CAR_Public/190219.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, February 18, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 35

                            Headlines

ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES: 3d Cir. Affirms Powell FDCPA Claims Dismissal
ALTA OPERATIONS: Macancela Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
AMERICAN DISPOSAL: Shawn Ornelas Seeks Overtime Wages
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Trimaldi Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay
ARKANSAS AGGREGATES: Robbins Seeks Minimum Pay and Overtime Wages

ARKANSAS: Raytheon Action Stayed Pending Suit in Ouachita County
AXOGEN INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Schertzer Sues over International Transaction Fees
BAPTIST HEALTH: Blake Tishman Seeks to Certify Class
BAR GIACOSA: Turban Seeks Minimum Wage and OT Pay for Wait Staff

BECTON DICKINSON: Still Defends 5,665 Filter Product Claims
BELLEROSE SERVICE: Karimbux Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA, NYLL
BIMBO BAKERIES: Court Granted Conditional Class Certification
BIRD ELECTRIC: Lopez Seeks to Certify Electricians Class
BREW CITY PIZZA: Young Seeks Minimum Wage for Delivery Drivers

BROOKDALE SENIOR: Can't Compel Arbitration in Stiner ADA Suit
CALIFORNIA: American Federation of Teachers Faces Class Action
CARECENTRIX: Paparella Seeks OT Pay for Verification Specialists
CARGO AIRPORT: Oladipo Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
CDK GLOBAL: Must Defend Against AutoLoop Class Action

CDK GLOBAL: Settlement in DMS Suit Wins Final Approval
CEDAR RAPIDS, IA: State Supreme Court Affirms Beh Summary Ruling
CENTURY PARK: Bid to Certify FLSA Class in Penarouque Case Denied
CFL PRINT: Cheri Lead Seeks Payment of Minimum Wage
CHARTER NEX: Court Approved Notice of Collective Action

CLEVELAND PUBLIC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Contested Fees
CMS ENERGY: Gas Index Pricing Suits Remanded to Wisconsin & Kansas
COCA-COLA CO: Israeli Court Authorizes Class-Action Suit
COMBINED INSURANCE: Sued by Gutierrez Over Unsolicited Calls
CRAFTWORKS RESTAURANTS: Vega Seeks OT Wages for Assistant Managers

DARP, INC: Court Certifies Class of Participants in Fochtman Suit
DAVID BLOTT: Faces Potential Class Action Over Excessive Fees
DIAMOND RESORTS: Court Grants Arbitration Bid in Dropp
DK EMBROIDERY: Tellez Seeks Overtime and Minimum Wages
DREW COUNTY, AR: Summary Judgment Bid in Darrough Granted in Part

ELEMENT MATERIALS: Flores Suit Moved to C.D. California
ELKHART COMMUNITY: Violates Equal Pay Act, White et al. Claim
EMMANUEL HEALTH: Robinson Seeks Payment for Overtime
EVOQUA WATER: Lead Counsel and Plaintiff Named in Securities Suit
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Nakonecznyj Seeks Overtime Wages

FCA US: Certification of Class, Subclasses Sought in Gearshift Case
FINISAR CORPORATION: Pappey Sues over Misleading Financial Report
FIRST CIRCUIT: Class Certification Sought in Case v. Policy Makers
FLAIR REDEMPTION: Peguero Seeks Payment of Minimum and OT Wages
FLOWERS FOODS: Rosinbaum et al. Seek to Certify Class

FLYWHEEL SPORTS: Violates TCPA and Invades Privacy, Henricks Says
FUELCO ENERGY: Failed to Pay Overtime Wages, Zamora Suit Says
GREAT AMERICAN: Fastrich et al. Seek to Certify Settlement Class
GREATBANC TRUST: Sued over Employee Stock Ownership Plan Buyout
HAM FARMS: Lopez Deadlines Stayed Pending Deal w/ Martinez Approval

HARRIS CUISINE: Figueroa Class of Servers/Waiters Cond. Certified
HELIX ENERGY: Casey Way Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
HENRY SCHEIN: Faces Hatchett Suit Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy
HEWLETT PACKARD: Court Issues Show Order in Wolf Suit
HOME DEPOT: Mitchell Sues over Employee Background Checks

HYDRADRY INC: Aaron Vedros Seeks Overtime Pay
IDAHO: Court Partly Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Turney Suit
ILLINOIS: Court Certifies Two Classes of IDOC Prisoners
INDEPENDENT HOME: Mitchell Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
INTEGRATED MAIL: Joseph Roberts Seeks to Certify Class

IRVING KAPLAN: Weiser Sues over Debt Collection Practices
IRWIN INDUSTRIES: 9th Cir. Partly Affirms Curtis Claims Dismissal
JOHNSON LAW: McCoy Sues over Debt Collection Practices
JS DISCOUNT: Anthony Santiago Seeks Overtime Pay
KLOECKNER METALS: Court Certifies Settlement Class

KLONDEX MINES: Briefing Schedule in Lawson Securities Suit Issued
KOVITZ SHIFRIN: Court Strikes Class Cert. Bid in Chacon Suit
L-RAY LLC: Petra Yahuith Seeks Overtime Pay
LIBERTY HEALTH: March 8 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
LYDIA M.C.: Zheng Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action

M.D. CLEANING: Morales Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages
MARKEL CORPORATION: RM LAW Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Winkelstein Sues over Data Breach
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action Lawsuit
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Settlement in Moodie Suit Has Initial Okay

MCDANIEL TECHNICAL: Stringer Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
MDL 2263: Claims Administrator Discloses Proposed Settlement
MDL 2817: Court Denies CDK's Bid to Dismiss Autoloop Antitrust Suit
MDL 2817: Court Narrows Claims Against CDK Global in Antitrust Suit
MERCHANT GROUP: Abante Rooter Sues over Unwanted Phone Calls

MICHAEL C. KOEHN: Long Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
MICHIGAN: Counties, Treasurers Among Class Action Defendants
MINDBODY INC: Hyun Tang Balks at Merger Deal with Vista Equity
MONSANTO COMPANY: Bordeaux Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Coulter Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Kirsch Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Mosley Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Rice Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MOVIEPASS INC: Weinbergers Sue over Bait-and-Switch Scheme
MULLOOLY JEFFREY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Dewick FDCPA Suit

MUREX PROPERTIES: Faces RICO Suit by Mobile Homeowners
NATURAL HEALTH: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action Lawsuit
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Daniel et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
NEW YORK: Dept of Education Faces Class Action From Fired Teacher
NEWFIELD EXPLORATION: Faces 6 Encana Merger-Related Suits

OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Nagan Sues over Debt Collection Practices
OVERSTOCK.COM: Website not Accessible to Blind, Traynor Says
PAM TRANSPORT: Court Certifies Class in Browne Minimum Wage Suit
PARSONS CORPORATION: Ram Wagle Seeks Overtime Pay
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Centeno Suit Moved to E.D. New York

PROFLOW LLC: Stutes Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
PROVIDENCE PLANTATION: Nickerson Seeks to Certify Class
QIHOO 360: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
QUALITY INTEGRATED: Wolford Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
RCO REFORESTING: $500K Rodriguez FLSA Suit Settlement Gets Approval

RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Waived Right to Arbitration in Ramsey Suit
RED ROBIN: Vigueras Seeks to Distribute Class Certification Notice
REMCO INSURANCE: Valenzuela Seeks Unpaid Wages for Sales Agent
RGS FINANCIAL: Terry Frank Seeks to Certify FDPCA Class
RIA INVESTMENT: Rife et al. Seek Overtime Wage Compensation

ROCK HOLDINGS: Accused by Hansen Suit of Sending Illegal Text Ads
RTG FURNITURE: Blobner Seeks Certification of Purchasers Class
SAMSUNG TELECOM: Norcia Seeks to Certify Class of Galaxy S4 Owners
SAND AND SEA: Arbitration Order in Prado Unpaid OT Suit Vacated
SEFCU: Sotir and Randall Sue over Overdraft Fee Charges

SOCIAL SECURITY: Court Grants Steigerwald's Summary Judgment Bid
SOUTHFIELD, MI: Certification of Classes Sought in Oren 2015 Suit
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Fairness Hearing Set for March 22
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Petition for Certiorari in Bag Fees Suit Nixed
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Still Awaits Service of Saskatchewan Claim

SPAR GROUP: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Hogan Labor Suit Affirmed
STAG CONSULTING: Saltzman Seeks Overtime Pay
SUMMERSALT INC: Website not Accessible to Blind, Slade Says
SWAPP LAW: Court Certifies Class of Drivers in Wilcox Suit
TARGET CORP: Jamison Alleges Mislabeling of Graham Crackers

TARGET CORPORATION: Greenberg Seeks to Certify Classes
TENARIS SA: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
TRANSPORTATION MEDIA: Murray Suit Moved to District of Oregon
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Trujillo Suit Wins Class Certification
US BANK: Can Compel Arbitration in McGovern UCL Suit

VAN SUILICHEM: Thomas Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
VELOX EXPRESS: York et al. Seek Minimum & OT Wages for Couriers
WAL-MART STORES: Court Dismisses Class Discrimination Claims
WAYFAIR INC: March 11 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
WAYFAIR INC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Class Action

WAYFAIR INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
WELLS FARGO: $30MM Settlement in Fowler Suit Has Final Approval
WEST MARINE: Does Not Pay Min. and Overtime Wages, Adams Suit Says

                            *********

ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES: 3d Cir. Affirms Powell FDCPA Claims Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's order granting Aldous'
motion to dismiss the case, FITZROY POWELL, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, Appellant, v. ALDOUS & ASSOCIATES,
P.L.L.C.; JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 18-1461 (3d Cir.).

The case is a putative class action brought by Powell against
Aldous, a law firm in Utah that acts as a debt collector.  In a
letter dated Jan. 21, 2017, Aldous sought to collect from Powell a
debt owed to Diamond Wireless.  Powell alleges that the debt
settlement letter Aldous sent him violated sections 1692e(3), (5),
and (10) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  In
his view, the letter could confuse the least sophisticated consumer
into believing that an attorney at Aldous was meaningfully
involved, when none had been, and that Aldous was threatening legal
action that it could not take and did not intend to take.

Aldous filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the
District Court granted that motion.  The District Court concluded
that the letter sufficiently disclaims meaningful attorney
involvement, and merely states that failure to pay the debt at all
may have a negative impact on one's credit.  It does not threaten
legal action or suggest that a suit is imminent.

Powell appealed.

Judge Greenway agrees with the District Court that, given the
totality of the letter, such a disclaimer is sufficient to dispel
the impression of meaningful attorney involvement.  Likewise,
Powell's section 1692e(5) claim fails because, for the reasons
provided by the District Court, he also concludes that the letter
would not lead the least sophisticated consumer to believe that a
lawsuit was being threatened.  In so holding, because Powell's
arguments related to his section 1692e(10) claims depend on the
same facts and arguments as those for his sections 1692e(3) and (5)
claims, he does not find the sort of ambiguity Powell suggests in
support of his section 1692e(10) claim.  He therefore affirmed the
District Court's dismissal of Powell's FDCPA claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/D8vG1G from Leagle.com.


ALTA OPERATIONS: Macancela Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN MACANCELA and EDISON MACANCELA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ALTA OPERATIONS
LLC d/b/a Maison Vivienne, ALTA OPERATIONS EAST LLC d/b/a Maison
Vivienne, ALLAN BASARAN, and SVITLANA FLOM, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01003 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
wages including minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants own and operate two
restaurants under a single trade name -- Maison Vivienne -- without
regard to corporate formalities or wage and hours laws. They
promote both restaurants to the public as a single enterprise using
a single web site at https://maisonvivi.com and take reservations
for both restaurants using a single email address,
reservations@maisonviviny.com. Upon information and belief, they
use a single liquor license that is valid only for the Southampton
location to purchase and serve wine and liquor at both locations.
There is, in fact, no distinction between the individual
defendants, the corporations they have formed, and the restaurants
they own, operate, and control. Every action affecting workers at
the Maison Vivienne restaurants is directed by the individual
defendants personally for their own benefit.

The Defendants regularly fail to give workers proper notices or
statements of wage rates, wages paid, withholdings deducted, or
hours worked as required by federal and state laws. They fail to
pay workers for all hours worked. They fail to pay workers the
required minimum and overtime wage rates. They fail to pay over
customer gratuities to tipped employees and they fail to pay
"spread of hours" compensation for work days exceeding 10 hours in
length.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          John Howley, Esq.
          THE HOWLEY LAW FIRM P.C.
          59th Floor, 350 5th Ave.
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: 212 601-2728

AMERICAN DISPOSAL: Shawn Ornelas Seeks Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
SHAWN ORNELAS, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN DISPOSAL SERVICES OF COLORADO,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00288 (D. Colo., Feb. 1,
2019), seeks all available relief, including overtime wages
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim
Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act.

Ornelas brings this action individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated who worked for American Disposal Services of
Colorado, Inc.  According to the complaint, they were not paid for
all hours worked, and were not paid the proper amount of overtime
in violation of state and federal law. The Plaintiff and the
Putative Class Members routinely work (and worked) in excess of 40
hours per workweek and 12 hours per work day. The Plaintiff and the
Putative Class Members were not paid overtime for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per workweek and 12 hours per work day. The
decision by ADS not to pay the correct amount of overtime
compensation to Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members was
neither reasonable nor in good faith.[BN]

Attorneys in Charge for Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members:

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

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Trimaldi Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
LEIGH TRIMALDI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, vs. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY,
a New York corporation; SALES PARTNERSHIPS, INCORPORATED, a
Colorado corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, the Defendants, Case
No. 9:19-cv-80144-RLR (S.D. Fla., Jan. 31, 2019), seeks to recover
declaratory and injunctive relief, unpaid wages, unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all
other appropriate legal and equitable relief, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants systemically and uniformly
failed to pay Plaintiff and members of the putative class all wages
owed including overtime wages as a direct result of being
misclassified as “exempt." The members of the proposed classes
include all current and/or former employees of Defendants who
worked under the job title "Merchant Services" during the relevant
time period, the lawsuit says.

American Express Company, also known as Amex, is an American
multinational financial services corporation headquartered in Three
World Financial Center in New York City. The company was founded in
1850 and is one of the 30 components of the Dow Jones Industrial
Average.[BN]

The Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          E. Kirk Wood, Esq.
          WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
          2001 Park Place North, Suite 1000
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: 205-612-0243
          Facsimile: 866-747-3905
          E-mail: ekirkwood1@cs.com

ARKANSAS AGGREGATES: Robbins Seeks Minimum Pay and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMY ROBBINS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ARKANSAS AGGREGATES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00093-KGB (E.D. Ark., Feb. 5, 2019),
asks the Court for declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and
costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, as a result of the
Defendant's commonly applied policy and practice of failing to pay
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated a lawful minimum wage
and overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked at all Defendant's
locations, including the Little Rock Quarry at 1910 W. 65th Street
in Little Rock, the Granufill Loading location at 32853M Road in
Little Rock, the Sand Plant at 9350 Faulkner Lake Road in North
Little Rock, the Port Landing Facility at 8800 Frazier Pike Road in
Little Rock and the Corporate Office at 174 Cornerstone Court,
Suite B, in Hot Springs.

The Defendant classified Plaintiff as non-exempt and paid her an
hourly rate. It was the Defendant's commonly applied practice not
to pay Plaintiff for all the hours during which she performed labor
for Defendant. Specifically, the Plaintiff was required to work at
home for up to 10 hours per week, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Chris Burks, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040

ARKANSAS: Raytheon Action Stayed Pending Suit in Ouachita County
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RAYTHEON COMPANY, et al., the
PLAINTIFFS, vs LARRY WALTHER, in his official capacity as Director,
Department of Finance and Administration of the State of Arkansas,
the DEFENDANT, Case No. 1:18-cv-01030-SOH (W.D. Ark.), the Hon.
Judge Susan O. Hickey entered an order on Feb. 4, 2019, granting
parties' joint motion to stay the present action during the
pendency of a related case currently before the Circuit Court of
Ouachita County, Arkansas.

