed and
accounted for Vargas as a delivery worker in their payroll, but in
actuality his duties required a significant amount of time spent
performing the alleged non-tipped duties.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

TOOTSIE ROLL: Beasley Suit Alleges Breach of Implied Warranty
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maxine Beasley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-07724
(N.D. Calif., December 26, 2018), is brought against the Defendant
for violations of the Unfair Competition Law and for breach of
implied warranty.

The Plaintiff alleges that Tootsie Industries unlawfully made the
Tootsie products with partially hydrogenated oil, an unsafe,
unapproved food additive. Unless otherwise stated, references to
the Tootsie products only include the Tootsie products during the
period they contained PHO, ending around 2016. The Tootsie Products
were sold in stores throughout California.

The Plaintiff Maxine Beasley is a citizen of California who
repeatedly purchased the Tootsie Products for personal and
household consumption.

The Defendant Tootsie Industries is a Virginia corporation
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Tootsie Products are sold in
stores throughout California. Tootsie Industries owns,
manufactures, distributes, and sells the Tootsie Products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
      Andrew C. Hamilton, Esq.
      THE WESTON FIRM
      1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
      San Diego, CA 92110
      Tel: (619) 798-2006
      Fax: (619) 343-2789
      E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com
              andrew@westonfirm.com


TOTAL CARD: Stephens Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
PAUL STEPHENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. TOTAL CARD, INC., CAVALRY PORTFOLIO
SERVICES a.k.a. CAVALRY SPV I, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00225-BEN-BLM (S.D. Fla., Jan. 31, 2019), seeks to recover
damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendants with regard to their unlawful attempts to collect a debt
allegedly owed by Plaintiff, in violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, over four years ago, the Plaintiff
allegedly incurred financial obligations to Capital One Bank. These
alleged obligations were for money, property or their equivalent,
which is due or owing, or alleged to be due or owing, from a
natural person to another person and are therefore a "debt" as that
term is defined by California Civil Code section 1788.2(d), and a
"consumer debt" as that term is defined by California Civil Code
section 1788.2(f) and section 1692a(5).

Sometime thereafter, but before March 2018, Capital One Bank sold
the debt to Cavalry, which in turn retained Total Card for
collection. Total Card was an employee and/or agent of Cavalry
acting within the course and scope of its employment and/or agency.
Total Card's conduct was on behalf of and with the authorization of
Cavalry in a coordinated effort to collect a debt from Plaintiff.
Consequently, Total Card's illegal actions were the responsibility
of Cavalry both directly and vicariously under Respondeat Superior,
as well as other vicarious liability theories. Therefore, Cavalry
is liable for Total Card's unlawful conduct discussed herein.

On or about, March 5, 2018, Total Card sent an initial form
collection letter demanding payment of the debt, and stated that
satisfying this obligation would be "the right thing" to do. In
addition, the letter made various offers to resolve the account,
claiming that the offers would result in savings.

The Defendants' letter however, failed to state that Total Card
could not also sue on 13 the debt; indeed, Defendants could not sue
to collect the debt because it was time-barred by the statute of
limitations, both federally and in the State of California.
Nonetheless, Total Card's letter stated Cavalry "will not sue"
rather than it "cannot" sue. Therefore, the letter implies that
Cavalry still has the option to take those actions, and that it was
simply choosing not to do so. In addition, the letter failed to
warn that making any payment on the debt would restart the statute
of limitations. Defendants' failure to disclose that neither
Defendant could sue is material. The lack of proper disclosure
leaves consumers without adequate information to decide how to
treat the debt collection letter at issue. Such misleading
statements therefore cause consumers to believe payment of a debt
is an obligation that needs to be resolved, and/or that payment
would result in the alleged savings. In fact, payment on the debt,
as in this case, is detrimental to consumers as it reinstates the
expiration of the statute of limitations on a debt, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Josh B. Swigart, Esq.
          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
                  yana@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222-7429
          Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
          E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com

TRAININGWHEEL CORP: Freeman et al. Suit Moved to M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A case, KATRINA FREEMAN and AIREANNE CLARK, individually and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
TRAININGWHEEL CORPORATION, LLC A/K/A TRAININGWHEEL, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01932, was removed from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware from the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers) on Jan. 30,
2019. The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-00052-SPC-UAM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Sheri Polster Chappell.

The Plaintiffs seek all available relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, alleging that they and other similarly
situated consultants were improperly classified as independent
contractors, and, as a result, did not receive overtime pay for
hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Daniel R. Miller, Esq.
          K & L GATES, LLP
          210 Sixth Ave
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2613

               - and -

          Olena Savytska, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: osavytska@llrlaw.com
                  info@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC
          1818 Market St No. 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215 875-3000
          E-mail: sschalman-bergen@bm.net

               - and -

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Alexandra Piazza, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC
          1818 Market St Ste 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6305
          Telephone: (215) 875-4656
          Facsimile: (215) 875-5704
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  apiazza@bm.net

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Daniel Charles Herr, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL C. HERR LLC
          1225 North King Street, Suite 1000
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 483-7060
          Facsimile: (302) 483-7065
          E-mail: DHerr@dherrlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason Gunter, Esq.
          GUNTER FIRM
          1514 Broadway Ste 101
          Fort Myers, FL 33901-3006
          Telephone: 239 334-7017
          E-mail: jason@gunterfirm.com

UBER TECHN: Canadian Drivers' Class Action Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
Graham Rapier, writing for Business Insider, reports that the court
rulings against Uber are stacking up.

As the company races towards an initial public offering this year,
a number of outstanding lawsuits by drivers unhappy with their
status as independent contractors could weigh on the IPO.

A judge in Ontario's highest court said in a ruling that Uber has
used its (technically) optional arbitration clause, one that
forbids drivers from bringing court actions against the company, to
"take advantage of its drivers, who are clearly vulnerable to the
market strength of Uber."

The ruling allows the suit, lead by driver David Heller, to proceed
in its attempts to certify the group of drivers as a cohesive group
and attain the class status of a class action lawsuit.

Under Uber Canada's terms and conditions, drivers who want to
pursue arbitration for any disputes against the company have to do
so overseas, in the Netherlands, and pay $14,500 up front to begin
the proceedings. Those requirements are "unconscionable" and
"invalid" the court said.

Michael Wright, the lawyer for the plaintiffs in the case, said
he's never seen anything like Uber's arbitration requirements in
his career.

"This doesn't make it difficult for people to pursue arbitration,"
he said in an interview. "It makes it impossible."

Uber is reviewing the court's decision, it said. "We are proud to
offer a flexible earning opportunity to tens of thousands of
drivers throughout Ontario," spokesperson Josh McConnell said in an
email.

Canada has been a tricky market for Uber, but is also the hearth of
one some of its newest- and fastest-growing businesses. In
Montreal, where it faced stiff backlash from taxi drivers and
operated illegally for some time, its offices were raided by
investigators in 2015 after years of tension. But in the largest
city of Toronto, it's quickly staffing up an office to handle
things like grocery delivery and more Uber Eats expansion.

Arbitration has been a headache for Uber outside of Canada, too.
While its policies for arbitration differ in the US, most notably
in that the company must pay an arbiters fee to begin proceedings,
drivers there are also prohibited from taking legal action against
the company through the courts.

In December, a group of more than 12,000 drivers filed a lawsuit
against the company, saying it has refused to begin their
arbitration processes. Even if it were to begin paying the fees on
their disputes, working through all of the claims could take up to
a decade.

And in Britain, a court in December sided with U.K. drivers in a
decision that could give them a type of employment status, and thus
be entitled to some benefits like paid vacations or a minimum
wage.

"I think the message here is for companies," Lior Samfiru, another
of the plaintiff's lawyers, told Canada's Financial Post. "If
you're going to operate in Ontario, if you're going to operate in
Canada, you have to abide by our laws . . . You have to play by the
same rules as everyone else." [GN]


UNITED STATES: Burleson Tea Party Receives IRS Settlement Checks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Smith, writing for Cleburne Times-Review, reports that Justice
both was and was not served, former Texas Patriots Tea Party
president Barry Schlech said. Either way, the Burleson situated tea
party just received IRS settlement checks totalling $24,330. That
said, Schlech and other members contend, it's more about the
principle of the matter than the monetary award.

The case, which stretched from spring of 2013 until recently,
proved both historic and taxing, Mr. Schlech said.

"We're just a local grassroots organization that made history in
that not many have sued the IRS successfully though I know there
have been quite a few individuals and groups who wish they could,"
Mr. Schlech said. "It was also a vulnerable and risky situation for
us but we decided to go bold because we believed we were on the
right side of the law and they were wrong.

TPTP board member Jami Shelton credited Mr. Schlech's tenacity
through the bureaucratic thicket of the process.

"A lot of the other tea parties in the suit dropped out along the
way but Barry stuck to it like a bulldog throughout," Shelton
said.

Current TPTP President Brendan Bagnell agreed.

"Barry was the lynch pin in my opinion through this whole process
for TPTP and the other organizations involved in the suit," Mr.
Bagnell said. "He was instrumental in many ways. In fact, I believe
the lawyers used much of his testimony and research for the basis
of the case."

It wasn't always easy.

"There were several times when we were very discouraged, but we
kept at it," Mr. Schlech said. "A couple of TPTP board members
resigned because they didn't like the publicity. But most of us
[through several boards] stuck to it."