The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively close this
matter and terminate all pending motions. The parties shall file a
motion to re-open this matter within 14 days of the resolution of
the underlying state-court case. Furthermore, the parties are
ordered to file status updates every 90 days, the Court says.[CC]

AXOGEN INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP disclosed that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against
AxoGen, Inc. (Nasdaq:  AXGN) ("AxoGen") on behalf of purchasers of
AxoGen securities: 1) pursuant and/or traceable to the November
2017 SPO; and/or 2) pursuant and/or traceable to the May 2018 SPO;
and/or 3) between August 2, 2017 and December 18, 2018, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

Important Deadline:  Investors who purchased AxoGen securities
during the Class Period may, no later than March 11, 2019, seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For
additional information or to learn how to participate in this
litigation please visit:
www.ktmc.com/axogen-securities-class-action.

According to the complaint, AxoGen provides surgical solutions for
physical damage or discontinuity to peripheral nerves. Its products
include nerve allografts and extracellular matrices.  The Class
Period commences on August 2, 2017, when AxoGen filed its quarterly
report on a Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2017.

According to the complaint, on December 18, 2018, Seligman
Investments published a report stating, among other things, that:
former employees allege channel stuffing and backdating of revenue;
the number of active accounts may be overstated by a factor of ten;
AxoGen's "growth [is] driven by unsustainable, aggressive price
increases;" and the payments to physicians relative to revenue
creates "elevated risks relating to pay-to-play and anti-kickback
laws."  Following this news, AxoGen's share price fell $6.17 per
share, or nearly 22%, to close at $21.36 per share on December 18,
2018. The share price continued to decline over the course of the
next three trading sessions, dropping $1.53 on December 19, 2018,
$1.94 on December 20, 2018, and $0.80 on December 21, 2018, to
close at $17.09 per share on December 21, 2018. The total decline
over the course of the three trading sessions was $4.27, or nearly
20%.

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

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

AxoGen investors may, no later than March 11, 2019, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

         James Maro, Jr., Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (888) 299-7706
                    (610) 667-7706
         Email: abell@ktmc.com
                jmaro@ktmc.com [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: Schertzer Sues over International Transaction Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTEN SCHERTZER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00264-JM-MSB (S.D. Cal., Feb. 5, 2019),
is a consumer class action challenging Bank of America's systematic
practice of charging more than its promised rate of 3.00% when it
assesses International Transaction Fees on its customers'
international debit card transactions.

International Transaction Fees are assessed by certain retail
banks, including international retailer or when a withdrawal is
made at an international ATM. Retail banks, including Bank of
America, charge a flat percentage of the transaction amount.
BOFA's standard account agreement and its accompanying fee
disclosures govern all of their consumer deposit accounts in the
United States, including Plaintiff Schertzer's checking account.
BOFA charges accountholders International Transaction Fees of
exactly 3.00% of the purchase amount on: 1) debit card purchases
made at international vendors; 2) ATM withdrawals made at
International ATM machines; and 3) internet purchases using a debit
card made on websites of international merchants. BOFA's Account
Agreement and Fee Schedule do not permit BOFA to charge
International Transaction Fees in excess of 3.00%. However, BOFA
engages in a systematic, routine process of "rounding up," to the
nearest penny, in the assessment of its International Transaction
Fees, which in turn, permits the Bank to assess International
Transaction Fees as high as 5.2% of the total value of the
transaction.

BOFA undertakes to maximize International Transaction Fees with a
deceptive practice which also violates its contracts. It is a
breach of the Bank's contract and of reasonable consumers'
expectations for the Bank to charge International Exchange Fees in
excess of 3.00%. This rounding up is improper. Other banks refuse
to engage in this practice.   For example, one of BOFA's primary
market competitors in California, Union Bank, N.A., has a policy of
"rounding down" to stay beneath Union Bank's disclosed
International Transaction Fee of 2.00%.

The Plaintiff, and other BOFA customers, have been injured by
BOFA's improper practices. On behalf of herself and the Class,
Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief for
BOFA's breach of contract and violation of California consumer
protection laws, the lawsuit says.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET
          KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619.762.1900
          Facsimile: 619.756.6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

BAPTIST HEALTH: Blake Tishman Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
BLAKE TISHMAN, P.A., a Florida professional corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. BAPTIST HEALTH SOUTH
FLORIDA, INC., BAPTIST SLEEP CENTERS, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, the
Defendants, Case 0:17-cv-62230-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons to whom Baptist successfully sent one or more
      facsimiles during a 2017 mass-fax broadcast indicating the
      availability of Baptist's outpatient diagnostic services for

      the recipients' patients or customers, including
      mammography, ultrasound, x-ray, home sleep studies, calcium
      scoring, heel scoring, addiction treatment, B MASK, and body

      fat analysis products and services";

   2. appointing Plaintiff as the class representative; and

   3. appointing Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Daniel J. Cohen, Esq.
          Molly E. Stemper, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5510
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555

BAR GIACOSA: Turban Seeks Minimum Wage and OT Pay for Wait Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
NICHIAS TURBAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. BAR GIACOSA CORP., d/b/a BAR PITTI and GIOVANNI
TOGNOZZI, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01138 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 6,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages including minimum wage and
overime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants operate Bar Pitt restaurant,
which is billed as one of New York's top Italian restaurants and a
"magnet" for celebrities such as Heidi Klum and the Victoria Secret
Angels. Yet despite their widely publicized success, the Defendants
abuse their wait staff. Specifically, with respect to this lawsuit,
the Defendants steal employee tips by requiring them to share them
with management, and egregiously fail to pay them for all hours
worked.

The Plaintiff and other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and have
been similarly situated, have had substantially  similar job
requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subject to
Defendants' decision, policy, plan and common policies, programs,
practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules willfully
failing and refusing to pay them at the legally required minimum
wage for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek, and allowing
tip-ineligible employees to share in their tips, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum
          JOSEPH KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          32 Broadway, Suite 601
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 688 5640
          Facsimile: (212) 688 2548

BECTON DICKINSON: Still Defends 5,665 Filter 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 is defending against approximately
5,665 product liability claims involving the Company's line of
inferior vena cava filters.

The majority of those claims are currently pending in a
multi-district litigation in the United States District Court for
the District of Arizona, but claims are also pending in other state
and/or federal court jurisdictions, including a coordinated
proceeding in Arizona State Court. In addition, those claims
include putative class actions filed in the United States and
Canada.

The Filter Product Claims generally seek damages for personal
injury allegedly resulting from use of the products.

The Company has limited information regarding the nature and
quantity of certain of the Filter Product Claims. The Company
continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may in future periods
learn additional information regarding other unfiled or unknown
claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the
Company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against the
Company.

Trials are scheduled throughout 2019 in the MDL and state courts.
On March 30, 2018, a jury in the first MDL trial found the Company
liable for negligent failure to warn and entered a verdict in favor
of plaintiffs.

The jury found the Company was not liable for (a) strict liability
design defect; (b) strict liability failure to warn; and (c)
negligent design. The Company has appealed that verdict.

On June 1, 2018, a jury in the second MDL trial unanimously found
in favor of the Company on all claims.

On August 17, 2018, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of
the Company on all claims in the third MDL trial.

On October 5, 2018, a jury in the fourth MDL trial unanimously
found in favor of the Company on all claims. The Company expects
additional trials of Filter Product Claims may take place over the
next 12 months.

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.


BELLEROSE SERVICE: Karimbux Seeks to Recover OT Under FLSA, NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMIERBAKS KARIMBUX, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. BELLEROSE SERVICE ENTERPRISE, LLC d/b/a
BELLEROSE CAR CARE, EXXON MOBIL CORP., and JOHN DOE, Case No.
2:19-cv-00561 (E.D.N.Y., January 29, 2019), seeks to recover, among
other things:

   (1) unpaid overtime, which the Defendants failed to pay in
       violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act;

   (2) unpaid overtime, which the Defendants failed to pay in
       violation of the New York Labor Law;

   (3) damages for unlawful discrimination on the basis of
       disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities
       Act of 1990; and

   (4) damages for unlawful discrimination on the basis of
       disability in violation of the New York State Human Rights
       Law.

Bellerose Service Enterprise, LLC, is a New York corporation with a
principal place of business at 240-40 Jericho Turnpike, in
Bellerose, New York.  John Doe (a/k/a "Aftab") is the Owner of
Bellerose Car Care.

Exxon Mobil Corp. is a New Jersey corporation with places of
business in all 50 states, including New York, as well as
internationally.

Defendants Mobil and Bellerose Car Care sell gasoline, offer car
repairs, and other automotive services to the public.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrea Batres, Esq.
          BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 208
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 280-3008
          Facsimile: (212) 656-1845
          E-mail: ab@belllg.com


BIMBO BAKERIES: Court Granted Conditional Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, David Camp and Keith Hadmack, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Bimbo
Bakeries USA, Inc. and Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00378-SM (D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge
Steven J. McAuliffe entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification
      and the issuance of notice and conditionally certifying
      following collective:

      "all individuals who executed a Distributor Agreement,
      either on their own behalf or on behalf of a corporation or
      other entity, and personally delivered products for
      Defendants in New England from May 8, 2015 to the present";

   2. directing the Defendants to identify all members of the
      described collective and to produce to Plaintiffs within 30
      days of this Order a list of the potential opt-in
      Plaintiffs' names, last-known mailing addresses, email
      addresses, telephone numbers, work locations, and dates of
      employment;

   3. authorizing Plaintiffs to mail, email, and text the Notice
      and Opt-in Form attached to Plaintiffs' Motion to all
      members of the collective identified by Defendants;

   4. granting all individuals identified by Defendants a period
      of 90 days following receipt of Notice to "opt-in" to this
      action; and

   5. authorizing a reminder notice to be issued via regular mail,

      email, and text message to non-responsive class members 45-
      days after the initial mailing of notice.

The Court concludes that plaintiffs have adequately alleged that
there are other "similarly situated" persons, such that conditional
certification of a collective action to address their (potential)
claims under the FLSA is appropriate. Although the size of the
group to which plaintiffs propose to give notice may be
substantial, and some individual plaintiffs may be barred from
recovering under one or more exemptions to the FLSA, those facts
give rise to issues best resolved at the second stage of the
preferred analysis.[CC]

BIRD ELECTRIC: Lopez Seeks to Certify Electricians Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit CHRISTOPHER LOPEZ, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs.  BIRD
ELECTRIC ENTERPRISES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
7:18-cv-00231-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex., Feb. 4, 2019), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to conditionally certify a class and authorize counsel
for the Plaintiff to send the Notice and Consent forms, the Social
Media Notice of Collective Action, and the Text Message Notice of
Collective Action submitted to:

   "all current and former electricians, including foremen and
   general foremen, of Defendant who have worked in Defendant's
   Departments 16 or 22 who were paid by the hour in the last
   three years, except for any individuals who opted-into the
   Guajardo litigation."[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Daniel A. Verrett, Esq.
          Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
          MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          The Commissioners House
          at Heritage Square
          2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Telecopier: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Brett L. Myers, Esq.
          Molly M. Jones, Esq.
          WICK PHILLIPS GOULD & MARTIN, LLP
          3131 McKinney Avenue, Suite 100
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 692-6200
          Facsimile: (214) 692-6255
          E-mail: brett.myers@wickphillips.com
                  molly.jones@wickphillips.com

BREW CITY PIZZA: Young Seeks Minimum Wage for Delivery Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKIE YOUNG, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, vs. BREW CITY PIZZA, INC. d/b/a DOMINO'S
PIZZA/PIZZA HUT and DOUGLAS BARETZ, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00163-NJ (E.D. Wisc., Jan. 31, 2019), seeks unpaid minimum
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Wisconsin Minimum
Wage Law, and Wisconsin Wage and Hour Laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendants operate numerous
Domino's Pizza and Pizza Hut franchise stores. The Defendants
employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver
pizza and other food items to their customers. However, instead of
reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs
of the business use of their vehicles, Defendants use a flawed
method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an
unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the
expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause
their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or
all workweeks.

The Defendants own and operate numerous Domino's Pizza and Pizza
Hut franchise stores including stores within this District and this
Division. Douglas Baretz is an owner, officer and director of Brew
City Pizza, Inc. In this capacity, Mr. Baretz put the pay scheme at
issue in place, has overseen and enforced Defendants' pay
practices, and is, therefore, individually liable for the
violations at issue.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Matthew Haynie, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
          E-mail: matthew@foresterhaynie.com

               - and -

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH &
          JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: 615 254-8801
          Facsimile: 615 255-5419
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
                  joeyl@bsjfirm.com

BROOKDALE SENIOR: Can't Compel Arbitration in Stiner ADA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STACIA STINER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BROOKDALE SENIOR
LIVING, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-03962-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for
the Nothern District of California (i) denied the Defendants'
motion to compel arbitration and motion to strike in their
entirety; and (ii) granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss with
leave to amend as to the Plaintiffs' retaliation claims, except
with respect to the letters sent by Bernie Jestrebek-Hart.

On July 13, 2017, Plaintiffs Patricia and Christopher Eidler,
Stiner, Mary-Catherine Jones, and Helen Carlson filed the action
against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California Business and
Professions Code Sections 7200 et seq. ("UCL"), and California
Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15610.3.  They allege that
the Defendants' assisted living facilities are not accessible by
persons with disabilities, and that the Defendants' policies
prevent persons with disabilities from fully accessing and enjoying
their facilities.  The Plaintiffs additionally allege that the
Defendants misrepresent the quality of care at their facilities, in
violation of California law.

The Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on Aug. 25, 2017,
adding Bonita Hager and Lawrence Quinlan as Plaintiffs.  On Sept.
28, 2017, the Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiffs
Eidler, Hager, Jones, Carlson, and Quinlan to arbitration.  On Feb.
22, 2018, the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claims of
Plaintiffs Eidler, Hager, and Jones.

The Court terminated the Defendants' first motion to compel
arbitration on March 15, 2018, when it granted leave for the
Plaintiffs to file the Second Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs
filed the currently-operative Second Amended Complaint on March 29,
2018, which added Plaintiffs Edward Boris, Ms. Jestrabek-Hart,
Arthur and Patricia Lindstrom, and Ralph Schmidt.

Judge Gilliam finds that the parties explicitly addressed
arbitration in two of the three agreements signed on Ms. Carlson's
behalf.  Based on those agreements, it is evident that Brookdale
had specific procedures for opting out of arbitration within its
contracts, and that Ms. Carlson and Joan Carlson were able to
understand those procedures.  The 2013 residency agreement's
silence on the issue of arbitration does not constitute a disavowal
sufficient to extinguish the 2011 arbitration provision.
Therefore, given the strong presumption in favor of arbitration,
the Judge finds that the 2013 agreement did not supersede the 2011
arbitration addendum.  

He also finds that the 2017 arbitration provision applies to claims
whether existing or arising in the future.  The claims asserted in
the lawsuit certainly existed at the time the 2017 contract was
signed, and are therefore subject to the opt-out.  The Defendants'
motion to compel Ms. Carlson to arbitrate her claims is therefore
denied.

The Judge also denied the Defendants' motion to compel Mr. Quinlan
to arbitrate his claims.  He finds that the rights asserted by the
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are not based on the Defendants'
contractual obligations under the 2015 residency agreement.  The
Plaintiffs do not seek to enforce the terms of Mr. Quinlan's 2015
residency agreement and have not triggered any estoppel based on
their claims.

Because the Defendants have not challenged any elements of the
Plaintiffs' standing as to the facilities in which they have
resided, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have established
standing at the pleading stage to allege putative class action
claims against all 89 facilities.  He also finds that the Brookdale
assisted living facilities are "public accommodations" subject to
the ADA.

Next, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
a claim for discrimination based on the staffing at Brookdale
facilities.  The Plaintiffs allege that those residents who are
disabled are unable to receive the benefits of their residence
without sufficient staffing.  Non-disabled residents do not require
staffing to receive these benefits.

The Defendants seek to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Unruh Act claim for
the same reasons as the underlying ADA claim. Because he finds that
the Plaintiffs' ADA claim survives, the Judge holds that the
Plaintiffs' Unruh Act claim likewise survives.

The Judge finds that the Court has no basis to abstain from hearing
the Plaintiffs' equitable claims in the action.  The Defendants
premise their argument on California law, but the surviving ADA
claims are not subject to this rule of abstention.
The Judge also finds that the SAC clearly states that each claim is
claim limited to circumstances and facts occurring on or after May
16, 2015.  The SAC could not be more clear that its claims fall
outside the scope of the Winans release.  Plaintiffs Carlson and
Schmidt's claims are not subject to dismissal on that basis.