The original lawsuit included 10 named, including TPTP, and several
hundred unnamed plaintiffs all of which are tea party and/or
conservative leaning organizations.

By the time the class action settlement finalized only TPTP and
four other named plaintiffs remained in addition to several hundred
unnamed plaintiffs still involved.

Join together

Formed in 2010 and created as a Texas non-profit corporation in
September that same year, TPTP includes members from Johnson,
Tarrant and Hood counties.

The organization filed taxes in 2010 and 2011 but applied for
501(c)(4) tax exemption status in 2012

"Usually IRS approvals are fairly rapid, maybe six weeks or so,"
Mr. Schlech said.

Not so for TPTP.

"After two rounds of questions from the IRS that delayed our
approval for over a year, we decided to pursue one of the several
lawsuits that were being formed in 2013," Mr. Schlech said. "I was
the vice president of communications for TPTP and interviewed
several law firms about their lawsuits and finally chose to join
the NorCal Tea Party vs. IRS lawsuit."

The TPTP board appointed Mr. Schlech as chief correspondent on the
issue, a duty he maintained from 2013 to now. His chief duties
involved handling communications between the board and attorneys
representing TPTP and the other groups involved in the case.

"I was deposed by IRS lawyers twice over that period for two days,"
Mr. Schlech said. "It was my testimony that helped solidify our
case as a class action lawsuit. My testimony confirmed that it was
the IRS that created this special class of targeted conservative
groups. I prepared hundreds of documents defending TPTP's
activities, speakers, motivations and political involvement."

TPTP is neither a Republican nor a partisan organization, Shelton
said.

"We stand for fiscal and personal responsibility, which is
something that affects everyone whether they're Republican,
Democrat, Libertarian or independent," Mr. Shelton said. "A lot of
Democrats, for example, are fiscally responsible but maybe socially
liberal. We have some of all in our group, I believe. We don't
check a person's party preference at the door.

"But we're about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which,
again, affects everyone. We host a lot of great speakers and get
into informational and historical issues, award a scholarship do
other things to help spread information and benefit our
community."

At issue

The suit maintained that the IRS unfairly targeted conservative
groups and "weaponized the agency" against such groups based on
ideology and political preference, Mr. Schlech said.

Such violates the First Amendment rights for freedom of speech and
association and the Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful
and/or unreasonable searches, according to the suit.

Although the various tea parties and other groups involved
stretched across the country and formed for various reasons, they
had one commonality, according to the suit, that being dissent of
the policies and ideologies of the then current Executive Branch of
the U.S. Government, according to the case.

"Because [the groups'] primary purposes are charitable or to
promote the common good and general welfare of the citizens of
their respective communities, the dissenting groups sought
recognition of exemption form taxation by the IRS  under Section
501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) or the IRS Code," according to the suit.
"However, the IRS and/or its agents targeted the dissenting groups
for intensive and intrusive scrutiny, probing pervasively into
their members' associations, speech, activities and beliefs."

TPTP and other groups endured years of delay and expense while
awaiting recognition of their tax exemption requests, according to
the suit.

TPTP couldn't have done it alone, Mr. Schlech said.

"We were lucky that another benevolent conservative group, the
Citizens for Self-Governance, was funding the lawsuit,"
Mr. Schlech said. "We would never have had the cash to do this. The
CSG didn't have any involvement with the attorneys or us, or our
decisions during the lawsuit."

Members of several of the organizations involved gave depositions
to IRS attorneys and attorneys made many presentations to judges
but the case settled before going to court.

The named and unnamed plaintiffs involved each received checks for
$14,330, Mr. Schlech said. The five named plaintiffs, including
TPTP, each received an additional $10,000 check for their
leadership efforts during the suit, he said.

Although he remains involved with the organization, Mr. Schlech
stepped down from his leadership role in November and therefore
said he's unsure how TPTP plans to use the money.

"It will be up to the current board and [Bagnell] to decide what
they will do with the $24,000," Mr. Schlech said. "I'm confident
they will do something significant and continue to be a credit to
our community."

Shelton added that even though the matter never reached trial the
IRS were obviously wrong because they agreed to pay. Shelton added
that it's more about the principle of a governmental agency
attempting to squelch free thought.

Mr. Schlech said he worked as hard as he ever has during the case,
in addition to working his actual job, but called the efforts of
himself and others worth it.

"I think [TPTP benefitted from the publicity and will continue to
do so," Mr. Schlech said. "It offered us courage that we could make
a difference in the face of tyranny of our federal government. For
the country it was worth it. A federal agency should not be
weaponized against a certain class of citizens. Conservatives were
dealt a serious blow during the Obama Administration and this
lawsuit proved how devious and political the IRS was during this
time."

As to whether justice was served.

"Yes, the IRS was punished with a $3.5 million settlement, though
that ultimately came from the taxpayers," Mr. Schlech said. "But no
in that the Obama Administration never admitted their guilt nor
apologized for what they did. And not one of the defendants, such
as Lois Lerner, was ever brought to trial or punished. But, as I've
said before, we never did this for the money. It was always the
principle."

Mr. Schlech noted that officials for the IRS under Trump apologized
for the situation even though they had nothing to do with it.

Mr. Bagnell said TPTP also received their 501(c)(4) designation in
September and that it was retroactively applied, a development Mr.
Schlech characterized as unprecedented.

"Approval took five years," Mr. Schlech said. "But the IRS approved
our application back to our founding date of Sept. 1, 2010. This
retroactive approval is rarely, if ever, done by the IRS." [GN]


UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Gifford Suit With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEXANDER GIFFORD, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, et al. Defendants, Case No. 18-13344-BC (E.D. Mich.),
Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division, (i) overruled the
Plaintiff's objections; (ii) adopted Magistrate Judge Patricia T.
Morris' report and recommendation; (iii) denied the request for a
new judge; and (iv) dismissed with prejudice the complaint.

On Oct. 25, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the present pro se complaint
purporting to represent the "people of Puerto Rico" in a class
action lawsuit against the United States of America, Represented by
Pres. Donald J. Trump, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The complaint was completed on a preprinted form.  In the space
provided for listing the laws at issue, the Plaintiff writes, "U.S.
Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 1."  

The Plaintiff states he is a citizen of Michigan.

He states that he knows that the U.S. government had prior
knowledge of Hurricane Maria, that they used the information in a
negligent manner, resulting in injury or/and loss of life.  The
event occurred between 9/16/17 and 10/2/17.  He believes the
Federal Tort Claims Act supercedes sovereign immunity.  As relief,
the Plaintiff wants the Court to make Puerto Rico 51st state of
United States and also asks for estructuring/abolishment of all
debt.

On Oct. 30, 2018, pre-trial matters were referred to Magistrate
Judge Morris.  On Nov. 2, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a request for a
new judge, stating as follows: 1) He would like to have the case
heard by a Judge.  He believes the magnitude of the material
warrants it.  2) He would like to request a new Judge.  The request
will be denied as it fails to set forth any basis for the requested
relief.

On Nov. 6, 2018, Judge Morris issued a report, recommending that
the Court dismisses the Plaintiff's complaint for frivolity and
failure to state a claim.  She found several defects in the
complaint, including: 1) the Plaintiff alleges no injury to
himself; 2) he does not explain how the 14th amendment is
implicated; 3) the Plaintiff does not elaborate on his conclusory
allegations that the Defendant had "prior knowledge" or used it in
a "negligent manner."

On Nov. 15, 2018, the Plaintiff filed objections: (i) first
objection elaborates on statement of Claim to clarify the case, and
(ii) second objection is on President Trump's role, and as an
additional Defendant.

Judge Ludington finds that the Plaintiff's filing does not
constitute an objection because it does not attempt to set forth
any defect in Judge Morris's reasoning.  To the extent his filing
can be construed as a motion to amend insofar as he seeks to offer
an "elaboration on statement of claim," the motion is denied.  His
"elaboration" of the claim still fails to set forth basic
information such as 1) what allegedly wrongful conduct the
Defendants engaged in; 2) how that conduct violated the 14th
amendment; and 3) what injury he suffered as a result of that
conduct.

Accordingly, he (i) overruled the Plaintiff's objections; (ii)
adopted Magistrate Judge Morris' report and recommendation; (iii)
denied the request for a new judge; and (iv) dismissed with
prejudice the complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a
claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B).

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/DLtO2n from Leagle.com.

Alexander R. Gifford, Representing the People of Puerto Rico,
Plaintiff, pro se.


VOX MEDIA: Spruill Suit Transferred to District of Columbia
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland Division, (i) transferred the case,
TAMRYN SPRUILL, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. VOX MEDIA, INC., a Delaware corporation
(d.b.a. SB NATION); and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 18-cv-06807-PJH (N.D. Cal.), to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia; and (ii) gave the Plaintiff 30 days from
issuance of notice that the case has been received by the District
Court for the District of Columbia to file an amended complaint.

The Plaintiff filed a complaint in the action in the Superior Court
of the State of California in Alameda County on Sept. 21, 2018 in
Spruill v. Vox Media, Inc., No. 18921742.  The Defendant filed a
notice of removal to the U.S District Court, Northern District of
California on Nov. 9, 2018.

Shortly thereafter, on Nov. 16, 2018, the Defendant filed a Motion
to Dismiss, Stay, or Transfer Proceedings, seeking the dismissal or
stay of the matter or, in the alternative, transfer for
coordination with the case of Bradley v. Vox Media, Inc., No.
1:17-cv-01791 (D.D.C.), which has been pending for more than a
year, on the ground that because the parties and issues in this
case are substantially similar to those in Bradley, application of
the first-to-file rule would avoid the risk of inconsistent
decisions and would conserve judicial and litigant resources.

The Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the proceedings to Alameda
Superior Court on Dec. 5, 2018.  In accordance with the schedule
ordered by the Court, the Defendant filed an opposition to the
motion to remand on Jan. 4, 2019.

The Plaintiff now agrees that federal jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 is proper and will file a notice of
withdrawal of the motion to remand within 48 hours of entry of the
stipulation.  The parties now agree that transfer of the matter to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for
coordination with the Bradley case is in the interests of the
parties and the Court given the substantial overlap between the
cases.

The Plaintiff has indicated that she intends to amend her complaint
to, among other things, add a claim under the California Private
Attorney General Act.  Therefore, they agreed that (i) within 48
hours of entry of the stipulation, the Plaintiff will file a notice
withdrawing her motion to remand in compliance with Local Civil
Rule 7-7; (ii) the case will be transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia, where the Parties agree that
coordination with Bradley v. Vox Media, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-01791
(D.D.C.) is appropriate; and (iii) the Plaintiff will have 30 days
from issuance of notice that the case has been received by the
District Court for the District of Columbia to file an amended
complaint.

based on the foregoing, Judge Hamilton ordered that (i) the
Plaintiff withdraws her motion to remand in compliance with Local
Civil Rule 7-7; (ii) the case is transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.) so that D.D.C. may
coordinate the action with Bradley v. Vox Media, Inc., No.
1:17-cv-01791 (D.D.C.), if it deems appropriate to do so; and (iii)
the Plaintiff will have 30 days from issuance of notice that the
case has been received by the D.D.C. to file an amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/KSfK31 from Leagle.com.

TAMRYN SPRUILL, Plaintiff, represented by Barry L. Goldstein --
bgoldstein@gbdhlegal.com -- GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLLER, BORGEN &
DARDGRIAN.

VOX MEDIA, INC., doing business as SB NATION, Defendant,
represented by Katherine V.A. Smith -- ksmith@gibsondunn.com --
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP.


WAL-MART STORES: Court Dismisses M. Prado's Suit with Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Andre Birotte, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California dismissed with prejudice the case, MARK
PRADO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., a
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-05630-AB-KKx (C.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Prado
and the Defendant requested and stipulated to dismissal of the
action, with prejudice, as to all parties and claims.  Each party
will bear his/her/its own attorneys' fees and costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/TXZzw2 from Leagle.com.

Mark Prado, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn
C. Westrick -- swestrick@westricklawfirm.com -- Westrick Law Firm.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Ian A. Wright -- ian.wright@alston.com -- Alston and
Bird LLP, James Robert Evans, Jr. -- james.evans@alston.com --
Alston and Bird LLP & Jesse M. Jauregui --
jesse.jauregui@alston.com -- Alston and Bird LLP.


WASHINGTON: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Schumacher Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LINDA SCHUMACHER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JAY INSLEE,
et al., Defendants, Case No. C18-5535 MJP (W.D. Wash.), Judge
Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, granted the State Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment.

The Plaintiffs are in-home care providers ("IPs"), paid by the
State through Washington Medicaid.  Defendant Service Employees
International Union Healthcare 775 NW ("SEIU") is the exclusive
bargaining representative (by state law) for the IPs.  State law
also permitted the "bargaining parties" (State of Washington and
SEIU) to include a "union security provision" in the collective
bargaining agreement ("CBA") which required IPs to contribute union
dues or their equivalent whether or not they chose to be members of
the union.

Prior to 2014, the union dues deduction was mandatory as a
condition of employment.  Since 2017, the bargaining parties have
been operating under a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") which
removed the compulsory payment of dues/fees, substituted an
"opt-out" system requiring each IP to affirmatively decline to
financially support the union, and directed SEIU to inform the
State to cease deductions for any opt-out IP.  The 2017-2019 CBA
incorporated the opt-out feature into the deduction system.

On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court declared the opt-out system for
deducting nonmandatory union dues/fees unconstitutional.  On the
first payday following the effective date of the decision (July 16,
2018), the dues/fees were only deducted from the paychecks of IPs
who had affirmatively opted in to the system.  The bargaining
parties entered into a new MOU which permitted dues/fees deductions
only when authorized in writing; i.e., an "opt-in" system.

The class action was originally filed on July 3, 2018.  An amended
complaint was filed on July 17, 2018.  The Plaintiffs allege that
the state statute and the CBAs violate their First Amendment rights
by compelling speech and mandatory association (through the
involuntary dues/fees), by failing to allow the Plaintiffs an
informed choice regarding the payment of the union dues and union
membership, and by failing to provide "necessary procedural
safeguards.  An additional claim of unjust enrichment is lodged
against SEIU for the 3.2% wage deduction pursuant to the CBAs.  The
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
compensatory and punitive damages.

Pending before the Court are (i) the State Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss or for Summary Judgment; (ii) the Plaintiffs' Response to
State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment; and
(iii) the State Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
or for Summary Judgment.  The motion is brought by two of the three
named Defendants in the action -- Washington State Governor Jay
Inslee and Secretary of the Department of Social and Health
Services Cheryl Strange ("the State Defendants") and is brought as
a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) or, alternatively, for
summary judgment under FRCP 56.

The State Defendants make two arguments in support of their request
for dismissal: (i) no Article III standing, and (ii) immunity of
the State Defendants to retrospective relief and money damages.

Judge Pechman finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish
"injury in fact" from the practices of which they complain and on
that basis have failed to satisfy the fundamental requirements of
standing to sue.  There are no disputed issues of material fact as
regards the issue; the State Defendants being entitled to dismissal
as a matter of law, the Judge will grant their motion for summary
judgment and dismisses the claims against them with prejudice.

Additionally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted as regards any
requests for monetary or retrospective declaratory relief
concerning the State Defendants, and those damages requests will be
dismissed on FRCP 12(b)(6) grounds.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Pechman granted the State Defendants'
motion for summary judgment regarding the Section 1983 claims.  He
dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims against them.  The
claims for monetary or retrospective declaratory relief against the
State Defendants are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of the Order to all the
counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/5qt4gL from Leagle.com.

Linda Schumacher, Robb Israel, Surena Israel & Miranda Thorpe,
Washington Individual Providers, Plaintiffs, represented by Caleb
Jon Fan Vandenbos -- cvandenbos@freedomfoundation.com -- FREEDOM
FOUNDATION, Hannah S. Sells -- hsells@freedomfoundation.com --
FREEDOM FOUNDATION & James Gideon Abernathy --
jabernathy@freedomfoundation.com -- FREEDOM FOUNDATION.

Service Employees International Union Healthcare 775NW, a labor
organization, Defendant, represented by Michael C. Subit --
msubit@frankfreed.com -- FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS & Scott A.
Kronland -- skronland@altshulerberzon.com -- ALTSHULER BERZON LLP,
pro hac vice.


WEDRIVEU INC: Terry Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Terry, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. WeDriveU, Inc., and Does 1-10 inclusive, Case No. RG18933576
(Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., December 5, 2018), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to provide meal periods, failure
to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to provide adequate
wage statements and unfair business practices in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that prior to August 1, 2018, WeDriveU
required Plaintiff and Class Members to work continuously without
providing proper off-duty meal breaks.

The Plaintiff Anthony Terry has worked as a driver for WeDriveU
from March 24, 2016, to present, in California. He lives in Alameda
County and regularly drives for WeDriveU in Alameda County.

The Defendant WeDriveU, a California corporation, describes itself
as the leader in transportation solutions, specializing in
corporate and university shuttles and managed services including
data collection services, automotive event services, and executive
driver services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hunter Pyle, Esq.
      Chad Saunders, Esq.
      HUNTER PYLE LAW
      428 Thirteenth Street, Eleventh Floor
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Tel: (510) 444-4400
      Fax: (510) 444-4410
      E-mails: hunter@hunterpylelaw.com
               csaunders@hunterpyelaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Rawls' FDCPA/FCCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROSE MARY RAWLS, JOHN RAWLS, and CARMELA FOURNIER,
Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
8:18-cv-2571-T-33TGW (M.D. Fla.), Judge Virginia M. Hernandez
Covington of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division, granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Class Action Complaint and Strike Class Allegations.

The Rawlses took out a mortgage with Wachovia in 2005 to purchase a
property in St. Petersburg, Florida.  Additionally, in 2008, the
Rawlses obtained a home-equity line of credit from Wachovia, which
was secured by the same property.  Wells Fargo later merged with
Wachovia and acquired the Rawlses' loans.  The Rawlses struggled to
make the loan payments, so with Wells Fargo's approval, the
property was sold through a short sale in 2012.  Both the mortgage
and the home-equity loan were satisfied using the proceeds from the
short sale.  Indeed, Wells Fargo filed a "Satisfaction/Release of
Mortgage" in the Pinellas County Clerk's Office declaring the loans
satisfied.

In an unrelated transaction, Fournier took out a mortgage with
Wells Fargo in 2005 to purchase a different property in St.
Petersburg, Florida.  Additionally, Fournier took out another
mortgage with Wells Fargo in 2012.  Fournier also struggled to make
her loan payments, so with Wells Fargo's approval, the property was
sold through a short sale in 2016.  Both mortgages were satisfied
using the proceeds from the short sale. (

In October of 2017, both the Rawlses and Fournier received letters
from Wells Fargo, which referenced the loan numbers associated with
their previously satisfied loans.  According to the Rawlses and
Fournier, by sending these letters, Wells Fargo illegally collected
or attempted to collect on the loans by systematically
misrepresenting the status of the loans, obligations under the
loans, and initiated debt collection procedures to pressure the
Plaintiffs and the other Class members to pay on the unenforceable
loans.

Therefore, on Oct. 19, 2018, the Rawlses and Fournier initiated the
proposed class action seeking declaratory relief and damages under
both the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA").  The Complaint asserts
diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.

On Dec. 17, 2018, Wells Fargo filed the instant Motion to Dismiss
Class Action Complaint and Strike Class Allegations, which was
accompanied by a Request for Judicial Notice.  The Rawlses and
Fournier filed their response to the Motion on Jan. 15, 2019.

As a preliminary matter, Wells Fargo requests the Court take
judicial notice of certain documents.  The Rawlses and Fournier
failed to respond to the request within the time parameters of
Local Rule 3.01(b).  Therefore, the Court considers the request
unopposed.  First, Wells Fargo offers for judicial notice the
Rawlses and Fournier's mortgage agreements.  Second, Wells Fargo
offers for judicial notice various documents regarding Wells Fargo
and Wachovia's merger.  Judge Covington takes judicial notice of
(i) the Rawlses and Fournier's mortgage agreements, and (ii) of all
these documents regarding Wells Fargo and Wachovia's merger.

Count I of the Complaint alleges the letters sent by Wells Fargo
violated Sections 1692e and 1962f of the FDCPA.  The Judge finds
that the Complaint fails to provide any allegations that Wells
Fargo is a debt collector.  The Complaint does not allege the
principal purpose of Wells Fargo's business is collecting debts.
As such, Wells Fargo is excluded from the definition of a debt
collector under Section 1692a(6)(F).

Having dismissed the only federal claim, the Judge next considers
whether it has jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.
The Complaint asserts diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act.  He finds that the Rawlses and Fournier's Complaint
was filed on Oct. 19, 2018, and therefore, the motion for class
certification was due by Jan. 17, 2019.  The Rawlses and Fournier,
however, failed to file either a motion for class certification or
any motion for extension of time.  Thus, there are no remaining
grounds for the Court's exercise of original jurisdiction, and the
Judge declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state
law claims.

Accordingly, Covington granted the DefendantA.'s Motion to Dismiss
Class Action Complaint and Strike Class Allegation.  He dismissed
with prejudice Count I of the Complaint, and dismissed without
prejudice Counts II and III of the Complaint.  The Clerk is
directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ZiYaJL from Leagle.com.

Rose Mary Rawls, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated and the general public, John M. Rawls, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated and the general public &
Carmela Fournier, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated and the general public, Plaintiffs, represented by
Christopher W.E. Boss -- cpservice@bosslegal.com -- Boss Law PLLC &
William Craft Hughes -- craft@hughesellzey.com -- Hughes Ellzey,
LLP, pro hac vice.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Jacqueline
Simms-Petredis -- jsimms-petredis@burr.com -- Burr & Forman, LLP &
Reid Stephens Manley -- rmanley@burr.com -- Burr & Forman, LLP.

Peter J. Grilli, Mediator, pro se.


WESTERN DIGITAL: Securities Suit in California Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 28, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself against a securities lawsuit in
California.

Beginning in March 2015, SanDisk and two of its officers, Sanjay
Mehrotra and Judy Bruner, were named in three putative class action
lawsuits filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  Two complaints are brought on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of SanDisk's securities between
October 2014 and March 2015, and one is brought on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of SanDisk's securities between April
2014 and April 2015.  The complaints generally allege violations of
federal securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or
omissions by the defendants during the alleged class periods. The
complaints seek, among other things, damages and fees and costs.

In July 2015, the District Court consolidated the cases and
appointed Union Asset Management Holding AG and KBC Asset
Management NV as lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint in August 2015.

In January 2016, the District Court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend.
In February 2016, the District Court issued an order appointing as
new lead plaintiffs Bristol Pension Fund; City of Milford,
Connecticut Pension & Retirement Board; Pavers and Road Builders
Pension, Annuity and Welfare Funds; the Newport News Employees'
Retirement Fund; and Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund
(collectively, the "Institutional Investor Group").

In March 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed an amended
complaint. In June 2016, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to
amend. In July 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed a
further amended complaint.

In June 2017, the District Court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss. In September 2018, the District Court granted the
Institutional Investor Group's motion to certify a class of all
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired SanDisk's
publicly traded common stock between October 2014 and April 2015,
excluding those who purchased or otherwise acquired SanDisk's
publicly traded common stock during the class period but who sold
their stock prior to the first corrective disclosure in March 2015.


The Institutional Investor Group alleges artificial inflation in
the price of SanDisk's publicly traded common stock of $9.04 per
share from October 16, 2014 through March 25, 2015, $2.26 per share
on March 26, 2015, and $1.35 per share from March 27, 2015 through
April 15, 2015.

Western Digital said, "The Company believes the allegations to be
without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously in this
matter."

Western Digital Corporation develops, manufactures, and sells data
storage devices and solutions worldwide. Western Digital
Corporation was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


WESTSIDE LAKESHORE: Paz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Jeovany Vasquez Paz, an individual, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Westside Lakeshore, LLC, Gal Aloni,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-20454 (S.D. Fla., February 4, 2019) is
an action arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants have employed several other similarly situated
employees like Plaintiff who have not been paid overtime and/or
minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly from
the filing of this complaint back three years, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was a resident of Miami-Dade County.

Westside Lakeshore, LLC, is a corporation that regularly transacts
business within the Southern District of Florida.

Gal Aloni is a corporate officer and/or owner and/or manager of the
Defendant Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. Zidell, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Phone: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865 – 7167

WOOD GROUP: Class of Drivers in Nino Suit Conditionally Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE LUIS NINO, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. WOOD GROUP PSN, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:2018-cv-00241 (S.D. Tex.), Judge
Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division, granted the parties'
Agreed Stipulation Regarding Conditional Certification and Notice
to the Putative Class Members.

She conditionally certified a Putative Class of all transportation
drivers employed by Wood Group PSN, Inc., anywhere in the United
States, at any time within the past three years through the
present.

The Defendant will provide the names, personal email addresses,
dates of employment, and last known addresses for the Putative
Class Members no later than 14 days following the Court's granting
of the Order for Conditional Certification.  This information will
be provided in a usable electronic format, such as Excel.  In the
event any mail is returned as undeliverable to a Putative Class
Member, the Defendant will provide the last four digits of the
social security number and telephone number for that individual.

The Judge approved the form and content of the Plaintiff's Proposed
Notice and Consent Form.  The Plaintiff's counsel will have seven
days from the date of receipt of the information from the Defendant
to distribute the Notice and Consent forms to the Putative Class
Members.

The Judge also authorized the Plaintiff's counsel to send (i) the
Putative Class Members a Notice and Consent form by regular First
Class Mail and Email; and (ii) an identical reminder Notice and
Consent form by regular First Class Mail and Email 30 days after
the initial mailing.

The Putative Class Members will have 60 days from the initial
mailing of the Notice and Consent form to file the Consent form
with the Court to opt-in to the above captioned lawsuit.

The Plaintiff's counsel must maintain the names and physical
addresses as confidential records and will not share the
information with any third-party.  At the conclusion of the opt-in
period, the Plaintiff's counsel must destroy/delete all copies of
the information pertaining to any Putative Class Member who did not
timely file a Consent form.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/BDLh71 from Leagle.com.

Jose Luis Nino, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by William Clifton Alexander --
clif@a2xlaw.com -- Anderson Alexander,PLLC, Alan Cliffton Gordon --
cgordon@a2xlaw.com -- Anderson Alexander PLLC, Austin W. Anderson
-- austin@a2xlaw.com -- Anderson Alexander PLLC, Carter Tilden
Hastings , Anderson2X PLLC, Lauren Elizabeth Braddy --
lauren@a2xlaw.com -- Anderson Alexander PLLC & Vernon George
Schimmel, III -- geordie@a2xlaw.com -- A2X Law.

Wood Group, PSN, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bryan Edward
Bowdler -- beb@kullmanlaw.com -- The Kullman Firm, P.L.C., Samuel
Zurik, III -- sz@kullmanlaw.com -- Kullman Firm, Kelly D. Reese --
kr@kullmanlaw.com -- The Kullman Firm PLC & S. Mark Klyza --
smk@kullmanlaw.com -- The Kullman Firm, pro hac vice.