As to CLRA and UCL Claims, the Defendants assume that the
Plaintiffs decision to join a Brookdale community could not have
been premised on the representations found in the residency
agreements that they read and signed.  But the Plaintiffs allege
that they did rely on the statements found in those residency
agreements.  Those allegations are facially plausible, and there is
no basis for dismissal.  The Plaintiffs have also adequately pled
misrepresentation in the residency agreements.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have not alleged that any
retaliation suffered by them was as a result of his or her
participation in a resident council. Therefore, the Judge granted
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under Cal.
Health & Safety Code Section 1569 except with respect to the
letters sent by Ms. Jestrebek-Hart.

It is plausible that the Defendants, faced with a lawsuit alleging
misrepresentation in their contracts, would subsequently alter the
services that they provided in the future.  The allegations in the
SAC, read in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, plausibly
allege deception based on the 2017 agreement. Therefore, the Judge
granted with leave to amend the Defendants' motion to dismiss is as
to the Plaintiffs' retaliation claims, except with respect to the
letters sent by Ms. Jestrebek-Hart.  The Defendants' motion to
dismiss is otherwise denied.

Finally, the Defendants move to strike each of the Plaintiffs'
class allegations from the SAC.  The Judge denied it.  He finds
that each of the Defendants' contentions raises factual issues that
the Court cannot decide at the pleading stage.  Moreover, to the
extent that their argument has merit, the Court needs not deny
class certification altogether.  Instead, it could potentially
certify a narrower class than the one proposed by Plaintiff.
Whether or not this is feasible or necessary is a question for
another day.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Gilliam (i) denied the Defendants'
motion to compel arbitration and motion to strike in their
entirety; (ii) granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave
to amend as to the Plaintiffs' retaliation claims, except with
respect to the letters sent by Ms. Jestrebek-Hart.  Any amended
complaint must be filed within 21 days of the date of the Order.
The Court set a further case management conference on Feb. 12, 2019
at 2:00 p.m.  The parties will meet and confer and submit a joint
case management statement by Feb. 5, 2019.  The joint statement
should include a proposed case schedule through trial.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Vve0rB from Leagle.com.

Stacia Stiner, Hellen Carlson, by and through her Guardian Ad Litem
& Carlson Joan, Guardian Ad Litem for Hellen Carlson, Plaintiffs,
represented by Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn -- bbien-kahn@rbgg.com --
Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP, Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld --
ggrunfeld@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP, Jenny
Snay Yelin -- jyelin@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld
LLP, Kathryn Ann Stebner , Stebner & Associates, Travis C. Close,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Guy Burton Wallace
-- wallace@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP & Sarah S. Colby, Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns.

Lawrence Quinlan, Loresia Vallette, Guardian Ad Litem for Lawrence
Quinlan, Heather Fisher, Patricia Lindstrom, Arthur Lindstrom,
Ralph Schmidt, Michele Lytle & Bernie Jestrabek-Hart, Plaintiffs,
represented by Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn, Rosen Bien Galvan and
Grunfeld LLP, Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Rosen Bien Galvan and
Grunfeld LLP, Jenny Snay Yelin, Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP,
Travis C. Close, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP,
Guy Burton Wallace, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP
& Sarah S. Colby, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns.

Edward Boris, Plaintiff, represented by Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld,
Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP, Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn,
Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP, Guy Burton Wallace, Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Jenny Snay Yelin, Rosen Bien
Galvan and Grunfeld LLP & Sarah S. Colby, Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns.

Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. & Brookdale Living Communities, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Adam P. KohSweeney --
akohsweeney@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey A. Barker --
jbarker@omm.com -- OMelveny and Myers, Matthew David Powers --
mpowers@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Mallory Ann Jensen --
mjensen@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP.


CALIFORNIA: American Federation of Teachers Faces Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexa D'Angelo, writing for Ventura County Star, reports that a
math professor in the Ventura County Community College District is
challenging an alleged illegal "window period scheme" to forcibly
seize union dues from his paycheck without his consent in violation
of his constitutional rights, according to court records.

A class action lawsuit was filed Jan. 10 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against the American
Federation of Teachers, Ventura County Federation of College
Teachers, AFT Local 1828, AFL-CIO and the Ventura County Community
College District. The named plaintiff is Michael McCain, a
professor of mathematics at Ventura College, with free legal aid
from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

According to the complaint, McCain attempted to resign his union
membership following the U.S. Supreme Court's June 27, 2018,
decision in Janus v. AFSCME, which determined that unions can no
longer automatically collect agency fees -- a percentage of full
union dues. Instead, employees must knowingly waive their First
Amendment right not to subsidize a union and authorize deductions
before union officials can collect membership dues or fees.

But the complaint alleges McCain wasn't permitted to resign his
membership or to stop the collection of dues because of a window
period stipulated in the collective bargaining agreement.

"You have a situation where the community college district and the
union are not allowing someone to stop the deduction of union dues
from their paycheck when they want to," said Bill Messenger, Esq.
an attorney from the National Right to Work Foundation who argued
the Janus case.

The complaint alleges McCain was never informed by union officials
of his First Amendment rights and that the union continued taking
membership dues from his paycheck, even after McCain resigned his
union membership in writing just after the Janus decision.

Union officials claim McCain can only cut off dues deductions
during a union-created 15-day "window period" each year, according
to the complaint.

"We allege the union can't say that a person can only exercise that
right 15 days a year," Messenger said.

McCain's class action lawsuit asks the court to strike down this
unlawful "window period scheme" and order union officials to stop
deducting unauthorized dues. His complaint also seeks a refund of
membership dues that were wrongfully taken from him and hundreds,
if not thousands, of other public employees.

But Messenger said the Janus decision does not expressly state that
unions have an obligation to tell their members that they can now
withdraw their union membership.

"However, Janus requires that unions, in order to deduct union dues
from employees' wages, inform employees of their right not to pay
unions dues and that they are waiving this right by agreeing to
dues deduction," Messenger said. "The reason is that Janus requires
that any union dues deduction authorization must meet the
requirements of a waiver of First Amendment rights. And a First
Amendment waiver must be knowingly and intelligently made, which
means the dues deduction authorization must inform the potential
signatory that they have a First Amendment right to not support the
union and that they are waiving that right by agreeing to the
deduction of dues from their wages. So, in that sense, unions have
an obligation to inform employees of their Janus rights."   

Messenger said this is one of many cases across several states
about window periods following the Janus decision. He said this
case has the potential to set a legal precedent.

"If the court says you can't do what the union is doing here, then
that applies clear across the board," Messenger said. "On the other
hand, if you say they can then you can expect other unions to use
these window periods."

The union and the community college district both declined to
comment on pending litigation.[GN]


CARECENTRIX: Paparella Seeks OT Pay for Verification Specialists
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH PAPARELLA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CARECENTRIX, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00180 (D. Conn., Feb. 6, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs as a result of Defendant's willful violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.

CareCentrix, Inc. provides health benefits management services to
more than 23 million people by connecting providers with patients
with the care they need at home, through a national network of over
8,000 credentialed provider locations providers, with customer care
centers located across the United States. The Defendant employs a
staff of hourly-paid Verification Specialists including Plaintiff
to work on the process of verifying patients' insurance coverage
for medical treatments.

According to the complaint, the Defendant implemented a system --
Key Performance Indicator ("KPI") -- to determine productivity of
the Verification Specialists by counting their recorded work time
(through ADP and I-Client) against the completed cases. The
Verification Specialists were required to complete a minimum of
three cases per recorded work hour, that is, approximately 20
minutes per case, to meet their KPI requirement. If the
Verification Specialists did not meet the minimum KPI requirement,
they were subject to disciplinary actions including warnings,
probation, etc.

In practice, depending on the circumstances, oftentimes it would
take the Verification Specialists more than 20 minutes and up to
one hour or longer to complete a case. To meet the KPI requirement
with the assigned caseload, Defendant and management maintained a
common de facto policy and practice of requiring and/or permitting
the Verification Specialists to perform work off-the-clock outside
of their recorded work time without pay.

The off-the-clock work by the Verification Specialists included
time spent working before they clocked in for the day, while they
clocked out for lunch break, and after they clocked out for the
day. In addition, Defendant failed to include non-discretionary
bonus pay including monthly and yearly bonuses in the Verification
Specialists' regular rate of pay before statutory overtime
compensation is computed, in violation of the FLSA. As a result of
Defendant's common unlawful policies and practices, the
Verification Specialists were not compensated for all hours worked
and not compensated overtime at a rate of not less than one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for work performed in
excess of 40 hours per week, in violation of the FLSA and CMWA, the
lawsuit says.

CareCentrix provides health benefits management services for
network providers, healthcare professionals, and patients.
According to the Connecticut Secretary of State website,
Defendant's headquarters is located at 20 Church Street, 12th
Floor, Hartford, CT 06103 and Defendant has the following
designated agent: Corporation Service Company at 50 Weston Street,
Hartford, CT 06120.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Matthew C. Sorokin, Esq.
          THE SOROKIN LAW FIRM
          9 Lewis Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: 860 776-6017
          E-mail: mat@sorokinlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com

CARGO AIRPORT: Oladipo Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit BABATUNDE OLADIPO, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CARGO AIRPORT
SERVICES USA, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-06165(WFK)(CLP)
(E.D.N.Y), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of the Joint Settlement
      Agreement and Release;

   2. conditionally certifying a class for settlement purposes
      only, consisting of:

      "all Cargo Agents, aka Office or Traffic Agents, who worked
      for Cargo Airport Transport Services USA, LLC in cargo
      buildings 9, 66, 73, 73, 78, and 151 at JFK Airport in State

      of New York, who are or were employed by the Defendant at
      any time from September 20, 2010 through the date of
      Preliminary Approval and who during the Class Period were
      allegedly not compensated for all work performed during
      uncompensated meal breaks, were not compensated for all work

      performed pre and post-shift were not paid overtime of time
      and one-half their regular rate of pat for all hours worked
      over 40 in a week, and were not provided accurate wage
      statements;

   3. approving Plaintiff's Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class

      Action Lawsuit and Fairness Hearing, and directing their
      distribution;

   4. approving Plaintiff's proposed schedule for final settlement

      approval and setting a date for the fairness and related
      dates; and

   5. appointing Plaintiff as class representative and Louis
      Ginsberg, Esq. Of the Law firm of Louis Ginsberg, P.C. as
      class counsel.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Settlement Class:

          Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
          LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          1613 Northern Blvd.
          Roslyn, NY 11576
          Telephone: (516) 625 0105

CDK GLOBAL: Must Defend Against AutoLoop Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
CDK Global, Inc. 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 motion to
dismiss filed by the company in the class action suit brought by
Loop LLC d/b/a AutoLoop has been denied.

Loop LLC d/b/a AutoLoop ("AutoLoop") brought suit against CDK
Global, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on April 9, 2018, but reserved its rights with respect to
remand to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin at the conclusion of the MDL proceedings.

On June 5, 2018, AutoLoop amended its complaint as a putative class
action on behalf of itself and all other automotive software
vendors in the United States that purchased data integration
services from CDK or Reynolds and Reynolds.

CDK Global, LLC has moved to compel arbitration of AutoLoop's
claims, or in the alternative, to dismiss those claims; that motion
was denied.

CDK Global, Inc. provides software and technology solutions for
automotive retailers in the United States and internationally. The
company operates through Retail Solutions North America,
Advertising North America, and CDK International segments. CDK
Global, Inc. is headquartered in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.


CDK GLOBAL: Settlement in DMS Suit Wins Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
CDK Global, Inc. 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 court has
granted final approval of the settlement submitted by the putative
Dealership Class Plaintiffs and Reynolds and Reynolds.

Teterboro Automall, Inc. d/b/a Teterboro Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram
("Teterboro") brought a putative class-action suit against CDK
Global, LLC and Reynolds and Reynolds.

Teterboro's suit was originally filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey on October 19, 2017. Since that
time, several more putative class actions have been filed in a
variety of Federal District Courts, with substantively similar
allegations; all of them have been consolidated with the MDL
proceeding.

On June 4, 2018, a Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed on
behalf of a putative class made up of all dealerships in the United
States that directly purchased DMS and/or allegedly indirectly
purchased DMS or data integration services from CDK or Reynolds and
Reynolds ("Dealership Class Plaintiffs").

CDK Global, LLC moved to dismiss the complaint, or in the
alternative, compel arbitration of certain of the cases while
staying the remainder pending the outcome of those arbitration
proceedings; its motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied
in part, while its motion to compel arbitration was denied.

On October 23, 2018, the putative Dealership Class Plaintiffs and
Reynolds and Reynolds filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Settlement and for Conditional Certification of the Proposed
Settlement Class. The Court finally approved this settlement on
January 22, 2019.

CDK Global, Inc. provides software and technology solutions for
automotive retailers in the United States and internationally. The
company operates through Retail Solutions North America,
Advertising North America, and CDK International segments. CDK
Global, Inc. is headquartered in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.


CEDAR RAPIDS, IA: State Supreme Court Affirms Beh Summary Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MYRON DENNIS BEHM, BURTON J. BROOKS, ROBBY LEE
LANGSTON, DAVID LEON BRODSKY, JEFFREY R. OLSON, and GEOFF TATE
SMITH, Appellants, v. CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS and GATSO USA, INC.,
Appellees, Case No. 16-1031 (Iowa), Judge Brent R. Appel of the
Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the district court's order granting
the Defendants summary judgment.

In the case, the Court once again considers a range of issues
related to an automated traffic enforcement ("ATE") system.  The
City of Cedar Rapids enacted an ordinance designed to authorize and
implement the establishment of an ATE system intended to detect
drivers traveling in excess of speed limits within Cedar Rapids.
Pursuant to the ordinance, Cedar Rapids contracted with Gatso to
install the ATE system, which included mounted cameras and radar
equipment, and to provide the City with evidence of vehicles
violating the speed limit at the ATE locations.  The ATE ordinance
imposed a civil penalty for a violation.

The Plaintiffs filed a class-action petition against Cedar Rapids
and Gatso.  They sought damages and declaratory and injunctive
relief, claiming the ATE system as implemented by the Defendants
violated the equal protection, due process, and privileges and
immunities clauses of the Iowa Constitution.  The Plaintiffs also
raised a number of other challenges, asserting that the
administrative remedies under the ATE ordinance were in conflict
with Iowa law, that the ATE ordinance as implemented by the City's
contract with Gatso unconstitutionally delegated governmental power
to a private entity, and that the defendants were unjustly enriched
by the revenues generated by the ATE system.

The district court granted the Defendants summary judgment, and the
Plaintiffs appealed.  The Court transferred the case to the court
of appeals.  The court of appeals affirmed the district court.  In
the Court's original opinion, it vacated the decision of the court
of appeals and affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment
of the district court.

The City filed a petition for rehearing, asserting that the Court
relied on an incorrect version of the City's ATE ordinance in
discussing the issue of preemption.  The Court granted the City's
petition and vacated its earlier opinion.

Upon review, the Court finds that the City's petition for rehearing
is well taken.  It did not rely upon the ordinance in effect at the
time of the motion for summary judgment in the case but on a later
version of the ordinance.  It therefore decided to grant rehearing.
On rehearing, it considers only those aspects of its prior opinion
affected by the error.

An important threshold question for equal protection, privileges
and immunities, and substantive due process analyses is whether the
ATE system in the case infringes on a fundamental right to
intrastate travel.  The parties appear to concede that if this is
so, the ATE system and its classifications would be subject to
strict scrutiny.  On the other hand, if a fundamental right is not
implicated, the ATE system is subject to a less intrusive rational
basis test.

The Plaintiffs assert that the ATE system infringes upon the
fundamental right to travel under the Iowa Constitution.  Cedar
Rapids concedes, as it must, the existence of a fundamental right
to interstate travel.  It , however, claims that even if the right
exists, it is not infringed by the ATE system.

On the question of whether the ATE ordinance infringed a
fundamental right to interstate or intrastate travel, Judge Appel
agrees with Cedar Rapids.  He does not find the ATE ordinance in
the case infringed any right to travel.  The term "infringement" in
this context is a term of art with at least some ambiguity, but it
clearly does not mean anything that impacts travel.  He concludes
that there is no basis to examine the constitutional validity of
the ATE system using strict scrutiny arising from alleged
infringement of the right to intrastate or interstate travel.
Instead, the Judge applies the RACI II rational basis test "with
bite."