WYNN LAS VEGAS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Cesarz FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Joseph Cesarz and Quy Ngoc Tang filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit titled Joseph Cesarz, et al. v. Wynn
Las Vegas, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-00109-RCJ-CWH, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada, Las Vegas.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Joseph Cesarz, et al. v. Wynn
Las Vegas, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-15166, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by February 27, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on March 29, 2019;

   -- Appellants Joseph Cesarz and Quy Ngoc Tang's opening brief
      is due on May 8, 2019;

   -- Appellees Steve Wynn and Wynn Las Vegas, LLC's answering
      brief is due on June 10, 2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants JOSEPH CESARZ and QUY NGOC TANG, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and all persons
whose names are set forth in Exhibit A to the First Amended
Complaint, are represented by:

          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          Mark Russell Thierman, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK, LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          E-mail: josh@thiermanbuck.com
                  mark@thiermanbuck.com

               - and -

          James P. Kemp, Esq.
          KEMP & KEMP - ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          7435 W. Azure Drive
          Las Vegas, NV 89130
          Telephone: (702) 258-1183
          E-mail: jp@kemp-attorneys.com

Defendants-Appellees WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC, and STEVE WYNN are
represented by:

          Bryan J. Cohen, Esq.
          WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC
          3131 Las Vegas Blvd. South
          Las Vegas, NV 89109
          Telephone: (702) 770-2116
          E-mail: bryan.cohen@wynnlasvegas.com

               - and -

          Richard Todd Creer, Esq.
          Gregory J. Kamer, Esq.
          KAMER ZUCKER ABBOTT
          3000 W. Charleston Blvd.
          Las Vegas, NV 89102-1990
          Telephone: (702) 259-8640
          E-mail: tcreer@kzalaw.com
                  gkamer@kzalaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua S. Lipshutz, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 393-8200
          E-mail: jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Eugene Scalia, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036-5306
          Telephone: (202) 955-8206
          E-mail: escalia@gibsondunn.com


ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: Patel Securities Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NAYMISH PATEL, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-3831 (JLL) (D. N.J.), Judge
Lose L. Linares of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.

Defendant Zoompass is a financial services technology company that
has built a platform that helps its customers digitize their
financial transactions.  Its common stock trades on the "Venture
Market" or the "OTCQB," which is one of three financial markets
organized by OTC Markets Group, Inc.  Defendant Robert Lee is the
director and CEO of Zoompass and the owner of roughly 38.1% of the
company's common stock as of April 18, 2017.  Defendant Brian
Morales is Zoompass' CFO and has served in that role since August
of 2016.

The Plaintiff is a purchaser of Zoompass securities during the
Class Period -- between April 24, 2017 and May 24, 2017 who
purchased those securities "at artificially inflated prices."  The
Plaintiff brings the putative federal securities class action on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Zoompass common stock during the Class Period.

On March 27, 2017, Zoompass stock began actively trading on the
OCTOB. Shortly thereafter, on April 10, 2017, Currin Technology
released a "special high-tech issue" of its technology stock
newsletter titled "Wall Street Investor."  The Plaintiff alleges
that this newsletter was a paid-for advertisement for Zoompass as
opposed to an unbiased analysis of certain technology stocks.  The
newsletter set forth a glowing recommendation of Zoompass stock.
Following the dissemination of the newsletter and the accompanying
website, Zoompass shares rose from $1.80 per share to $3.64 per
share from April 10, 2017 through May 9, 2017.

On April 24, 2017, the date on which the Class Period began,
Zoompass filed its 2016 annual financial disclosure statement,
which stated that Zoompass did not have any promoters at any time
during the past five fiscal years.  The 2016 10-K also informed
investors that Zoompass' CEO and CFO had looked at the
effectiveness of the company's internal disclosure controls and
procedures, and that the price of Zoompass common stock may be
negatively impacted by factors that are unrelated to its
operations.  Mr. Lee and Mr. Morales signed the 2016 10-K. The next
day, nearly 2 million Zoompass shares traded on the OTCQB, the
largest volume in Zoompass' trading history.  Zoompass stock
continued to rise steadily through May 8, 2017.

On that day, OTC Markets became aware of the newsletter promoting
Zoompass stock and so informed the company.  OTC Markets then
labeled Zoompass shares as "caveat emptor," notifying traders that
there is a public interest concern associated with Zoompass, which
may include a spam campaign, questionable stock promotion, known
investigation of fraudulent activity committed by the company or
insiders, regulatory suspensions, or disruptive corporate actions.

Zoompass then issued two statements.  The company issued the first
statement on May 9, 2017 after the close of the market, stating
that the Company is unaware of the full nature and content of the
promotional newsletter and any related promotional activity, the
responsible parties and the extent of the email newsletters'
dissemination.  Zoompass continued, stating that after inquiry, the
Company states definitively that its officers, directors and, to
the Company's knowledge, its controlling shareholders (i.e.,
shareholders owning 1000 or more of the Company's securities), of
which there are only two, have not directly or indirectly,
authorized or been involved in any way (including payment to a
third-party) with the creation or distribution of promotional
materials including the subject newsletter.  Additionally, the
shares currently held by the Company's officers, directors and
controlling shareholders are not registered.

Following these announcements, Zoompass' share price fell 45% over
three trading days. Then, on May 11, 2017, Zoompass publicly
acknowledged that OTC Markets moved Zoompass stock from the OTCQB
to OTC Pink Current Information, and that OTC Markets had placed
the caveat emptor label on the company's stock as a result of the
promotional newsletter and website.  The following day, nearly 2.6
million shares of Zoompass stock traded on the OTC Pink Current
Information market, which was the second heaviest daily trading
volume in the company's history.  On May 15, 2017, Zoompass filed
its quarterly financial disclosure statement ("10-Q") for the first
quarter of 2017.  In its 10-Q, Zoompass conceded that its
disclosure controls and procedures were "ineffective."

After Zoompass made its two press releases and filed its 10-Q, its
shares briefly rebounded until May 25th, 2017, when an article
published on the website Seeking Alpha fully and finally exposed
and outlined the Defendants' involvement in the scheme to make
hidden payments to stock promoters to pump up the price of Zoompass
stock.  After the release of the Seeking Alpha article, Zoompass'
share price fell over 23% by close of business on May 25, 2017.
The following day, Zoompass acknowledged that it was aware of the
Seeking Alpha article and filed an amended 10-K to correct the
identity of its CEO, a mistake the Seeking Alpha article exposed.
Zoompass did not issue any other statements rebutting or denying
the information in the Seeking Alpha article.  Over the course of
the next week, Zoompass shares plummeted to less than $1 per share.
The Plaintiff sets forth six statements made by Zoompass or the
individual Defendants that he believes are material false or
misleading statements.

On Aug. 8, 2018, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint.  In its Opinion, the Court granted
the Plaintiff leave to amend, despite the PSLRA's narrowed
application of the amendment standard in securities fraud cases,
and the Court's intuition that amendment may well be futile, as the
Plaintiff had failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of the
PSLRA, and had failed to propose an amendment to the FAC that would
satisfy this requirement.

On Aug. 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed the SAC.  Attached to the SAC is
a redlined copy of the SAC against the FAC.  The redline shows that
the SAC is essentially unchanged from the FAC, with the exception
of a new section titled "Additional Allegations Connecting
Defendants to the Promotional Campaign."  This new section alleges
a series of facts that compare the promotional activity surrounding
Zoompass to the promotional activity surrounding Pura Naturals, a
company that Defendant Lee was allegedly also a director of.

The allegations in the SAC remain the same.  The putative class
action asserts securities violations under the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934.  Specifically, in Count I of the Second
Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts a violation of Section
10(b) of the Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  In Count
II, he asserts derivative claims against Defendants Lee and Morales
for violation of Section 20(a) of the Act.

The Defendants now move again for a dismissal of this action for
failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).

Judge Linares opines that as the Defendants point out, reaching the
Plaintiff's conclusions based on these allegations requires a fair
amount of speculation.  The Plaintiff alleges no facts that Sargon
Finance -- the alleged financier of the promotional campaign was a
consultant of Zoompass.  The Plaintiff alleges no facts showing
that Sargon Finance received either stock options, deferred share
units, or warrants.  Lastly, the Plaintiff alleges no facts showing
that Sargon Finance exercised its rights to any of these options,
deferred shares, or warrants and then used those options, shares,
or warrants to pay for the promotional campaign.  These new facts,
even interpreted in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, fail
to sufficiently establish what the Court found previously lacking:
the Defendants' involvement with or financing of the promotional
campaign.

For the reasons stated, Judge Linares dismissed with prejudice the
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.  An appropriate Order
accompanies the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/xaWq3u from Leagle.com.

Carlos Guillermo Julian Vega, Movant, represented by CORREY ANN
KAMIN -- Kamin@whafh.com -- WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ
LLP & KEVIN COOPER -- kcooper@whafh.com -- WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP.

Robert S. Davis, Movant, represented by DONALD A. ECKLUND --
DEcklund@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY
& AGNELLO, P.C.

Larry Madewell & Lanah Madewell, Movants, represented by SHERIEF
MORSY -- smorsy@faruqilaw.com -- FARUQI & FARUQI LLP.

HENRY C REUSCH, CHERYL D PUCCIO & MIHAITA VIRJOGHE, Movants,
represented by BRUCE DANIEL GREENBERG -- bgreenberg@litedepalma.com
-- LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC.

NAYMISH PATEL, Plaintiff, represented by BRUCE DANIEL GREENBERG,
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC.

ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS, INC., ROBERT LEE & BRIAN MORALES, Defendants,
represented by PETER C. HARVEY -- pcharvey@pbwt.com -- PATTERSON,
BELKNAP, WEBB & TYLER, LLP.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 PI Suits v. Rexnord's Prager Unit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation's Prager subsidiary remains a defendant in two
pending personal injuries lawsuits relating to alleged presence of
asbestos in a product it manufactured, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2018.