Turning to the question of whether the ATE system violates
substantive due process as the Plaintiffs' claim, the Judge finds
that the IDOT order did not establish that the Cedar Rapids ATE
system is so arbitrary or unrelated to public safety as to amount
to a violation of substantive due process.  The IDOT's order that
the City remove or disable ATE equipment at two locations also does
not establish a substantive due process violation.  He concludes
that the record in the case shows as a matter of law that the issue
is fairly debatable.

The Judge also finds that the mere incantation of the abracadabra
of public safety does not end the analysis.  It is possible to
imagine a scenario in which the challenger develops a factual
record that demonstrates an ATE system as implemented is so
attenuated and remote from public safety concerns and is simply
designed to raise revenues for the city that it violates rationale
basis analysis.  But he concludes that the Plaintiffs have not made
such a showing in the case.

Considering the Plaintiffs' equal protection and privileges and
immunities claims under article I, section 6 of the Iowa
Constitution, the Judge finds that the fact that a local government
has police resources for road radar at two out of 10 locations with
comparable speeding problems and safety concerns does not mean
there is an equal protection problem because not all similar
locations in the city have been covered.  With respect to the
noninclusion of government-owned vehicles, the Judge also rejects
the Plaintiffs' equal protection claim.  The district court
properly granted summary judgment on this claim.

The Judge recognizes that there are other plausible interpretations
of the ordinance.  But he does not find conflict preemption unless
the conflict is obvious, unavoidable, and not a matter of
reasonable debate.  He needs not choose one enactment over the
other because he's able to harmonize the two.  Hence, under these
circumstances, he does not think the various provisions of the Iowa
Code are "irreconcilable" with the preinfraction procedures
suggested in the ordinance.  As a result, he concludes the
ordinance, on its face, is not preempted by Iowa Code section
364.22 or Iowa Code section 602.6101.

The Judge also concludes that the ordinances provide a vehicle
owner with the opportunity for a prior administrative hearing to
challenge the automated traffic citation in an informal proceeding.
He does do not think the combination of an administrative hearing,
with the option of a small claims hearing, violates Mathews v.
Eldridge.

The Judge reserves the question of whether other powers might
survive scrutiny if proper safeguards or special qualifications are
present.  But he concludes that in light of the special interests
involved in the power to spend public funds, those interests
require "a strict rule against any delegation of sovereign power."


As to the question of unlawful delegation, it was briefly addressed
in Hughes.  In the case, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit in a conclusory fashion held that the ATE system did
not involve an unlawful delegation.

Judge Appel further finds that the ATE ordinance provides that a
vehicle owner can contest a citation before a hearing officer and
if the hearing officer upholds the citation, the vehicle owner may
request the City file a municipal infraction in small claims court.
Notices that are sent out by Gatso, however, suggest that the
hearing officers utilized by the City have the power to enter
orders and judgments.  He also finds that there was no unlawful
delegation when the City approved the specifically challenged
policy as part of its business rules governing an ATE system.
Cedar Rapids was entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
delegation claim on this particular ground.

With respect to the Plaintiffs' challenge asserting unlawful
delegation as a result of calibration, the Judge is evenly divided
and, therefore, the district court judgment is affirmed as a matter
of law.  As a result, the unjust enrichment claim based on
enforcement of an unlawful ordinance fails.

For these reasons, Judge Appel vacated the decision of the court of
appeals, and affirmed the judgment of the district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/cHufT1 from Leagle.com.

James C. Larew of Larew Law Office, Iowa City, for appellants.

Elizabeth D. Jacobi, Assistant City Attorney, for appellee City of
Cedar Rapids.

Paul D. Burns -- pburns@bradleyriley.com -- and Laura M. Hyer --
lhyer@bradleyriley.com -- of Bradley & Riley PC, Iowa City, for
appellee Gatso USA, Inc.


CENTURY PARK: Bid to Certify FLSA Class in Penarouque Case Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit BARBARA PENAROUQUE, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CENTURY
PARK ASSOCIATES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No: 1:18-cv-122 (E.D.
Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Harry Mattice entered an order on Jan. 31,
2019, denying the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Court said the Plaintiff has failed to make the modest showing
required to establish at least a colorable basis for her claim that
a class of similarly situated plaintiffs exist.  Indeed, the
Plaintiff has made little factual showing at all, having failed to
submit even her own affidavit in support of conditional
certification. "At the notice stage, all that is required is
substantial allegations supported by declarations, and once the
plaintiff has met that burden, the case may be conditionally
certified as a collective action, the Court said.  In determining
whether the conditional certification standard is met, courts
consider factors such as (1) whether potential plaintiffs were
identified; (2) whether affidavits of potential plaintiffs were
submitted; and (3) whether there is evidence of a "widespread"
discriminatory plan affecting those plaintiffs, which was
maintained by defendants.  Plaintiff has offered neither
substantial allegations nor supporting declarations, has not
identified potential plaintiffs, has not submitted the affidavit of
such plaintiffs or even of herself, and has offered no evidence to
indicate the existence of a plan or policy of FLSA-violating
behavior.[CC]

CFL PRINT: Cheri Lead Seeks Payment of Minimum Wage
---------------------------------------------------
CHERI LEAD, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b), the Plaintiff(s), vs. CFL PRINT, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, and JASON LANGE, individually, the Defendants,
Case No. 8:19-cv-00313-WFJ-SPF (M.D. Fla., Feb. 2, 2019), alleges
that Defendants have unlawfully deprived Plaintiff, and all other
employees similarly situated, of federal minimum wage compensation
during the course of their employment, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked an average of at
least 40 hours per week. The Defendants failed to properly
compensate Plaintiff for the overtime she worked. The Defendants
also failed to pay the Plaintiff for the first 40 hours of work she
performed during the workweek.the lawsuit says.

CFL offers social media consulting, assitance, and services to
clients and has been operating in the Statec of Florida since
2016.[BN]

Counsel for Cheri Lead:

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

CHARTER NEX: Court Approved Notice of Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit BRANDON MILLER, et al., the Plaintiffs,
v. CHARTER NEX FILMS - DELAWARE, OH, Inc., et al., the Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-01341-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Algenon
L. Marbley entered an order on Feb. 4, 2019, approving the notice
of collective action lawsuit and consent to join, respectively, to
the parties' Joint Motion to conditionally certify.[CC]

CLEVELAND PUBLIC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Contested Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Higgs, writing for cleveland.com, reports that a Cuyahoga
County judge threw out a class-action lawsuit on Jan. 7 that
customers filed against Cleveland Public Power, holding that
charges totaling more than $188 million were not improper.

The contested charges, collected from 1984 into 2013, were assessed
to cover environmental and ecological costs incurred by the
city-owned utility. Cleveland stopped assessing the fees in 2013,
but began again in in 2017.

The lawsuit, filed in 2015 by attorneys at Landskroner Grieco
Merriman LLC on behalf of 80,000 residential and commercial CPP
customers, accused the city of breach of contract with customers
and fraud and sought restitution.

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Janet Burnside ruled in favor of
the city on every count.

"Undisputed evidence . . . shows that CPP's implementation and use
of [environmental and ecological assessments] to customer billings
was lawful and permitted by ordinance and in any event, did not
cause damage to plaintiffs," Judge Burnside wrote in her opinion
that dismissed the case.

"CPP's conduct was not fraudulent," she wrote.

You can read Burnside's ruling below. Moblie users click here.

Plaintiffs' lawyers have 30 days to appeal Burnside's ruling.
Attorney Jack Landskroner, in an email, said the ruling wasn't
unexpected.

"Both the City and our clients always knew this case would be
decided by an appellate court regardless of how Judge Burnside
ruled," Mr. Landskroner wrote. "We are looking forward to
continuing this fight for Cleveland consumers."

Dan Williams, a spokesman for Mayor Frank Jackson, said the city
would not comment on the ruling, because it considered the
litigation as ongoing because of a potential appeal.

CPP was collecting the fee -- an "environmental or ecological
adjustment" -- under a 40-year-old city ordinance that allows the
utility to charge customers for "special apparatus and equipment
required for compliance with federal, state or city environmental
protection laws and directives."

A second portion of that ordinance also allows the fee to be
assessed for other costs, including "purchase and installation of
power supply apparatus and power from remote sources."

Plaintiffs had argued that the city could only charge the
environmental adjustments for costs related to complying with
environmental protection laws.

Judge Burnside disagreed.

"The court rejects plaintiffs' reading [of the ordinance] as no
language in the ordinance supports it," Burnside wrote. "The
ordinance's language is not ambiguous and therefore Ohio law
requires that it be enforced as written. The ordinance clearly
permits adjustments beyond those required for environmental
protection compliance."

Additionally, Judge Burnside found that it was not improper that
the city combined the environmental assessments, rather than list
them separately on bills.

Not only did the plaintiffs fail to show they were improperly
charged, they also failed to show there had been any damages,
Burnside wrote. [GN]


CMS ENERGY: Gas Index Pricing Suits Remanded to Wisconsin & Kansas
------------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the judge in the
multidistrict litigation related to the Gas Index Price Reporting
has granted motions filed by plaintiffs for Suggestion of Remand of
certain lawsuits back to the respective transferor courts in
Wisconsin and Kansas for further handling.

CMS Energy, along with CMS MST, CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural
Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, were named as defendants in
four class action lawsuits and one individual lawsuit arising as a
result of alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting to
publications that report trade information.

Allegations include price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade,
and artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in Kansas,
Missouri, and Wisconsin. In 2016, CMS Energy entities reached a
settlement with the plaintiffs in the Kansas and Missouri class
action cases for an amount that was not material to CMS Energy.

In August 2017, the federal district court approved the settlement.
The following provides more detail on the remaining cases in which
CMS Energy or its affiliates were named as parties:

     * In 2006, a class action complaint, Arandell Corp., et al. v.
XCEL Energy Inc., et al., was filed in Wisconsin state court on
behalf of Wisconsin commercial entities that purchased natural gas
between January 2000 and October 2002. The defendants, including
CMS Energy, CMS ERM, and Cantera Gas Company, are alleged to have
violated Wisconsin's antitrust statute. The plaintiffs are seeking
full consideration damages, treble damages, costs, interest, and
attorneys' fees.

     * In 2009, a class action complaint, Newpage Wisconsin System
v. CMS ERM, et al., was filed in circuit court in Wood County,
Wisconsin, against CMS Energy, CMS ERM, Cantera Gas Company, and
others. The plaintiff is seeking full consideration damages, treble
damages, costs, interest, and attorneys' fees.

     * In 2005, J.P. Morgan Trust Company, N.A., in its capacity as
trustee of the FLI Liquidating Trust, filed an action in Kansas
state court against CMS Energy, CMS MST, CMS Field Services, and
others. The complaint alleges various claims under the Kansas
Restraint of Trade Act. The plaintiff is seeking statutory full
consideration damages for its purchases of natural gas in 2000 and
2001, costs, and attorneys' fees.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred
to a single federal district court pursuant to the multidistrict
litigation process. In 2010 and 2011, all claims against CMS Energy
defendants were dismissed by the district court based on FERC
preemption.

In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
the district court decision. The appellate court found that FERC
preemption does not apply under the facts of these cases. The
appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of leave to
amend to add federal antitrust claims. The matter was appealed to
the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2015 upheld the Ninth Circuit's
decision.

The cases were remanded back to the federal district court.

In 2016, the federal district court granted the defendants' motion
for summary judgment in the individual lawsuit filed in Kansas
based on a release in a prior settlement involving similar
allegations; the order of summary judgment was subsequently
appealed. In March 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the lower court's ruling and remanded the case
back to the federal district court.

In March 2017, the federal district court denied plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in the two pending class action cases in
Wisconsin. The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and in August 2018, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the matter back to
the federal district court for further consideration.

In January 2019, the judge in the multidistrict litigation granted
motions filed by plaintiffs for Suggestion of Remand of the actions
back to the respective transferor courts in Wisconsin and Kansas
for further handling.

The matter will go to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation who will determine if remand is appropriate.

CMS Energy said, "These cases involve complex facts, a large number
of similarly situated defendants with different factual positions,
and multiple jurisdictions. Presently, any estimate of liability
would be highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's reasonably
possible loss would be based on widely varying models previously
untested in this context. If the outcome after appeals is
unfavorable, these cases could negatively affect CMS Energy's
liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations."

CMS Energy Corporation operates as an energy company primarily in
Michigan. The company operates in three segments: Electric Utility,
Gas Utility, and Enterprises. CMS Energy Corporation was founded in
1987 and is headquartered in Jackson, Michigan.


COCA-COLA CO: Israeli Court Authorizes Class-Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Dror Halavy, writing for Hamodia.com, reports that if you thought
Coca-Cola was more expensive in Israel than it is elsewhere, you're
not alone: The Central District Civil Court also believes that it
may be, and as a result has authorized a class-action lawsuit
against the company -- declaring it a "monopoly" to boot.

The lawsuit will be heard in the coming months, but on the basis of
its acceptance by the court, the two parties to the suit -- those
suing the company, and the Central Bottling Company of Bnei Brak,
the sole distributor of Coca-Cola in Israel -- are already
discussing a compromise that could see the prices of the soft drink
sink, TheMarker reported.

The lawsuit contends that Coca-Cola has cornered the market on 1.5
liter bottles of cola soft drinks in Israel. According to evidence
presented by the plaintiffs, Coca-Cola has for many years held some
90 percent of the cola market in Israel. In addition, research
shows that the price of the product has consistently been between
45- and 50-percent higher than competing brands -- and that when
prices of other colas rise, the price of Coke does as well.

The pricing and the increases are clearly not related to the cost
of raw materials or production, the plaintiffs claimed -- and when
asked by the court, the Central Bottling Company was unable to
provide any evidence at all that would justify its claims that
production costs were responsible for the price differences.

The court also rejected a claim by the company that, as Coca-Cola
was a long-established brand with a "worldwide reputation," the
company was required to price it in alignment with prices in other
countries.

On the basis of all that, the court said that the case qualifies
for class-action status. "Given the price differences between the
product and its competitors, which make similar products, and given
that the company has not supplied any reasonable explanation for
this situation or provided any relevant data that would contradict
the claims against it, the plaintiffs have demonstrated that, given
the company's significant power in the marketplace, it appears that
there is justification to the claims of unfair pricing," the court
said in its decision. A date for the commencement of the trial has
not yet been set.[GN]


COMBINED INSURANCE: Sued by Gutierrez Over Unsolicited Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
JAIRO GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No.
1:19-cv-20375-JEM (S.D. Fla., January 29, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making
unsolicited calls, which caused the Plaintiff actual harm,
including invasion of his privacy, aggravation, annoyance,
intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.

Combined Insurance Company of America is an Illinois company with
its principal office located in Chicago, Illinois.  The Defendant
directs, markets, and provides business activities throughout the
state of Florida.

The Defendant markets itself as "a leading provider of individual
supplemental accident, disability, health, and life insurance
products."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH Law
          14 NE First Ave., 10th Floor
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (786) 351-8709
          E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 533-4092
          E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com


CRAFTWORKS RESTAURANTS: Vega Seeks OT Wages for Assistant Managers
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROLANDO VEGA, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CRAFTWORKS RESTAURANTS &
BREWERIES, INC., d/b/a GORDON BIERSCH BREWERY RESTAURANT, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00284 (D. Colo., Feb. 1, 2019), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.

The Plaintiff alleges on behalf of himself and all current and
former Assistant Managers ("AMs"), which includes other employees
classified as exempt and holding comparable positions with
different titles employed by Defendant below the level of Assistant
General Manager, in any Gordon Biersch restaurant in the United
States and who elect to opt into this action pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act that they are entitled to, inter alia, unpaid
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, as
required by law, and liquidated damages. The Plaintiff was employed
by Defendant from 2009 through 2017 at Defendant's Gordon Biersch
restaurant located at 200 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA.

While employed as an AM, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek, without receiving overtime compensation as
required by federal law. One week in which Plaintiff worked over 40
hours but not paid overtime was February 8-14, 2016. The Defendant
operates over 200 restaurants, brewery restaurants and
entertainment venues in 40 states across the United States,
including approximately 35 Gordon Biersch restaurants.

According to the complaint, the Defendant suffered, permitted or
directed the work of Plaintiff and similarly situated employees,
and Defendant benefited from work performed by Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees. Pursuant to Defendant's policy,
pattern, and practice, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees proper overtime wages for hours they
worked for Defendant's benefit in excess of 40 hours in a workweek,
constituting wage theft, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Collective:

          Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Christopher M. Timmel, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
          E-mail: fran@klafterolsen.com
                  seth@klafterolsen.com
                  christopher.timmel@klafterolsen.com

               - and -

          C. Andrew Head, Esq.
          Bethany Hilbert, Esq.
          HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC
          4422 N. Ravenswood Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60640
          Telephone: (404) 924-4151
          Facsimile: (404) 796-7338
          E-mail: ahead@headlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H St., NE, Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520
          Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
          E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com
                  nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com

DARP, INC: Court Certifies Class of Participants in Fochtman Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned MARCK FOCHTMAN; CORBY
SHUMATE; MICHAEL SPEARS; ANDREW DANIEL; FABIAN AGUILAR; and SLOAN
SIMMS individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiffs. vs. DARP, INC.; HENDREN PLASTICS, INC., and JOHN
DOES 1-29, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-05047-TLB (W.D. Ark.),
the Hon. Judge Timothy L. Brooks entered an order on Jan. 31,
2019:

   1. granting separate Plaintiff Corby Shumate's motion to
      withdraw as class representative;

   2. certify a class of:

      "all individuals who were DARP participants at any time from

      Oct. 23, 2014, until the present, and who worked for Hendren

      Plastics, Inc. in the State of Arkansas during their time at

      DARP";

   3. designating Mark Fochtman, Michael Spears, Andrew Daniel,
      Fabian Aguilar, and Sloan Simms as class representatives;

   4. designating Attys. Jerry D. Garner, John Holleman, and
      Timothy A. Steadman as class counsel; and

   5. directing class counsel no later than Feb. 28, 2019 to
      submit a motion for approval of a proposed plan of notice
      and proposed notice forms in accordance with Rule 23(c)(2)
      (B).[CC]

DAVID BLOTT: Faces Potential Class Action Over Excessive Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Underwood, writing for CBC News, reports that about 30 men
and women from the Blood Tribe in southern Alberta, most of whom
are residential school survivors, listen closely as their lawyer
Max Faille briefs them on what's next in their class action
lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges their former Calgary lawyer and several other
defendants failed to advocate for them and charged excessive fees.

The suit was launched several years ago on behalf of thousands of
residential school survivors, who allege David Blott, Esq. abused
their trust, put his own financial interests ahead of theirs,
charged excessive fees and helped issue illegal loans to claimants
ahead of their settlements.

On Jan. 16 the survivors's current lawyer, Max Faille, Esq. --
maxime.faille@gowlingwlg.com -- told the group gathered at the
Kainai Continuing Care Centre in Standoff, Alta., that a date has
been set for certification in May, a necessary next step if this
lawsuit is to proceed.

"In our view, this is a very simple and straightforward matter in
terms of the merits of it," Faille said.

"There has already been a court determination of his mishandling of
these cases so there really should not be any issue in that
regard."

Clients treated 'like cattle'

Blott was representing at least 4,600 people, who were applying for
compensation for the residential school settlement program in
Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Northwest
Territories.

Blott resigned in 2014 while the Law Society of Alberta was
investigating his conduct.

It found he re-victimized his residential school clients and
treated them "like cattle."

"It's been a long time. I lost my wife in the process, too. She
passed away last December," said Andrew Bull Calf, who spent
several years at a residential school on the Blood reserve. He
started at the school as early as age five, only coming home for
the summer months.

"But I'm still going, still haven't given up. I've got a lot of
faith in our lawyers," Bull Calf said.

The suit was filed in Calgary in 2013. Since then, many survivors
have died, waiting for some type of resolution.

In the suit's statement of claim, Bull Calf said he and others
hired Blott to help them apply for federal compensation for the
abuse they suffered while attending the residential school.

Bull Calf said he was told he was going to receive $175,000 in
compensation but ended up with $50,000 after paying off legal fees
and high interest loans he received through one of the people named
in the suit.

Bull Calf said since launching the class action lawsuit, Blott has
come forward with an offer to settle but the group felt it was not
adequate so refused the offer.

At this latest meeting, he felt a tinge of hope that justice is in
sight, although he believes it may still be a few years away.

"There's probably no amount of money that can properly compensate
people for the harms that they endured," Max Faille, lawyer

"In a way it is frustrating," Bull Calf said.

"At least I know where we stand now and from where I see, we still
got a long way to go."

Faille said he understands people's frustrations with the time it's
taking to resolve this case.

"It's always a balancing act of ensuring it's done properly and
ensuring that all avenues have been explored without going to
court," he said. "So there are some inherent delays in the process
and then we are subject to the availability of the courts and
counsel."

'Tens of millions of dollars'

As for the amount the class is seeking, the lawyer would only say
it's in the tens of millions of dollars.

"First of all, I would say that there's probably no amount of money
that can properly compensate people for the harms that they endured
and the re-victimization that they endured at their hands,
unfortunately of their legal counsel, for what we say is the the
severe mishandling of their claims," said Faille.

"But the compensation would take various forms. Certainly first and
foremost, our position in the lawsuit is that any amounts that he
was paid, that Mr. Blot was paid, by way of legal fees should be
properly reimbursed to those individuals."

He said they are also seeking general damages and punitive
damages.

Plus he argued some residential school survivors weren't properly
compensated by Blott.

A hearing date for certification has been set in Calgary for May
24.[GN]


DIAMOND RESORTS: Court Grants Arbitration Bid in Dropp
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH M. DROPP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DIAMOND
RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-00247-APG-GWF (D. Nev.), Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada (i) granted the
Defendants' motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss; (ii)
granted the Defendants' motions to sever and transfer Plaintiff
Kaarina Pakka's claims; and (iii) denied as moot the Plaintiffs'
motions for appointment of the Lead Plaintiffs, for approval of the
class counsel, and for consolidation of later-filed actions.

Joseph M. Dropp, Mary Dropp, Robert Levine, Susan Levine, and
Kaarina Pakka sue various parties related to the offer and sale of
"points" that can be used to reserve rooms at Diamond resorts and
hotels.  The Plaintiffs spent thousands of dollars buying the
points.  

The Plaintiffs filed the proposed class action asserting the
Defendants falsely represented that the points would increase in
value and could be sold for a profit.  They contend that
constitutes the offer and sale of unregistered securities in
violation of the Securities Act of 1933.  They also assert control
person liability against defendants Michael Flaskey, Kenneth
Siegel, Apollo Management VIII, L.P., and Apollo Management, LLC.

The Plaintiffs move for appointment of certain individuals as the
Lead Plaintiffs, approval of class the counsel, and consolidation
of later-filed actions.  

The Defendants move to compel arbitration and dismiss the Dropp and
Levine Plaintiffs based on arbitration provisions in the purchase
agreements.  They also request that the Judge strikes the
complaint's class allegations because the Dropp and Levine
Plaintiffs must individually arbitrate their claims. Finally, they
move to sever and transfer Pakka's claims because her purchase
agreement contains a forum selection clause that requires any
dispute be brought in Hawai'i.

The Plaintiffs oppose arbitration, striking the class allegations,
and severance and transfer of Pakka's claims.  However, Pakka
agrees to transfer her claims if the other Plaintiffs are
dismissed.

As to the motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss, Judge
Gordon finds that (i) the Plaintiffs have not met their burden of
showing that Congress intended to preclude individualized
arbitration for Securities Act claims; (ii) the Plaintiffs'
arbitration clauses in registration statements argument does not
support a ruling that the arbitration provisions are unenforceable
under the FAA; (iii) the arbitration provisions are neither
substantively nor procedurally unconscionable; (iv) the Plaintiffs
have alleged substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct
by the signatory, Diamond Collection, and the nonsignatories, the
Apollo Defendants as control persons; and (v) the arbitration
provisions bar the Dropp and Levine Plaintiffs' claims.

Because he has dismissed the Dropp and Levine Plaintiffs' claims,
the Judge transfers Pakka's claims to the District of Hawai'i, and
moots (i) the motions to strike the class action allegations and
(ii) the Plaintiffs' motions to appoint the Lead Plaintiffs, to
approve the class counsel, and to consolidate later-filed actions.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Gordon granted the Defendants'
motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss.  Plaintiffs Joseph
Dropp, Mary Dropp, Robert Levine and Susan Levine must individually
arbitrate their claims against all the Defendants in the action.
He therefore dismissed their claims, without prejudice to pursue
them in arbitration.

The Judge also granted the Defendants' motions to sever and
transfer Plaintiff Kaarina Pakka's claims.  The clerk of Court is
instructed to transfer the complaint as to Pakka only to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Hawai'i.

Finally, he denied as moot (i) the Plaintiffs' motions for
appointment of the Lead Plaintiffs, for approval of the class
counsel, and for consolidation of later-filed actions; and (ii) the
Defendants' motions to strike.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/idw8xn from Leagle.com.

Joseph M. Dropp, Mary E. Dropp, Robert Levine & Susan Levine,
Plaintiffs, represented by D. Chris Albright, Albright Stoddard
Warnick & Albright, Lawrence P. Kolker -- kolker@whafh.com -- Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, pro hac vice, Lydia Keaney
Reynolds -- Reynolds@whafh.com -- pro hac vice & Mark Albright --
gma@albrightstoddard.com -- Albright Stoddard Warnick & Albright.

Diamond Resorts International, Inc., Diamond Resorts Holding, LLC,
Diamond Resorts Corporation, Diamond Resorts International Club,
Inc., also known as, Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development,
LLC, Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Members Association, Michael
Flaskey & Kenneth Siegel, Defendants, represented by Aleem Dhalla
-- adhalla@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer & John S. Delikanakis --
jdelikanakis@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer LLP.

Apollo Management VIII, L.P. & Apollo Global Management, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Andrew J. Ehrlich --
aehrlich@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
LLP, pro hac vice, Kamil Ammari -- kammari@paulweiss.com -- Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Lewis R.
Clayton -- lclayton@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton
& Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Robert N. Kravitz --
rkravitz@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
LLP, pro hac vice & Rosa Solis-Rainey --
rsr@morrislawgroup.com -- Morris Law Group.

Diamond Resorts Hawaii Collection Development, LLC & Diamond
Resorts Hawaii Collection Members Association, Defendants,
represented by Aleem Dhalla, Snell & Wilmer.


DK EMBROIDERY: Tellez Seeks Overtime and Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------
GRISELDA YAMILETTEC ORDONEZ TELLEZ and all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff, vs. DK EMBROIDERY
INC., DANIEL BEN-LULU, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-60297-RNS
(S.D. Fla., Feb. 1, 2019), seeks to recover overtime and minimum
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have employed several
other similarly situated employees like Plaintiff (i.e. maintenance
men, painters, and/or any other duties required by the Defendants)
who have not been paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly from the filing of the
complaint back three years.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a machine operator who did
embroidery from on or about January 18, 2017 through on or about
January 22, 2019.  The Plaintiff's duties required her to use the
following products on a regular basis: using goods and materials
from out of Florida and from China (for example: scissors, needles,
masking tape, printing machines to print on t-shirts, along with
the use of Clorox, Fabuloso, wood cleaner, etc.). The Plaintiff
used interstate wires to communicate regularly with out of state
clients. Plaintiff had to pick up and deliver merchandise to
different locations, Plaintiff had to clean the office, price
merchandise, and prepare orders for customers. The Plaintiff's work
for the Defendants was actually in and/or so closely related to the
movement of commerce while Plaintiff worked for the Defendants that
the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to Plaintiff's work for the
Defendants.The Plaintiff worked an average of 45 hours a week for
Defendants and was paid an average of $12.00 per hour but was not
paid the half-time rate for the hours worked over 40 hours in a
week as required by the FLSA, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. Zidell, P.A.
          300 71 st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167

DREW COUNTY, AR: Summary Judgment Bid in Darrough Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL DARROUGH, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MARK GOBER and SUSAN POTTS,
individually and in their official capacities; and JOHN DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 4:18CV00113 JLH (E.D. Ark.), Judge J. Leon
Holmes of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas, Western Division, (i) granted in part the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment; (ii) denied Darrough's motion to
certify a class; and (iii) denied Darrough's motion for partial
summary judgment.

Darrough brings the case against Gober, the Sheriff of Drew County,
and Potts, the Drew County Detention Center administrator, in their
individual and in their official capacities.  His claims against
them in their official capacities are, in effect, claims against
Drew County.

Darrough's central claim is that he was deprived of his due process
rights when the Jail did not provide him a timely first appearance
on one of his charges.  He also alleges that he was arrested
without probable cause, that Gober used excessive force in
arresting him, that Gober committed assault and battery, and that
Gober committed a felony tort when he assaulted him.  His complaint
names John Does 1-10 as the Defendants.  Finally, Darrough seeks to
represent a class of persons incarcerated in the Jail in the past
three years who did not receive a timely first appearance.

The parties agree on many of the relevant facts.  In November 2016
a bench warrant was signed charging Darrough with committing the
offense of theft by receiving, based on an affidavit alleging that
stolen items were located on Darrough's property.  In April 2017, a
criminal information was filed alleging that he had committed the
offense of theft by receiving.  On May 10, 2017, a search warrant
was executed and Darrough was arrested at his home.  He was charged
with possession of firearms by certain persons, criminal use of
prohibited weapons, possession of a defaced firearm, and delivery
of methamphetamine.  That same day, the November 2016 bench warrant
alleging Darrough had committed theft by receiving was served on
Darrough while he was incarcerated.  Two days later, on May 12,
2017, Darrough appeared before District Court Judge Bruce Anderson
at the Jail.  Judge Anderson set a bond, reviewed the charges, and
appointed a public defender to assist Darrough.  However, the theft
by receiving charge was not covered at the hearing.  Instead,
Darrough was arraigned only on the charges of possession of
firearms by certain persons, criminal use of prohibited weapons,
possession of a defaced firearm, and delivery of methamphetamine.
On June 5, 2017, Darrough appeared before Circuit Court Judge
Robert Gibson Jr. for a first appearance on the theft by receiving
charge.  Judge Gibson reduced Darrough's bond.  Darrough bonded out
approximately a week later.

Three motions are pending.  Darrough and the Defendants have filed
cross motions for summary judgment, and Darrough has moved for the
second time to certify a class of persons arrested in Drew County
who did not receive a timely first appearance.  The Defendants move
for summary judgment on Darrough's claims relating to his first
appearance, arguing that the official capacity claims should be
dismissed because Darrough has produced no evidence of an
unconstitutional county policy or custom as he must under Monell v.
New York Dep't of Soc. Servs.  They argue that Darrough's claim
against Sheriff Gober individually fails because he was not
personally involved in any of Darrough's alleged injuries, and that
Darrough's claim against jail administrator Potts must fail because
there was no underlying constitutional violation.

Judge Holmes finds that all of the evidence shows that the Jail's
normal procedure was to provide detained persons with a prompt
first appearance and that there was no policy or custom, ignored or
authorized by policymakers, of deliberate indifference to their due
process rights.  Darrough has the burden of proof on his claim that
Drew County had a policy or custom of not providing arrestees with
a timely first appearance, and he has failed to present evidence
sufficient to create a genuine dispute of fact on that issue.

In addition, the Judge finds that Darrough's evidence comes up
short on his first appearance claim against the County.  He has
provided no evidence of any policy, nor has he provided evidence of
a custom, a continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of
unconstitutional misconduct, to which policymakers were
deliberately indifferent or that they tacitly authorized.  The
Judge cannot conclude that the totality of the circumstances shocks
the conscience.

The Defendants also move for summary judgment on Darrough's claim
against Gober individually for lack of a causal connection between
Gober and Darrough's injury.  The Judge finds that Darrough has not
provided any evidence whatsoever that Gober was personally involved
in any of the conduct related to the first appearance.  This claim
therefore fails.

Finally, the Defendants argue that Potts is not liable in her
individual capacity because Darrough suffered no underlying
constitutional injury.  Potts individually can only be liable if
her conduct, taken under color of law, deprived Darrough of a
constitutional right—and if she is not shielded by qualified
immunity.  