Rexnord states, "The Company's Prager subsidiary is a defendant in
two pending multi-defendant lawsuits relating to alleged personal
injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in a product
allegedly manufactured by Prager.  Additionally, there are numerous
individuals who have filed asbestos related claims against Prager;
however, these claims are currently on the Texas Multi-district
Litigation inactive docket.  The ultimate outcome of these asbestos
matters cannot presently be determined.  To date, the Company's
insurance providers have paid 100% of the costs related to the
Prager asbestos matters.  The Company believes that the combination
of its insurance coverage and the Invensys indemnity obligations
will cover any future costs of these matters."

"In connection with its sale, Invensys plc provided the Company
with indemnification against certain contingent liabilities,
including certain pre-closing environmental liabilities.  The
Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity obligations,
Invensys is obligated to defend and indemnify the Company with
respect to the matters relating to the Ellsworth Industrial Park
Site and to various asbestos claims.  The indemnity obligations
relating to the matters are subject, together with indemnity
obligations relating to other matters, to an overall dollar cap
equal to the purchase price, which is an amount in excess of US$900
million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2UZkfyy


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had 1,100 Pending Claims at Dec. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, ArvinMeritor, Inc., still defends
approximately 1,100 pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits at
December 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 30, 2018.

The Company states, "ArvinMeritor, Inc. ("AM"), a predecessor of
Meritor, along with many other companies, has also been named as a
defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell
products many years ago.  Liability for these claims was
transferred at the time of the spin-off of the automotive business
from Rockwell in 1997.  There were approximately 1,100 and 1,400
pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits that name AM, together
with many other companies, as defendants at December 31, 2018 and
September 30, 2018.

"A significant portion of the claims do not identify any Rockwell
products or specify which of the claimants, if any, were exposed to
asbestos attributable to Rockwell products, and past experience has
shown that the vast majority of the claimants will likely never
identify any of Rockwell products.  Historically, AM has been
dismissed from the vast majority of similar claims filed in the
past with no payment to claimants.  For those claimants who do show
that they worked with Rockwell products, management nevertheless
believes it has meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to
the integrity of the products involved and the lack of any
impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2USGS7U


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ArvinMeritor Had US$101MM Reserves at Dec. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc.'s subsidiary, ArvinMeritor, Inc., had reserves of
US$101 million for asbestos-related liabilities at December 31,
2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 30, 2018.

The Company states, "ArvinMeritor, Inc. ("AM"), a predecessor of
Meritor, along with many other companies, has also been named as a
defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos used in certain components of Rockwell
products many years ago.  Liability for these claims was
transferred at the time of the spin-off of the automotive business
from Rockwell in 1997.  There were approximately 1,100 and 1,400
pending active asbestos claims in lawsuits that name AM, together
with many other companies, as defendants at December 31, 2018 and
September 30, 2018.

"The company engaged a third-party advisor with extensive
experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to conduct a
study to estimate its potential undiscounted liability for pending
and future asbestos-related claims as of September 30, 2018.
Management continuously monitors the underlying claims data and
experience, for the purpose of assessing the appropriateness of the
assumptions used to estimate the liability.

"As of September 30, 2018, the estimated probable range of equally
likely possibilities of the company's obligation for
asbestos-related claims over the next 41 years is US$103 million to
US$186 million.  Based on the information contained in the
actuarial study, and all other available information considered,
management concluded that no amount within the range of potential
liability was more likely than any other and, therefore, recorded a
liability at the low end of the range.  The company recognized a
liability for pending and future claims over the next 41 years of
US$101 million as of December 31, 2018 and US$103 million as of
September 30, 2018.

"AM has insurance coverage that management believes covers
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insurance
retentions, for a significant portion of these claims.  The
insurance receivables for Rockwell asbestos-related liabilities
totaled US$68 million as of December 31, 2018 and September 30,
2018.

"The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related reserves and
recoveries from insurance companies are based upon assumptions and
estimates derived from currently known facts.  All such estimates
of liabilities and recoveries for asbestos-related claims are
subject to considerable uncertainty because such liabilities and
recoveries are influenced by variables that are difficult to
predict.  The future litigation environment for Rockwell could
change significantly from its past experience, due, for example, to
changes in the mix of claims filed against Rockwell in terms of
plaintiffs' law firm, jurisdiction and disease; legislative or
regulatory developments; the company's approach to defending
claims; or payments to plaintiffs from other defendants.  Estimated
recoveries are influenced by coverage issues among insurers and the
continuing solvency of various insurance companies.  If the
assumptions with respect to the estimation period, the nature of
pending claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of
available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of
liability for Rockwell asbestos-related claims, and the effect on
the company, could differ materially from current estimates and,
therefore, could have a material impact on the company's financial
condition and results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2USGS7U


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Records $594MM Liability at Dec.31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. has noncurrent asbestos litigation
reserve of US$594 million at December 31, 2018, compared to US$612
million at September 30, 2018, according to a press release on
February 5, 2019.

The Company also disclosed asbestos insurance receivable of US$178
million at December 31, 2018, compared to US$179 at September 30,
2018.

A full-text copy of the Company's Earnings News Release dated
February 5, 2019 is available at https://bit.ly/2SP9ce6


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $5.8MM Liability at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation has US$5,877,000 asbestos-related
aggregate liability that is probable and estimable as of December
31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Like many industrial manufacturers, the
Company is involved in asbestos-related litigation.  In continually
evaluating costs relating to its estimated asbestos-related
liability, the Company reviews, among other things, the incidence
of past and recent claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the
mix of the claimed illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its
recent and historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases
pending against it, the status and results of broad-based
settlement discussions, and the number of years such activity might
continue.  Based on this review, the Company has estimated its
share of liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related
personal injury claims.  This estimate is highly uncertain due to
the limitations of the available data and the difficulty of
forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can
affect the range of the liability.  The Company will continue to
study the variables in light of additional information in order to
identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact
on the range of liability that is probable and estimable.

"Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between US$4,100,000 and US$8,000,000 using actuarial
parameters of continued claims for a period of 37 years from
December 31, 2018.  The Company's estimation of its
asbestos-related aggregate liability that is probable and
estimable, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles approximates US$5,877,000, which has been reflected as a
liability in the consolidated financial statements as of December
31, 2018.  The recorded liability does not consider the impact of
any potential favorable federal legislation.  This liability will
fluctuate based on the uncertainty in the number of future claims
that will be filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may
be influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the
ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies,
and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement
program.  Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos
liability payments of approximately US$2,000,000 over the next 12
months.  Because payment of the liability is likely to extend over
many years, management believes that the potential additional costs
for claims will not have a material effect on the financial
condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of
any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a
future period.

"The Company believes that a share of its previously incurred
asbestos-related expenses and future asbestos-related expenses are
covered by pre-existing insurance policies.  The Company has
engaged in a legal action against the insurance carriers for those
policies to recover these expenses and future costs incurred.  When
the Company resolves this legal action, it is expected that a gain
will be recorded for previously expensed cost that is recovered.
During fiscal 2019 and fiscal 2018, the Company received settlement
payments of US$430,000 and US$2,362,000, respectively, net of legal
fees, from its insurance carriers as partial reimbursement for
asbestos-related expenses.  These partial payments have been
recorded as gains in cost of products sold.  The Company is
continuing its actions to recover further past costs and to cover
future costs."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2IfmTix


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DowDuPont Inc. Has $1.1-Bil. Liability at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
DowDuPont Inc. has recorded noncurrent asbestos-related liabilities
of US$1.142 billion at December 31, 2018, compared to the US$1.237
billion at December 31, 2017, according to a press release on
January 31, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Company's press release announcing results
for the fourth quarter of 2018 is available at
https://bit.ly/2TQEUVo


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $546MM Liability at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc estimated its asbestos-related
liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs
to be US$546 million as of December 31, 2018, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2018.

Johnson Controls states, "The Company and certain of its
subsidiaries, along with numerous other third parties, are named as
defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to
asbestos containing materials.  These cases have typically involved
product liability claims based primarily on allegations of
manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that
either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos containing
components.

"As of December 31, 2018, the Company's estimated asbestos related
net liability recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's
consolidated statements of financial position was US$194 million.
The net liability within the consolidated statements of financial
position was comprised of a liability for pending and future claims
and related defense costs of US$546 million, of which US$55 million
was recorded in other current liabilities and US$491 million was
recorded in other noncurrent liabilities.

"The Company also maintained separate cash, investments and
receivables related to insurance recoveries within the consolidated
statements of financial position of US$352 million, of which US$33
million was recorded in other current assets, and US$319 million
was recorded in other noncurrent assets.  Assets included US$20
million of cash and US$243 million of investments, which have all
been designated as restricted.

"In connection with the recognition of liabilities for
asbestos-related matters, the Company records asbestos-related
insurance recoveries that are probable; the amount of such
recoveries recorded at December 31, 2018 was US$89 million.  As of
September 30, 2018, the Company's estimated asbestos related net
liability recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's
consolidated statements of financial position was US$173 million.
The net liability within the consolidated statements of financial
position was comprised of a liability for pending and future claims
and related defense costs of US$550 million, of which US$55 million
was recorded in other current liabilities and US$495 million was
recorded in other noncurrent liabilities.