The Judge finds that Potts' affidavit, along with the other
evidence, shows that the omission was an oversight, not intentional
misconduct.  None of Darrough's proof, including Singer's
affidavit, contradicts Potts' testimony that mere oversight caused
the theft by receiving charge to be omitted when Darrough had a
first appearance on May 12, 2017.  No reasonable jury could
conclude based on all the facts presented that Potts intended to
deprive Darrough of a first appearance on the theft by receiving
claim.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Holmes wil grant summary judgment on
all of Darrough's claims against Potts and Gober except his lack of
probable cause claim against Gober.  Darrough's claims against John
Does 1-10, who have not been identified, are dismissed without
prejudice.  Accordingly, he granted in part the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment.  He denied Darrough's motion to certify a
class and Darrough's motion for partial summary judgment.

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

Paul Darrough, On Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Luther Oneal Sutter, Sutter &
Gillham, PLLC.

Mark Gober, Individually and in his Official Capacity, Defendant,
represented by Ralph C. Ohm, Attorney at Law, C. Burt Newell, C.
Burt Newell, Attorney at Law & Rickey H. Hicks, Attorney at Law.


ELEMENT MATERIALS: Flores Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A case, Roger Flores, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Element Materials Technology
Huntington Beach LLC, and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 18STCV10074, was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Western Division -
Los Angeles) on Feb. 6, 2019. The C.D. Cal. Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:19-cv-00932-RSWL-E to the proceeding. The suit demands
$5,000,000 and alleges claims over labor-management relations.  The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ronald S.W. Lew.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Jessica L Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
          E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A Wong, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
          E-mail: khaque@aegislawfirm.com
                  swong@aegislawfirm.com

Attorneys for Element Materials Technology Huntington Beach LLC:

          Timothy J Long, Esq.
          Christopher S Cruz, Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON AND SUTCLIFFE LLP
          777 South Figueroa Street Suite 3200
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855
          Telephone: (213) 629-2020
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2499
          E-mail: tjlong@orrick.com
                  ccruz@orrick.com

ELKHART COMMUNITY: Violates Equal Pay Act, White et al. Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
TARA WHITE, STEPHANIE KIMMERLY, and JENNIFER LOUPEE, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
ELKHART COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00064
(N.D. Ind., Jan. 31, 2019), seeks liquidated damages, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest, and compensatory damages for harms that
the Plaintiffs suffered as a result of ECS's unlawful conduct, in
the form of back pay for up to threes from the filing of the suit
under the Federal Equal Pay Act.

According to the complaint, the United States of America long ago
adopted and implemented a fundamental policy of equality that can
be easily summarized into a simple phrase: women deserve equal pay
for equal work. Despite this long-standing and straightforward
concept, the reality of the operation of the Elkhart Community
Schools tells the story of a school corporation whose female
administrative and professional staff are consistently and
repeatedly devalued. Womens' career trajectories are blunted,
marginalized, under-valued, and often passed over for promotions.
Their professional performance and conduct is judged more harshly
than men, and they are routinely given little to no opportunity to
effectively negotiate for better wages and conditions, while male
employees are frequently given the opportunity to advance their
careers and increase their compensation through negotiations, or
merely existing within the system.

Complaints by women are routinely ignored, or disregarded as
trivial, while concerns of male employees are given increased
attention. Scrutiny of female job performance is far stricter than
with males, and male bad behavior is often ignored or trivialized.
For a woman to succeed at Elkhart Community Schools, she has to
work twice as hard, and without receiving equal compensation, the
lawsuit says.

The Plaintiffs are all current or former female administrative or
professional employees for ECS, having worked for the Defendant
over the past several years. This discriminatory pattern of conduct
has been in place since at least 2015, and likely much longer.
However, as the statute of limitations for actionable claims under
the Equal Pay Act is only three years back from the filing of a
claim, the allegations in this Complaint shall seek to focus solely
upon the relevant time frames from approximately 2015 through the
present.

Elkhart Community Schools is a school district headquartered in
Elkhart, Indiana. The district serves most of Elkhart as well as
Bristol and Simonton Lake.ana. The district serves most of Elkhart
as well as Bristol and Simonton Lake.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Bradley P. Colborn, Esq.
          Michael P. Misch, Esq.
          Bradley P. Colborn, Esq.
          ANDERSON AGOSTINO & KELLER, P.C.
          131 South Taylor Street
          South Bend, IN 46601
          Telephone: (574) 288 1510
          Facsimile: (574) 288 1650
          E-mail: misch@aaklaw.com
                  colborn@aaklaw.com

EMMANUEL HEALTH: Robinson Seeks Payment for Overtime
----------------------------------------------------
FRANCES ROBINSON on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. EMMANUEL HEALTH HOMECARE,
INC. and JOYCE JONES, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00378 (S.D.
Tex., Feb. 4, 2019), alleges that the Defendants knowingly and
deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Class Members
at the rate of one and one half their regular rate of pay for all
hours worked over 40 in a workweek as required under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the FLSA by
paying their healthcare service provider employees the same hourly
rate for their straight time as their overtime hours.  The
Defendants' compensation policy violates the FLSA's mandate that
non-exempt employees, such as the Plaintiff and Class Members, be
compensated at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
each hour worked over 40 in a week.

Emmanuel Health Homecare Inc is an in-home health care agency
located at 7015 W Tidwell Ste G110, Houston, Texas.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff and Class Members:

          Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
          John Neuman, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (281) 885-8844
          Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
          E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
                  JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com

EVOQUA WATER: Lead Counsel and Plaintiff Named in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. 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 court
has appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in McWilliams v.
Evoqua Water Technologies Corp., et al., and captioned the action
"In re Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. Securities Litigation."

On November 6, 2018, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned McWilliams v. Evoqua Water
Technologies Corp., et al., Case No. 1:18-CV-10320, alleging that
the Company and senior management violated federal securities laws
by issuing false, misleading, and/or omissive disclosures in the
period leading up to the Company's October 30, 2018 announcement
of, among other things, (a) preliminary results for the full-year
fiscal 2018 that were below previous expectations and (b) a
transition from a three-segment structure to a two-segment
operating model.  

The action names as defendants the Company and the Company’s CEO
and CFO. On January 31, 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiffs
and lead counsel in connection with the action and captioned the
action "In re Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. Securities
Litigation."

The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount to
be proved at trial, an award of reasonable costs and expenses to
the plaintiff and class counsel, and such other relief as the court
may deem just and proper.  

The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend itself against the allegations.

Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. provides a range of water and
wastewater treatment systems and technologies, and mobile and
emergency water supply solutions and services. It operates in three
segments: Industrial, Municipal, and Products. Evoqua Water
Technologies Corp. was incorporated in 2013 and is headquartered in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Nakonecznyj Seeks Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
IHOR NAKONECZNYJ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00083 (E.D. Tex.,
Feb. 1, 2019), seeks overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has worked for Defendant
as an hourly-paid, non-exempt and admittedly overtime eligible
worker during the past three years and throughout the recoverable
statutory period. The Plaintiff has routinely worked in excess of
40 weekly hours but was not paid overtime for all of his overtime
hours worked. Specifically, the Defendant failed to properly
enforce and comply with its own company-wide "On call" and
"Standby" policies that applied to all US-based non-exempt
employees until late 2017 when Defendant made the uniform decision
to revise these policies in a calculated effort to try and minimize
its overtime obligations to Plaintiff and the Class Members. The
Defendant has acted with reckless disregard to its obligations
under the FLSA, the lawsuit says.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., an information services
company, provides information, analytical, and marketing services
to organizations and consumers to manage risk and reward of
commercial and financial decisions. It offers data and analytical
tools that assist businesses to manage credit risk, prevent fraud,
target marketing offers, and automate decision making; and enables
people to check their credit report and credit score, and protect
against identity theft.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          J. Forester, Esq.
          D. Matthew Haynie, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
          E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com
                  matthew@foresterhaynie.com

               - and -

          Jill J. Weinberg, Esq.
          WEINBERG L AW FIRM , PLLC
          6425 Willow Creek Drive
          Plano, Texas 75093
          Telephone: (972) 403-3330
          E-mail: jillwlfirm@gmail.com

FCA US: Certification of Class, Subclasses Sought in Gearshift Case
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: FCA US LLC MONOSTABLE ELECTRONIC
GEARSHIFT LITIGATION, Case No. 2:16-md-02744-DML-DRG (E.D. Mich.),
the Plaintiffs move the Court or an order on Jan. 31, 2019:

   A. certifying a plaintiff Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
      23(a) and 23(b)(2) defined as:

      "all persons or entities who currently own or lease a "Class

      Vehicle" which means a 2012-2014 Dodge Charger, 2012-2014
      Chrysler 300, or 2014-2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee which is
      equipped with the monostable shifter";

   B. certifying Plaintiff Classes and Subclasses pursuant to Fed.

      R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) of individuals or entities who
      purchased or leased a "Class Vehicle" which means a 2012-
      2014 Dodge Charger, 2012-2014 Chrysler 300, or 2014-2015
      Jeep Grand Cherokee during the class period of 2011 until
      April 22, 2016, and who falls within one or more of the
      following Classes and appointing the Plaintiffs as Class or
      Sub-Class Representatives:

      1. Consumer Protection Classes

         a. The Unfair and Deceptive Conduct Consumer Protection
            Class:

            "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a
            Class Vehicle in California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa,
            Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
            or  Washington";

            Class Representatives: Michael V. Nathan (CA), David
            Goldsmith (CA), Sarah Lalli (FL), Kean McDonald (IL),
            Lindsey Wells (IL), Pamela Havnen (IA), Charles Frank
            Schultz (MD), Bernadine Hartt (MA), Scott Michael
            Youngstrom, Jr. (MA), Todd Machtley (MA), Clare
            Colrick (NJ), John Lynd (NY), Janella Mack (NY),
            Danielle Hackett (OH), Joby Hackett (OH), Karen
            Stedman (WA), Cameron Webster (WA);

         b. The Omissions Consumer Protection Class

            "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a
            Class Vehicle in Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, or New
            Jersey";

            Class Representatives: Kean McDonald (IL), Lindsey
            Wells (IL), Melvin Scott (MI), Eliam Marrero-Bernal
            (NV), Clare Colrick (NJ);

         c. The Unconscionable Acts or Practices Consumer
            Protection Class.

            "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a
            Class Vehicle in New Jersey, Texas, or Utah.

            Class Representatives: Clare Colrick (NJ), Robert F.
            Hyatt IV (TX), Cameron Phelps (TX), Cris-Ann Craig
            (TX), Kelli Foreman (TX), Krystal Dial (TX), Ashley
            Gllipsie (TX), Jay Waggoner (TX), Trevor Marble (UT).

      2. Unjust Enrichment Classes

         a. The Unjust Enrichment Class 1:

            "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a
            Class Vehicle in Illinois, Maryland, or Michigan";

            Class Representatives: Kean McDonald (IL), Lindsey
            Wells (IL), Charles Frank Schultz (MD), Melvin
            Scott (MI).

         b. The Unjust Enrichment Class 2:

            "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a
            Class Vehicle in Florida, Nevada, Oregon,
            Pennsylvania, Washington, or Wisconsin";

            Class Representatives: Sarah Lalli (FL), Eliam
            Marrero Bernal (NV), Todd Fisher (OR), John Metzger
            (PA), Mary Metzger (PA), Bruce Vosburgh (PA), Karen
            Stedman (WA), Cameron Webster (WA), Marc Hughes (WI);

         c. The Unjust Enrichment Class 3:

            "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a
            Class Vehicle in Arizona, Colorado, Iowa,
            Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
            Ohio, or Utah”;

            Class Representatives: Jeffrey Guy (AZ), Casey Perkins

            (AZ), Debra Felker (CO), Pamela Havenen (IA),
            Bernadine Hartt (MA), Scott Michael Youngstrom, Jr.
            (MA), Todd Machtley (MA), Clare Colrick (NJ), John
            Lynd (NY), Janella Mack (NY), Jacob Gunnells (NC),
            Danielle Hackett (OH), Joby Hackett (OH), Trevor
            Marble (UT);

         d. The Unjust Enrichment Class 4:

            "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a
            Class Vehicle in Missouri or Texas";

            Class Representatives: Taylor Brooks (MO); Robert F.
            Hyatt IV (TX), Cameron Phelps (TX), Cris-Ann
            Craig (TX), Kelli Foreman (TX), Krystal Dial (TX),
            Ashley Gillipsie (TX), Jay Waggoner (TX).

      3. Fraudulent Concealment Classes and Subclasses

         a. The Fraudulent Concealment Exclusive or Superior
            Knowledge Class:

            "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a
            Class Vehicle in California, Colorado, Illinois,
            Iowa, New York, Ohio, Utah, Washington or Wisconsin";

            Class Representatives: Michael V. Nathan (CA), David
            Goldsmith (CA), Debra Felker (CO), Kean McDonald
            (IL), Lindsey Wells (IL), Pamela Havnen (IA), John
            Lynd (NY), Janella Mack (NY), Danielle Hackett (OH),
            Joby Hackett (OH), Trevor Marble (UT), Karen Stedman
            (WA), Cameron Webster (WA), Marc Hughes (WI);

            * The Fraudulent Concealment Exclusive or Superior
              Knowledge – Reasonable Reliance Subclass:

              "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a
              Class Vehicle in Washington or Wisconsin";

              Class Representatives: Karen Stedman (WA), Cameron
              Webster (WA), Marc Hughes (WI).

            * The Fraudulent Concealment Exclusive or Superior
              Knowledge – Preponderance of the Evidence
Subclass:

              "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a
              Class Vehicle in California or Colorado";

              Class Representatives: Michael V. Nathan (CA),
              David Goldsmith (CA), Debra Felker (CO).

         b. The Fraudulent Concealment Partial Disclosure Class:

            "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a
            Class Vehicle in Florida, Maryland, Michigan, New
            Jersey, Oregon or Wyoming.

            Class Representatives: Sarah Lalli (FL), Charles
            Frank Schultz (MD), Melvin Scott (MI), Clare Colrick
            (NJ), Todd Fisher (OR), Ann Magnuson (WY);

            * The Fraudulent Concealment Partial Disclosure-
              Reasonable Reliance Subclass:

              "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a
              Class Vehicle in Michigan, New Jersey or Wyoming.

              Subclass Representatives: Melvin Scott (MI), Clare
              Colrick (NJ), Ann Magnuson (WY)

            * The Fraudulent Concealment Partial Disclosure-
              Preponderance of the Evidence Subclass:

              "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a
              Class Vehicle in Florida";

              Subclass Representative: Sarah Lalli (FL)

      4. Implied Warranty Classes:

         a. Magnuson-Moss Implied Warranty Class:

            "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a
            Class Vehicle in Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, New
            Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas or Wyoming";

            Class Representatives: Debra Felker (CO), Melvin
            Scott (MI), Taylor Brooks (MO), Clare Colrick (NJ),
            John  Metzger (PA), Mary Metzger PA), Bruce Vosburgh
            (PA),  Robert F. Hyatt IV (TX), Cameron Phelps (TX,
            Criss-Ann Craig (TX), Kelli Foreman (TX), Krystal
            Dial (TX, Ashley Gillipsie (TX), Jay Waggoner (TX),
            Ann Magnuson (WY).

         b. California Song-Beverly Implied Warranty Class:

            "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a
            Class Vehicle in California";

            Class Representatives: David Goldsmith (CA), Michael
            V. Nathan (CA).

         c. Louisiana Redhibitory Defects Warranty Class:

            "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a
            Class Vehicle in Louisiana";

            Class Representative: Dustin Stewart (LA).