"The Company also maintained separate cash, investments and
receivables related to insurance recoveries within the consolidated
statements of financial position of US$377 million, of which US$33
million was recorded in other current assets, and US$344 million
was recorded in other noncurrent assets.  Assets included US$6
million of cash and US$281 million of investments, which have all
been designated as restricted.  In connection with the recognition
of liabilities for asbestos-related matters, the Company records
asbestos-related insurance recoveries that are probable; the amount
of such recoveries recorded at September 30, 2018 was US$90
million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2BChFaK


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgment Favors Armstrong, et al., in Johansen
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika has issued an Order adopting
Magistrate Judge Fallon's Jan. 23, 2019 Report and Recommendation
and granting the unopposed motions for summary judgment of
Defendants Armstrong International, Inc., Gardner Denver, Inc.,
Crosby Valve LLC, J.R. Clarkson Company LLC, as successor by merger
to Kunkle Industries, Inc., FMC Corporation on behalf of its former
Northern Pump, Chicago Pump and Peerless Pump businesses,
Anchor/Darling Valve Company, Flowserve US Inc. solely as successor
to Edward Vogt Valve Company, Vogt Valve Co., Nordstrom Valves,
Inc., Edwards Valves, Inc. and Rockwell Manufacturing Company,
Neles-Jamesbury, Inc., Warren Pumps, LLC, Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation, as successor by merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Jenkins
Bros., Atwood & Morrill Company, Inc., The Nash Engineering
Company, and Red White Valve Corp. in the case entitled William J.
Johansen, Plaintiff, v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp., et al.,
Defendants. C.A. No. 17-452 (MN) (SRF), (D. Del.)

A copy of the Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y6py2zqj
from Leagle.com.

William J. Johansen, Plaintiff, represented by Bartholomew J.
Dalton -- bdalton@bdaltonlaw.com -- Dalton & Associates P.A., Adam
Balick -- abalick@balick.com -- Balick & Balick, LLC, Andrew
Caulfield Dalton , Dalton & Associates P.A., Ipek Kurul Medford --
imedford@bdaltonlaw.com -- Dalton & Associates, P.A. & Michael
Collins Smith , Balick & Balick, LLC.

Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles --
nskiles@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L.
Texter -- atexter@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Christian J.
Singewald -- singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com -- White & Williams &
Rochelle Libid Gumapac -- gumapacr@whiteandwilliams.com -- White &
Williams.

Goulds Pumps, Incorporated & ITT Corporation, Defendants,
represented by Kelly A. Costello -- kelly.costello@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford --
eford@moodklaw.com -- Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C.

The Fairbanks Company, Defendant, represented by Timothy A.
Sullivan, III , Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

Crane Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles --
nskiles@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC & Allison L.
Texter -- atexter@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC.

Goulds Pumps, Incorporated & ITT Corporation, Cross Defendants,
represented by Kelly A. Costello -- kelly.costello@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M.
Ford -- eford@moodklaw.com -- Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty &
Kelly, P.C.

William J. Johansen, Cross Defendant, represented by Bartholomew J.
Dalton -- bdalton@bdaltonlaw.com -- Dalton & Associates P.A., Adam
Balick -- abalick@balick.com -- Balick & Balick, LLC, Andrew
Caulfield Dalton , Dalton & Associates P.A., Ipek Kurul Medford --
imedford@bdaltonlaw.com -- Dalton & Associates, P.A. & Michael
Collins Smith , Balick & Balick, LLC.

The Fairbanks Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy A.
Sullivan, III , Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

The Fairbanks Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Timothy A.
Sullivan, III , Wilbraham, Lawler & Buba.

Ford Motor Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Christian J.
Singewald -- singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com -- White & Williams &
Rochelle Libid Gumapac -- gumapacr@whiteandwilliams.com -- White &
Williams.

IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Eileen M. Ford
-- eford@moodklaw.com -- Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly,
P.C.

Ford Motor Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Christian J.
Singewald -- singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com -- White & Williams &
Rochelle Libid Gumapac -- gumapacr@whiteandwilliams.com -- White &
Williams.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgment Favors Gardner Denver, et al., in Harding
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Maryellen Noreika of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware has issued an Order adopting Magistrate Judge Fallon's
Jan. 22, 2019 Report and Recommendation and granting the unopposed
motions for summary judgment of Defendants Gardner Denver, Inc.,
Crosby Valve LLC, DAP, Inc., Foster Wheeler LLC, Rheem
Manufacturing Company, Burnham LLC, individually and as successor
to Burnham Corporation, Superior Boiler Works, Inc., Spirax Sarco,
Inc., Slant/Fin Corporation, Dominion Energy Nuclear Connecticut,
Inc. f/k/a Dominion Nuclear Connecticut Inc., A.O. Smith
Corporation, and Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, as successor by
merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc. in the case entitled Michael R.
Harding and Sally Harding, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. Smith
Corp., et al. Defendants, C.A. No. 17-251 (MN) (SRF), (D. Del.).

A copy of the Order, is available at http://tinyurl.com/y36duwb2
from Leagle.com.

Michael R. Harding & Sally Harding, his wife, Plaintiffs,
represented by Bartholomew J. Dalton -- bdalton@bdaltonlaw.com --
Dalton & Associates P.A., Adam Balick -- abalick@balick.com --
Balick & Balick, LLC, Andrew Caulfield Dalton , Dalton & Associates
P.A., Ipek Kurul Medford -- imedford@bdaltonlaw.com -- Dalton &
Associates, P.A. & Michael Collins Smith , Balick & Balick, LLC.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant, represented by Irina N. Luzhatsky
-- iluzhatsky@mgmlaw.com -- Manning Gross + Massenburg LLP &
Whitney L. Frame , Manning Gross + Massenburg LLP.

ITT Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kelly A. Costello --
kelly.costello@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Marley-Wylain Company, Individually and as successor in interest to
The Weil-McLain Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew P.
Donelson -- mdonelson@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin &
Mellott, LLC.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Whitney L.
Frame , Manning Gross + Massenburg LLP & Irina N. Luzhatsky --
iluzhatsky@mgmlaw.com -- Manning Gross + Massenburg LLP.

ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Kelly A. Costello
-- kelly.costello@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Marley-Wylain Company, Individually and as successor in interest to
The Weil-McLain Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Matthew P. Donelson -- mdonelson@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Michael R. Harding & Sally Harding, his wife, Cross Defendants,
represented by Bartholomew J. Dalton -- bdalton@bdaltonlaw.com --
Dalton & Associates P.A., Adam Balick -- abalick@balick.com --
Balick & Balick, LLC, Andrew Caulfield Dalton , Dalton & Associates
P.A., Ipek Kurul Medford -- imedford@bdaltonlaw.com -- Dalton &
Associates, P.A. & Michael Collins Smith , Balick & Balick, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Magnetek Has $944,000 Liability at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation's subsidiary, Magnetek, recorded
approximately US$944,000 for asbestos-related liability as of
December 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "Magnetek has been named, along with multiple
other defendants, in asbestos-related lawsuits associated with
business operations previously acquired but which are no longer
owned.  During Magnetek's ownership, none of the businesses
produced or sold asbestos-containing products.  For such claims,
Magnetek is uninsured and either contractually indemnified against
liability, or contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the
purchaser of these former business operations.  The Company
aggressively seeks dismissal from these proceedings.  Based on
actuarial information, the asbestos related liability including
legal costs is estimated to be approximately US$944,000 which has
been reflected as a liability in the consolidated financial
statements at December 31, 2018."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2IfmTix


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Multiple PI Suits on Falk Products Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple lawsuits related to personal injuries due to the alleged
presence of asbestos in certain products previously manufactured by
The Falk Corporation remains pending, according to Rexnord
Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended December 31,
2018.

Rexnord states, "Falk, through its successor entity, is a defendant
in multiple lawsuits pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain clutches and drives
previously manufactured by Falk.  There are approximately 100
claimants in these suits.  The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits
cannot presently be determined.  Hamilton Sundstrand is defending
the Company in these lawsuits pursuant to its indemnity obligations
and has paid 100% of the costs to date.

"In connection with the Company's acquisition of The Falk
Corporation ("Falk"), Hamilton Sundstrand provided the Company with
indemnification against certain products-related asbestos exposure
liabilities.  The Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity
obligations, Hamilton Sundstrand is obligated to defend and
indemnify the Company with respect to the asbestos claims, and
that, with respect to these claims, such indemnity obligations are
not subject to any time or dollar limitations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2UZkfyy


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Reports $105MM Payments in 2018
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois, Inc. has made asbestos-related payments of US$105
million in 2018, according to the Company's press release on
February 5, 2019.

Owens-Illinois states, "The Company continues to manage its overall
risk profile, including asbestos-related risk.  Asbestos-related
payments were US$105 million in 2018, which was US$5 million less
than the prior year.  For the year 2018, the Company's
comprehensive legal review of its asbestos-related liabilities
resulted in a US$125 million charge due, in part, to factors such
as changes in the law and litigation dynamics in specific
jurisdictions.  As mentioned at Investor Day 2018, the Company is
executing on a risk mitigation strategy.  This is expected to drive
average annual cash payments of US$150 million for 2019 and 2020.
In 2021, the Company projects cash payments of US$60 to US$80
million and a year-end total estimated asbestos-related accrual of
not more than US$250 million(2), consistent with overall targets
conveyed at Investor Day 2018."

A full-text copy of the Company's Press Release dated February 5,
2019 announcing results of operations for the year ended December
31, 2018, is available at https://bit.ly/2GsDvS6


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord Corp. Still Faces Stearns PI Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation still faces multiple lawsuits relating to
personal injuries due to the alleged presence of asbestos in
certain products by the Company's Stearns division, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended December 31,
2018.

The Company states, "Multiple lawsuits (with approximately 300
claimants) are pending in state or federal court in numerous
jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to the
alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches
previously manufactured by the Company's Stearns division and/or
its predecessor owners.  Invensys and FMC, prior owners of the
Stearns business, have paid 100% of the costs to date related to
the Stearns lawsuits.

"In connection with its sale, Invensys plc provided the Company
with indemnification against certain contingent liabilities,
including certain pre-closing environmental liabilities.  The
Company believes that, pursuant to such indemnity obligations,
Invensys is obligated to defend and indemnify the Company with
respect to the matters relating to the Ellsworth Industrial Park
Site and to various asbestos claims.  The indemnity obligations
relating to the matters are subject, together with indemnity
obligations relating to other matters, to an overall dollar cap
equal to the purchase price, which is an amount in excess of US$900
million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2UZkfyy


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rexnord's Zurn Had 6,000 Pending Suits at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
There were approximately 6,000 asbestos-related lawsuits against
Rexnord Corporation's Zurn subsidiary as of December 31, 2018,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended
December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "As of December 31, 2018, Zurn and numerous
other unrelated companies were defendants in approximately 6,000
asbestos related lawsuits representing approximately 14,000 claims.
Plaintiffs' claims allege personal injuries caused by exposure to
asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly manufactured
by a segment of Zurn.  Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or
asbestos components.  Instead, Zurn purchased them from suppliers.
These claims are being handled pursuant to a defense strategy
funded by insurers.

"As of December 31, 2018, the Company estimates the potential
liability for the asbestos-related claims as well as the claims
expected to be filed in the next ten years to be approximately
US$38.0 million, of which Zurn expects its insurance carriers to
pay approximately US$29.0 million in the next ten years on such
claims, with the balance of the estimated liability being paid in
subsequent years.  The US$38.0 million was developed based on
actuarial studies and represents the projected indemnity payout for
current and future claims.  There are inherent uncertainties
involved in estimating the number of future asbestos claims, future
settlement costs, and the effectiveness of defense strategies and
settlement initiatives.  As a result, actual liability could differ
from the estimate described herein and could be substantial.  The
liability for the asbestos-related claims is recorded in Other
liabilities within the condensed consolidated balance sheets.

"Management estimates that its available insurance to cover this
potential asbestos liability as of December 31, 2018, is in excess
of the ten year estimated exposure, and accordingly, believes that
all current claims are covered by insurance.

"As of December 31, 2018, the Company had a recorded receivable
from its insurance carriers of US$38.0 million, which corresponds
to the amount of this potential asbestos liability that is covered
by available insurance and is currently determined to be probable
of recovery.  However, there is no assurance the Company's current
insurance coverage will ultimately be available or that this
asbestos liability will not ultimately exceed the Company's
coverage limits.  Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount
of available coverage or create gaps in coverage include: changes
in law governing the policies, potential disputes and settlements
with the carriers regarding the scope of coverage, and insolvencies
of one or more of the Company's carriers.  The receivable for
probable asbestos-related recoveries is recorded in Other assets
within the condensed consolidated balance sheets."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2UZkfyy


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc. still faces personal injury lawsuits
filed by relating to alleged exposure to asbestos in certain
product components, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2018.

The Company states, "We (including our subsidiaries) have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of our products many years ago.  Currently there are a few thousand
claimants in lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with
hundreds of other companies.  In some cases, the claims involve
products from divested businesses, and we are indemnified for most
of the costs.  However, we have agreed to defend and indemnify
asbestos claims associated with products manufactured or sold by
our former Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor
repair services businesses prior to their divestiture by us, which
occurred on January 31, 2007.  We are also responsible for half of
the costs and liabilities associated with asbestos cases against
our former Rockwell International Corporation's divested
measurement and flow control business.  But in all cases, for those
claimants who do show that they worked with our products or
products of divested businesses for which we are responsible, we
nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses, in substantial
part due to the integrity of the products, the encapsulated nature
of any asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any
impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants.  We
defend those cases vigorously.  Historically, we have been
dismissed from the vast majority of these claims with no payment to
claimants.

"We have maintained insurance coverage that we believe covers
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising from our former Allen-Bradley
subsidiary.  Following litigation against Nationwide Indemnity
Company (Nationwide) and Kemper Insurance (Kemper), the insurance
carriers that provided liability insurance coverage to
Allen-Bradley, we entered into separate agreements on April 1, 2008
with both insurance carriers to further resolve responsibility for
ongoing and future coverage of Allen-Bradley asbestos claims.  In
exchange for a lump sum payment, Kemper bought out its remaining
liability and has been released from further insurance obligations
to Allen-Bradley.  Nationwide entered into a cost share agreement
with us to pay the substantial majority of future defense and
indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims.  We believe that
this arrangement with Nationwide will continue to provide coverage
for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of
the asbestos liability.

"We also have rights to historic insurance policies that provide
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising out of certain asbestos liabilities
relating to the divested measurement and flow control business.
Following litigation against several insurers to pursue coverage
for these claims, we entered into separate agreements with the
insurers that resulted in both lump sum payments and
coverage-in-place agreements.  We believe these arrangements will
provide substantial coverage for future defense and indemnity costs
for these asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of asbestos
liability.

"The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult
to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims.
That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse rulings
or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or the
settlement process.  Subject to these uncertainties and based on
our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe these
lawsuits will have a material effect on our business, financial
condition or results of operations.

"We have, from time to time, divested certain of our businesses.
In connection with these divestitures, certain lawsuits, claims and
proceedings may be instituted or asserted against us related to the
period that we owned the businesses, either because we agreed to
retain certain liabilities related to these periods or because such
liabilities fall upon us by operation of law.  In some instances
the divested business has assumed the liabilities; however, it is
possible that we might be responsible to satisfy those liabilities
if the divested business is unable to do so.

"In connection with the spin-offs of our former automotive
business, semiconductor systems business and Rockwell Collins
avionics and communications business, the spun-off companies have
agreed to indemnify us for substantially all contingent liabilities
related to the respective businesses, including environmental and
intellectual property matters.

"In conjunction with the sale of our Dodge mechanical and Reliance
Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, we agreed to
indemnify Baldor Electric Company for costs and damages related to
certain legal, legacy environmental and asbestos matters of these
businesses arising before January 31, 2007, for which the maximum
exposure would be capped at the amount received for the sale."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2SP7Qjw


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial of Shulman Suit Stayed Pending Imerys Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled In Re: New York County Asbestos Litigation.
Jenny Shulman, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Brenntag North
America, Inc., et al., Defendants, Imerys Talc America, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellant, Motion No. M-179, Index No. 190025/17 (N.Y.
App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New
York, First Department granted the motion and stayed the trial on
condition that the appeal is perfected on or before March 18, 2019
for the June 2019 Term. Defendant-appellant has moved to stay of
trial pending hearing and determination of the appeal taken from
the order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on Dec. 4,
2018.

A copy of the Order, is available at http://tinyurl.com/y3gyhdmp
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weil-McLain's Summary Judgment v. Harding Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case entitled Michael R. Harding and Sally Harding, his
wife, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. Smith Corp., et al. Defendants, C.A. No.
17-251 (MN) (SRF), (D. Del.), the Hon. Maryellen Noreika of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has issued an
Order adopting Magistrate Judge Fallon's Jan. 22, 2019 Report and
Recommendation, recommending that the Court grant Weil-McLain's
Motion for Summary Judgment of no punitive damages and deny
Weil-McLain's Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to all other
claims.

A copy of the Order, is available at http://tinyurl.com/y3pbd247
from Leagle.com.

Michael R. Harding & Sally Harding, his wife, Plaintiffs,
represented by Bartholomew J. Dalton -- bdalton@bdaltonlaw.com --
Dalton & Associates P.A., Adam Balick -- abalick@balick.com --
Balick & Balick, LLC, Andrew Caulfield Dalton , Dalton & Associates
P.A., Ipek Kurul Medford -- imedford@bdaltonlaw.com -- Dalton &
Associates, P.A. & Michael Collins Smith , Balick & Balick, LLC.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant, represented by Irina N. Luzhatsky
-- iluzhatsky@mgmlaw.com -- Manning Gross + Massenburg LLP &
Whitney L. Frame , Manning Gross + Massenburg LLP.

ITT Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kelly A. Costello --
kelly.costello@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Marley-Wylain Company, Individually and as successor in interest to
The Weil-McLain Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew P.
Donelson -- mdonelson@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin &
Mellott, LLC.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Whitney L.
Frame , Manning Gross + Massenburg LLP & Irina N. Luzhatsky --
iluzhatsky@mgmlaw.com -- Manning Gross + Massenburg LLP.

ITT Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Kelly A. Costello
-- kelly.costello@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Marley-Wylain Company, Individually and as successor in interest to
The Weil-McLain Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Matthew P. Donelson -- mdonelson@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert
Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Michael R. Harding & Sally Harding, his wife, Cross Defendants,
represented by Bartholomew J. Dalton -- bdalton@bdaltonlaw.com --
Dalton & Associates P.A., Adam Balick -- abalick@balick.com --
Balick & Balick, LLC, Andrew Caulfield Dalton , Dalton & Associates
P.A., Ipek Kurul Medford -- imedford@bdaltonlaw.com -- Dalton &
Associates, P.A. & Michael Collins Smith , Balick & Balick, LLC.



                            *********

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 ***