   C. In the alternative above, enter an order pursuant to
      Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), certifying Plaintiff
      Classes and Subclasses of individuals or entities who
      purchased or leased a "Class Vehicle," which means a 2012-
      2014 Dodge Charger, 2012-2014 Chrysler 300, or 2014-2015
      Jeep Grand Cherokee during the class period of 2011 until
      April 22, 2016, and who fall within the following states and

      name the designated individual as the Class or Subclass
      Representative:

      Arizona:         Jeffrey Guy, Casey E. Perkins
      California:      David Goldsmith, Michael V. Nathan, Jr.
      Colorado:        Debra Felker
      Florida:         Sarah Lalli
      Iowa:            Pamela Havnen
      Illinois:        Kean McDonald, Lindsey Wells
      Louisiana:       Dustin Stewart
      Maryland:        Charles Frank Schultz
      Massachusetts:   Bernadine Hartt, Scott M. Youngstrom, Jr.
                       Todd Machtley
      Michigan:        Melvin Scott
      Missouri:        Taylor Brooks
      Nevada:          Eliam M. Marrero Bernal
      New Jersey:      Clare Colrick
      New York:        John Lynd, Janella Mack
      North Carolina:  Jacob Gunnells
      Ohio:            Danielle and Joby Hackett
      Oregon:          Todd Fisher
      Pennsylvania:    Bruce Vosburgh, John and Mary Metzger
      Texas:           Cris-Ann Craig, Kelli Foreman, Krystal
                       Dial, Ashley Gillipsie, Robert F. Hyatt IV,
                       Cameron Phelps, Jay Waggoner
      Utah:            Trevor Marble
      Washington:      Karen Stedman, Cameron Webster
      Wisconsin:       Marc Hughes
      Wyoming:         Ann Magnuson;

   D. In the alternative to 2. or 3. above, or in conjunction with

      2. and/or 3., directing order for a bellwether trial or  
      trials; and

   E. appointing the same leadership structure as the Court  
      appointed to lead the Multi-District Litigation:

      1. E. Powell Miller as Lead Counsel and Chair of the
         Plaintiffs' Steering Committee;

      2. Steve Berman as member of the Plaintiffs' Steering
         Committee;

      3. Gregory Coleman as member of the Plaintiffs' Steering
         Committee;

      4. Daniel Gustafson as member of the Plaintiffs' Steering
         Committee;

      5. Joseph Meltzer as member of the Plaintiffs' Steering
         Committee;

      6. Robert Shelquist as member of the Plaintiffs' Steering   
         Committee;

      7. David Honigman as Liaison Counsel.[CC]

Attonrneys for Plaintiffs:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 West University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
          Tyler S. Graden, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ
          MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  pmuhic@ktmc.com
                  trgaden@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Sean R. Matt, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
          SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  toml@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
          301 N. Lake Ave, Suite 920
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
          E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Jason S. Kilene, Esq
          David A. Goodwin, Esq
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 S. Sixth St., Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  jkilene@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
                  rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL
          NAUEN P.L.LP.
          100 Washington Ave., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  rapeterson@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
          Adam E. Edwards, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 533-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  adam@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          David Honigman, Esq.
          Douglas Toering, Esq.
          Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
          MANTESE HONIGMAN PC
          1361 E. Big Beaver Rd.
          Troy, MI 48083
          Telephone: (248) 457-9200
          Facsimile: (248) 457-9201
          E-mail: dhonigman@manteselaw.com
                  dtoering@manteselaw.com
                  gmantese@manteselaw.com

FINISAR CORPORATION: Pappey Sues over Misleading Financial Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, FREDERICK THEODORE PAPPEY, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FINISAR
CORPORATION, MICHAEL HURLSTON, MICHAEL C. CHILD, ROGER C. FERGUSON,
MICHAEL L. DREYER, THOMAS E. PARDUN, JERRY S. RAWLS, ROBERT N.
STEPHENS, and HELENE SIMONET, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00167-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 28, 2019), sues Finisar and its
Board of Directors for violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising in connection with the
Board's attempt to sell Finisar to II-VI Incorporated, through a
proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, that omits material facts necessary to make the
statements therein not false or misleading.

According to the complaint, on December 28, 2018, the Defendants
violated the the Exchange Act by filing a materially incomplete and
misleading Preliminary Proxy Statement filed on Schedule 14A with
the SEC. The Proxy Statement urges Finisar's stockholders to vote
in favor of the Proposed Transaction where Finisar would be
acquired by II-VI. The Proposed Transaction was first announced on
November 9, 2018. According to that announcement, Finisar and II-VI
had entered into a definitive merger agreement whereby II-VI would
acquire all of Finisar's outstanding shares of common stock for
$15.60 in cash and 0.2218 shares of II-VI common stock. The Merger
Consideration valued the Proposed Transaction at approximately $3.2
billion and closing is expected in the middle of 2019. The Proxy
Statement is materially deficient and misleading because, inter
alia, it omits to disclose material information concerning Finisar
management's financial projections and the financial analyses
conducted by Barclays Capital Inc., Finisar's financial advisor.
Without this material information, Finisar stockholders will be
force to decide how to vote their shares based upon materially
incomplete and misleading information. Accordingly, the omission of
such material information constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as stockholders need such
information in order to cast a properly informed vote on the
Proposed Transaction, the lawsuit says.

Finisar Corporation is a manufacturer of optical communication
components and subsystems. In 2008, Finisar merged with Optium
Corporation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Carl L. Stine, Esq.
          Adam J. Blander, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: 212-759-4600
          Facsimile: 212-486-2093
          E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com

FIRST CIRCUIT: Class Certification Sought in Case v. Policy Makers
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit DERRICK PIERRE, the Plantiff, vs LOCAL
RULE POLICY MAKER FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01094-JWD-EWD (M.D. La.), Mr. Pierre
asks the Court to treat his case as a class action, and to certify
the class and appoint counsel.

The Plaintiff alleges that the policy maker for the First Circuit
Court of Appeal failed to adopt or implement procedural protections
to prevent constitutional violations. Specifically, the First
Circuit Court of Appeal failed to adopt or implement a policy akin
to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal's Local Rule 7, effective
January 1, 1997, which addresses the type of problem found in this
case. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal is the only appellate
court in the State of Louisiana who has afforded appellants the
procedural protections of Local Rule 17. The Plaintiff points out
that for the past 22 years the First, Second, Third, and Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeal have denied similarly situated appellants
their constitutional rights to a complete appeal, equal protection,
and due process. This is a complex case and the plaintiffs ability
to investigate and present the case and the level of skill required
to present the evidence will require the appointment of
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.  He is an inmate at the Rayburn
Correctional Center in Angie, Louisiana.

FLAIR REDEMPTION: Peguero Seeks Payment of Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
FELIX PEGUERO, On Behalf of Himself And All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FLAIR REDEMPTION MANAGEMENT CORP. and
and RAMON GERMOSEN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01068
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 4, 2019), seeks to recover from the Defendants the
full payment of all unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation
and liquidated damages under the Fair labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants
-- a recycling company and its owner -- from on or about June 1,
2015 through on or about January 3, 2018. Throughout his
employment, the Plaintiff regularly worked at least 71 hours a
week, as required by the Defendants.  However, the Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiff at the minimum wage or overtime rate of pay
of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for each hour
that Plaintiff worked per week in excess of 40, as the FLSA and the
NYLL require.

Furthermore, the Defendants failed to furnish Plaintiff with
accurate and/or complete wage statements on each payday as the NYLL
requires or provide Plaintiff with a wage notice containing the
criteria enumerated under the NYLL. The Defendants paid and treated
of all their non-managerial employees who worked for them in the
same manner, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants own and operate a recycling company in Manhattan,
New York.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Louis M. Leon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
          108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 583-7400
          E-mail: LLeon@Cafaroesq.com

FLOWERS FOODS: Rosinbaum et al. Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit BOBBY JO ROSINBAUM AND ROBERT WILLIAM
MORGAN, JR., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiffs, vs. FLOWERS FOODS, INC. and FRANKLIN
BAKING COMPANY, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. No. 7:16-cv-00233-FL
(E.D.N.C.), the  Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying a
class of:

      "all persons who, at any time from December 1, 2011
      continuing through entry of judgment in this case, worked as

      Distributors for Flowers Foods, Inc. and/or Franklin Baking
      Co., LLC in the State of North Carolina and were classified
      as independent contractors under their distribution
      agreements."

The Plaintiffs seek certification of this class under 23(b)(2)
because Defendants have misclassified all Plaintiffs and proposed
class members as independent contractors such that injunctive or
declaratory relief is appropriate with respect to the class as a
whole.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
          Christopher D. Jozwiak, Esq.
          Scott A. Moriarity, Esq.
          BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP
          100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 252-3570
          Facsimile: (612) 252-3571
          E-mail: sjwanta@baillonthome.com
                  cdjozwiak@baillonthome.com
                  samoriarity@baillonthome.com

               - and -

          J. Gordon Rudd, Esq.
          David Cialkowski, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN R EED PLLP
          111 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          E-mail: Gordon.Rudd@zimmreed.com
          David.Cialkowski@Zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Leto Copeley, Esq.
          COPELEY JOHNSON & GRONINGER PLLC
          300 Blackwell Street, Suite 101
          Durham, NC 27701
          Telephone: (919) 240-4054
          Facsimile: (888) 412-0421
          E-mail: leto@cjglawfirm.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Susan E. Ellingstad, Esq.
          Rachel A. Kitze Collins, Esq.
          Brian D. Clark, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: seellingstad@locklaw.com
                  rakitzecollins@locklaw.com
                  bdclark@locklaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Margaret S. Hanrahan, Esq.
          Elizabeth R. Gift, Esq.
          Benjamin R. Holland, Esq.
          Michael O. Eckard, Esq.
          Michael D. Ray, Esq.
          Christopher E. Humber, Esq.
          Michael J. Murphy, Esq.
          James J. Murphy, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          201 South College Street, Suite 2300
          Charlotte, N.C. 28244
          E-mail: maggie.hanrahan@ogletree.com
                  liz.gift@ogletree.com
                  ben.holland@ogletree.com
                  michael.eckard@ogletree.com
                  michael.ray@ogletree.com
                  chris.humber@ogletree.com
                  michael.murphy@ogletree.com
                  james.murphy@ogltree.com

FLYWHEEL SPORTS: Violates TCPA and Invades Privacy, Henricks Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA HENRICKS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FLYWHEEL SPORTS, INC., and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 1:19-cv-00895 (S.D.N.Y.,
January 29, 2019), arises from the Defendants' alleged illegal
actions in contacting the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby,
invading her privacy.

Flywheel Sports, Inc., is a fitness company and a New York
corporation with its headquarters and its principal place of
business in New York City.  The true names and capacities of the
Doe Defendant are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph M. Hekmat, Esq.
          HEKMAT LAW GROUP
          11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (424) 888-0848
          Facsimile: (424) 270-0242
          E-mail: jhekmat@hekmatlaw.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


FUELCO ENERGY: Failed to Pay Overtime Wages, Zamora Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE ZAMORA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FUELCO ENERGY, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00356 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 1, 2019), alleges that
Fuelco failed to pay Felipe Zamora, and other workers like him,
overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Instead,
Fuelco paid Mr. Zamora and other workers like him their regular
hourly rate for a portion of the hours they worked in excess of 40
in a workweek, which Fuelco designates as "standby hours."

Additionally, instead of using all renumeration received to
calculate Zamora's regular and overtime rates of pay, Fuelco
improperly excluded certain non-discretionary bonuses from the
calculations, thereby depriving Zamora and other workers like him
of overtime pay at an appropriate rate in violation of the FLSA,
the lawsuit says.

According to the complaint, throughout Zamora's employment with
Fuelco, the Defendant paid him an hourly rate for all hours worked
up to 40 hours in a single workweek, and the same hourly rate for a
portion of the hours he worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek, which Fuelco arbitrarily denoted as "standby hours."
Zamora also received a non-discretionary bonus which was excluded
from his overtime calculations.

Fuelco is a finished fuel and refined product wholesale and retail
marketer and transportation provider for the oil and gas service
industry.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713 352-1100
          Facsimile: 713 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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

GREAT AMERICAN: Fastrich et al. Seek to Certify Settlement Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit JOHN FASTRICH, UNIVERSAL INVESTMENT
SERVICES, INC., and REGINALD J. GOOD, the Plaintiffs, vs.
CONTINENTAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GREAT AMERICAN FINANCIAL
RESOURCE, INC., AMERICAN FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., LOYAL AMERICAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, and AMERICAN RETIREMENT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00615-SJD (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement
      agreement with Great American;

   2. preliminarily certifying the state law claims as a Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 23 class on behalf of the national Settlement Class;

   3. preliminarily appointing John Fastrich, Universal Investment

      Services, Inc., and Reginald J. Good D/B/A Reginald J. Good
      Agency as Class Representatives of the Settlement Class;

   4. preliminarily appointing J. Barton Goplerud and Brian O.
      Marty of Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese, P.C., Alan
      Rosca of RoscaLaw LLC, Lydia Floyd and James Booker of
      Peiffer Wolf Carr & Kane, and Thomas Reavely of Whitfield &
      Eddy P.L.C. as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class;

   5. approving the plan of notice to the Settlement Class
      Members, including approving the Notice attached to the
      Settlement Agreement; and

   6. scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing to consider entry of a
      final order approving the settlement and the request for
      attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and Plaintiff's
      incentive awards.[CC]

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

          James P. Booker, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE
          A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          1422 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1610
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 589-9280
          Facsimile: (216) 916-9220
          E-mail: jbooker@pwcklegal.com

               - and -

          J. Barton Goplerud, Esq
          SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD, & WEESE, P.C.
          5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265
          Telephone: (515) 223-4567
          Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
          E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com

               - and -

          Alan Rosca, Esq.
          ROSCALAW LLC
          23250 Chagrin Blvd, Suite 100
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 570-0097
          Facsimile: (888) 411-0038
          E-mail: rosca@lawgsp.com

               - and -

          Thomas S. Reavely, Esq.
          WHITFIELD & EDDY, P.L.C.
          699 Walnut St., Suite 2000
          Des Moines, IA 50309-4195
          Telephone: (515) 288-6041
          Facsimile: (515) 246-1474
          E-mail: reavely@whitfieldlaw.com

GREATBANC TRUST: Sued over Employee Stock Ownership Plan Buyout
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE RUSH, as a participant in and on behalf of the Segerdahl
Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), and on behalf of
a class of all others who are similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
GREATBANC TRUST COMPANY; MARY LEE SCHNEIDER; RICHARD JOUTRAS;
RODNEY GOLDSTEIN; PETER MASON; ROBERT CRONIN; JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS
1-10; and SEGERDAHL CORP. (d/b/a SG360), the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00738 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 5, 2019), asks the Court to declare
that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the ESOP,
and to enjoin the Defendants from further violations of their
fiduciary responsibilities, obligations, and duties and from
further engaging in transactions prohibited by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, a participant in the
Segerdahl Corporation ESOP, brings this action in a representative
capacity on behalf of the ESOP and as a class action on behalf of
all other similarly situated participants in and beneficiaries of
the ESOP. Segerdahl was established in 1956 and is headquartered in
Wheeling, Illinois. Segerdahl is one of the largest and most
successful printing companies in the United States. Segerdahl has
roughly 770 employees, and is the fourth-largest, fully-integrated
direct mail printer in North America and the largest company
focused on medium and high volume direct mail printing, holding
approximately 10% of this market segment. Segerdahl's customers
include Fortune 500 companies across a variety of industries. By
2015, Segerdahl had more than $300 million per year in sales.

In the ESOP Buyout, ICV Partners paid less than the fair market
value of the ESOP's shares, and paid less than what other willing
buyers would have paid for the ESOP's shares. At all relevant times
leading up to the ESOP Buyout, and despite the ESOP's ownership of
100% of Segerdahl's shares, Defendants Schneider and Joutras
exercised effective control over Segerdahl. The control in
substance that the Segerdahl Defendants wielded gave them the
effective ability to hire and fire board members and retain or
remove the ESOP's trustee and other fiduciaries. At all relevant
times leading up to the ESOP Buyout, the Segerdahl Defendants
actually exercised this control, and in fact appointed or retained
all members of Segerdahl's board of directors as well as the ESOP's
trustee and other fiduciaries. In addition, the Segerdahl
Defendants' control over Segerdahl permitted them to control their
own compensation and bonuses.

The Segerdahl Defendants engaged in a deeply flawed process in
marketing Segerdahl to potential buyers leading up to the ESOP
Buyout. Instead of seeking to maximize the price the ESOP received
for its shares, the Segerdahl Defendants marketed the company
primarily to investment firms and intentionally avoided marketing
Segerdahl to its competitors. Even though a competitor would have
paid more for the company than an investment firm like ICV
Partners, the competitor would have taken over day to day control
of the company's operations from the Segerdahl Defendants. Losing
control would come at real cost for the Segerdahl Defendants, who
would lose the ability to set their own compensation and bonuses.
Moreover, the Segerdahl Defendants ran a risk of losing their jobs
if the company was sold to a competitor, as the buying competitor
would eventually consolidate the Segerdahl Defendants' jobs
functions into the buyers' existing management structure to realize
synergistic value from the deal. By contrast, an investment capital
firm, like ICV Partners, with less experience in the printing
industry, would likely leave management in place and in control
over the company's operations, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael M. Mulder, Esq.
          Elena N. Liveris, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. MULDER
          1603 Orrington Avenue, Suite 600
          Evanston, IL 60201
          Telephone: (312) 263-0272
          E-mail: mmmulder@mmulderlaw.com
                  eliveris@mmulderlaw.com

               - and -

          Todd Schneider, Esq.
          James A. Bloom, Esq.
          Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
          KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Ste. 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                  jbloom@schneiderwallace.com
                 kbates@schneiderwallace.com

HAM FARMS: Lopez Deadlines Stayed Pending Deal w/ Martinez Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADAN LOPEZ, FRANCISCO MENDEZ, EZEQUIEL
ABURTO-HERNANDEZ, ELENA RAFAEL-PERALTA, JOSÉ: PABLO
SANDOVAL-MONTALVO, JOSÉ: JIMENEZ-OLIVAREZ, ALEJANDRO
MARTINEZ-MENDEZ, FRANCISCO PALACIOS-HERNANDEZ, HUMBERTO DE LA LUZ
ARMENTA, and ISAIAS ESPINOSA-VAZQUEZ, on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. HAM FARMS, LLC
f/k/a HAM FARMS, INC., HAM PRODUCE, LLC f/k/a HAM PRODUCE COMPANY,
INC., ISMAEL PACHECO, PACHECO CONTRACTORS, INC., HUGO MARTINEZ,
GUTIERREZ HARVESTING, LLC, ROBERT TORRES-LOPEZ, 5 G HARVESTING,
LLC, RODRIGO GUTIERREZ-TAPIA, SR., CIRILA GARCIA-PINEDA, BLADIMIR
MORENO, and LOS VILLATOROS HARVESTING, LLC, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 5:17-CV-329-D (E.D. N.C.), Judge James C. Denver, III of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina,
Western Division, granted the Plaintiffs and Defendant Hugo
Martinez' joint motion to stay all deadlines pending Joint Motion
for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement approval.

All the deadlines in the action are stayed as between the
Plaintiffs and Defendant Martinez, including but not limited to
Defendant Martinez's deadline to file an answer to the Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint.

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

Adan Lopez, Francisco Mendez, Ezequiel Aburto-Hernandez, Elena
Rafael-Peralta, Jose Pablo Sandoval-Montalvo, Jose Jimenez-Olivarez
& Alejandro Martinez-Mendez, Plaintiffs, represented by Brian C.
Corman -- bcorman@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll PLLC, D.M. Hancock -- mhancock@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Joseph M. Sellers --
jsellers@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
Martha A. Geer -- mgeer@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers
& Toll, PLLC & Robert J. Willis -- rwillis@rjwillis-law.com.

Isaias Espinosa-Vazquez, Francisco Palacios-Hernandez & Humberto De
La Luz Armenta, Plaintiffs, represented by Martha A. Geer, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC.

Ham Farms, LLC, f/k/a Ham Farms, Inc. & Ham Produce, LLC, f/k/a Ham
Produe Company, Inc., Defendants, represented by Charnanda T. Reid,
Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton, LLP, Kyle Richard Still --
kstill@wyrick.com -- Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton, LLP, Stephen
Levi Beaman, Stephen L. Beaman, PLLC & Thomas Cullen Stafford --
cstafford@wyrick.com -- Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton, LLP.

Hugo Martinez, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth C. King,
Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog.

Gutierrez Harvesting, LLC., 5 G Harvesting, LLC & Rodrigo
Gutierrez-Tapia, Sr., Defendants, represented by R. Daniel Boyce --
dboyce@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet, PLLC & William H. Floyd,
III -- wfloyd@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet, LLC.


HARRIS CUISINE: Figueroa Class of Servers/Waiters Cond. Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GUSTAVO FIGUEROA, II Individually and on behalf of
other similarly situated individuals, v. HARRIS CUISINE LLC, HARRIS
JMH PROPERTIES LLC, and JOHN M. HARRIS, SECTION: M (5), Civil
Action No. 18-6109 (E.D. La.), Judge Barry W. Ashe of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted
Figueroa's motion to conditionally certify the class, except that
the definition of the class is limited to servers or waiters.

The case arises out of Figueroa's employment with the Defendants as
a server at Lilette Restaurant.  Figueroa brings the action,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated
individuals, against the Defendants asserting violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and Louisiana state law.

Figueroa alleges that the Defendants routinely forced its servers,
including Figueroa, to contribute to an illegal and
arbitrarily-determined tip pool and to perform "side work" for
which servers such as Figueroa were not paid the minimum wage.
Further, Figueroa alleges that Defendants willfully misclassified
the servers as exempt employees.

The following facts are drawn from Figueroa's verified complaint,
in which he describes the Defendants' alleged practices and customs
during his employment at Lilette from Feb. 7, 2018, through May 3,
2018.  The "side work" consisted of various staging and cleaning
tasks, including setting out or storing chairs and tables, and
cleaning the restaurant's serveware, restrooms, and dining areas.
Figueroa alleges the Defendants did not inform Figueroa that he
would be required to perform such work, nor did they pay Figueroa
or other servers like him the hourly rate for this work, which was
performed before and after each shift.  He alleges that the
Defendants showed reckless disregard for the fact that their
failure to pay him completely for the tips he received, and
appropriately for the hours he performed "side work," was in
violation of the law.

Figueroa seeks to represent a class of servers who were employed by
Lilette in the three years prior to the filing of the complaint and
who participated in the tip pool without receiving the full amount
of tips earned for each shift or who performed side work without
receiving hourly compensation.  He prays for a declaratory judgment
finding that Defendants willfully violated the FLSA and Louisiana
conversion and unjust enrichment law, and an award of damages for
unpaid compensation to all class members, attorney's fees, and
costs.
  
On Dec. 7, 2018, Figueroa filed the instant motion for conditional
certification of the proposed FLSA class and court approval of the
opt-in notice and procedure.  He seeks conditional class
certification of all persons who are or have been employed by
Lilette as servers (or other job titles performing similar duties)
who participated in the tip pool established by the Defendants
without receiving the entire amount of tips earned for each shift
or who performed 'side work' directed by the Defendants without
receiving compensation for each hour worked performing `side work.

The Defendants do not oppose the conditional certification of the
class or the three-year statute of limitations.  However, they
argue that Figueroa's proposed definition of the collective should
not expand "servers" by the parenthetical, "or other job titles
performing similar duties," because Figueroa's complaint and
declaration only describe "servers."  They also oppose (1) a second
notice; (2) disclosure of dates of birth and partial social
security numbers of employees; (3) posting the notice at Lilette
restaurant; (4) the 90-day opt-in period; and (5) the written
notice's invitation for potential opt-in members to contact the
Plaintiff's counsel.

Judge Ashe finds that (i) evidence shows that there is a factual
nexus that binds the putative collective action members as being
subject to a common policy or practice; and (ii) Figueroa has
adequately shown that other workers want to join the litigation and
that conditional certification of a collective action is
appropriate at this time.

The Judge agrees with Figueroa's class definition revision.  He
finds that Figueroa's verified complaint and declaration
consistently refer to the aggrieved workers as "servers," and John
Harris' declaration describes those holding Figueroa's position to
be "waiters/servers."  Accordingly, the definition of the class
collective will read, "servers or waiters."

Because nearly one-third of the potential class remains currently
employed by the Defendants, and because the notice procedure
outlined below should ensure fair opportunity for potential members
to opt in, the Judge finds that a 60-day period is adequate to
provide all potential claimants notice and opportunity to opt in.
He will not order a reminder notice, unless Figueroa later shows
good cause or the parties agree to the reminder.

Until good cause is shown, the Judge holds that the Defendants will
not be required to disclose former employees' dates of birth and
partial social security numbers.  However, they will provide
Figueroa with the names, last known addresses, emails, and cell
phone numbers of all known members of the putative class.

Finally, Figueroa has not indicated whether he would object to
including the defense counsel's contact information in the section
of the notice inviting contact for "further information."
Therefore, the parties will confer and submit proposed notices to
the Court.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Judge Ashe granted
Figueroa's motion to conditionally certify the class, except that
the definition of the class is limited to "servers or waiters."

He conditionally certified the class of all persons who are or have
been employed by Lilette as servers or waiters who participated in
the tip pool established by the Defendants without receiving the
entire amount of tips earned for each shift or who performed side
work directed by the Defendants without receiving compensation for
each hour worked performing side work at any time between Jan. 25,
2016, and the present.

Within 14 days of the date of the Order & Reasons, the Defendants
will provide to th ePlaintiff's counsel the names, last-known
addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers (including known
cell phone numbers) of all the putative collective action members.

Figueroa's proposed written notices to the putative collective
action members are approved except as to the section of the notices
inviting contact for "further information."  The parties will meet
and confer and submit joint revised notices within 10 days of the
date of the Order.  If they're unable to agree on forms of notice,
the parties will each submit (1) their own proposed notices and (2)
their objections, with supporting authority, to the opposing
party's notices, within 10 days of the Order, and request an
expedited status conference on the matter.

The counsel for the Plaintiffs will have 30 days from the date that
the Court approves the revised proposed written notices to transmit
notice to the putative collective action members via U.S. mail,
email, and text message.  

The Judge granted the opt-in Plaintiffs a period of 60 days from
the date that the notice is mailed, emailed, or texted to execute
their consent forms online using electronic signatures, thereby
signifying their decision to opt in to the lawsuit.  Within 10 days
of the date of the Order, the parties will meet and confer to
submit a consent form to the Court for review and approval.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2019 Order & Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/11j90Y from Leagle.com.

Gustavo Figueroa, II, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals employed as servers at Lilette restaurant,
Plaintiff, represented by Dominic Joseph Gianna --
dgianna@aarongianna.com -- Aaron & Gianna, PLC, Lee M. Rudin --
lrudin@aarongianna.com -- Aaron & Gianna, PLC & William David
Aaron, Jr. -- waaron@aarongianna.com -- Aaron & Gianna, PLC.

Harris Cuisine LLC, Harris JMH Properties, LLC & John M Harris,
Defendants, represented by Vincent James Booth, Booth & Booth.


HELIX ENERGY: Casey Way Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
CASEY WAY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HELIX ENERGY SOLUTIONS, ROUP, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00334 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 31, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages from Defendant under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, Helix violated the FLSA by employing
Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt employees "for a
workweek longer than 40 hours but refusing to compensate them for
their employment in excess of 40 hours at a rate not less than one
and one-half times the regular rate at which they are or were
employed." Helix also violated the FLSA by failing to maintain
accurate time and pay records for Plaintiff and other similarly
situated nonexempt employees as required by 29 U.S.C. section
211(c) and 29 C.F.R. pt. 516, the lawsuit says.

Helix Energy Solutions Inc., known as Cal Dive International prior
to 2006, is an American oil and gas services company headquartered
in Houston, Texas. The company is a global provider of offshore
services in well intervention and ROV operations of new and
existing oil and gas fields.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          Curt Hesse, Esq.
          Bridget Davidson, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Center
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739

HENRY SCHEIN: Faces Hatchett Suit Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy
--------------------------------------------------------------
R. LAWRENCE HATCHETT, M.D., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HENRY SCHEIN, INC.; PATTERSON CO.,
INC.; AND BENCO DENTAL SUPPLY CO.; AND UNNAMED BECTON DISTRIBUTOR
CO-CONSPIRATORS, Case No. 3:19-cv-00083-JPG-RJD (S.D. Ill., January
29, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff and proposed class members,
who purchased dental care products in Illinois, have been
overcharged by a long-term, price-fixing conspiracy implemented by
the Defendants.

This conspiracy is per se an unlawful restraint of trade, which has
inflicted above-competitive pricing on thousands of Illinois
independent dental practices, orthodontic practices, and dental
laboratories purchasing dental supplies from the Defendants, as
well as buying groups purchasing for these practices, the Plaintiff
contends.

The Defendants are the three largest distributors of dental
supplies in the United States.  They are insulated from competition
by high barriers to entry in the relevant market(s) which have been
heightened by the conspiracy's collusion, according to the
complaint.

Henry Schein, which is incorporated under the laws of Delaware with
its headquarters in Melville, New York, is the nation's largest
distributor of dental supplies.

Patterson, which is incorporated under the laws of Minnesota with
its headquarters in St. Paul, Minnesota, is the nation's second
largest distributor of dental supplies.

Benco, which is incorporated under the laws of Delaware with its
headquarters in Pittston, Pennsylvania, is the nation's third
largest distributor of dental supplies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Stephen Berry, Esq.
          BERRY LAW PLLC
          1100 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 645
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 296-3020
          Facsimile: (202) 296-3038
          E-mail: sberry@berrylawpllc.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          Jason H. Kim, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS, LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                  jkim@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Lewis T. LeClair, Esq.
          MCKOOL SMITH
          300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 978-4000
          Facsimile: (214) 978-4044
          E-mail: lleclair@mckoolsmith.com


HEWLETT PACKARD: Court Issues Show Order in Wolf Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANNE WOLF, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. CV 15-01221 TJH (GSx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Terry
J. Hatter, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, Western Division, ordered the parties to show cause,
within 30 days from the date of the Order, as to why the
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class action
settlement should not be denied for the parties' failure to cause:
(1) Sergi v. HP, Inc., 8:16-cv-02225-TJH-GJS, to be consolidated
with the instant case; (2) Romero v. HP, Inc.,
5:16-cv-05414-EJD;and Ferenbach v. Hewlett Packard Co.,
3:16-cv-02297-MMA-MDD, to be transferred to the Central District of
California and consolidated with the instant case.

Judge Hatter has considered the motion for final approval of the
class action settlement, together with the moving papers.

On April 25, 2016, Wolf filed a Second Amended Complaint against
HP, alleging that HP violated California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, by advertising a function on one of its printers that was
deactivated.  On Sept. 1, 2016, Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell
granted Wolf's motion to certify the class, defining the class as
all consumers who purchased the alleged offending printers from
brick and mortar stores in California between April 2014 and
September 2016.

On Sept. 25, 2017, Wolf moved for preliminary approval of the class
action settlement.  In that motion, she represented to the Court
that she would move to consolidate the following putative class
actions with the case: (1) Sergi; (2) Romero, a Northern District
of California case and (3) Ferenbach, a Southern District of
California case.  The preliminary approval motion sought to amend
the class definition to include individuals that purchased the
offending printers in Texas and online, which encapsulated the
parties and claims raised in Sergi, Romero, and Ferenbach.

On Oct. 2, 2017, HP filed a notice of non-opposition to Wolf's
motion for preliminary approval.  On March 23, 2018, the Court
granted the preliminary approval motion based on the representation
that the cases would be transferred and consolidated.  Notice of
the pending settlement was sent to the class members in the case as
well as the putative class members in Sergi, Romero, and
Ferenbach.

Wolf, now, moves for final approval of the class action settlement.
HP filed a notice of non-opposition to Wolf's motion.  Wolf has
yet to cause the consolidation of the aforementioned cases.
Indeed, two of those cases have not yet been transferred to the
District, let alone to the Court.  The Court cannot approve a
settlement that seeks to settle cases that the Court does not have
jurisdiction over.

Accordingly, Judge Hatter ordered that the parties shall, within 30
days from the date of the Order, show cause as to why the motion
for final approval of the class action settlement should not be
denied for the parties' failure to cause: (1) Sergi to be
consolidated with the instant case; and (2) Romero and Ferenbach to
be transferred to the Central District of California and
consolidated with the instant case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/1o5Bjh from Leagle.com.

Anne Wolf, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Todd
M. Friedman -- tfriedman@toddflaw.com -- Law Office of Todd M.
Friedman PC & Adrian Robert Bacon -- abacon@toddflaw.com -- Law
Offices of Todd Friedman PC.

Hewlett Packard Company, Defendant, represented by Marshall L.
Baker -- mbaker@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld
LLP, Michael James Stortz -- mstortz@akingump.com -- Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer and Feld LLP & Erin E. McCracken --
erin.mccracken@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle and Reath LLP.


HOME DEPOT: Mitchell Sues over Employee Background Checks
---------------------------------------------------------
ROSS MITCHELL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a
Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00593 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 1, 2019), alleges that Defendants
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Defendant is a private retailer which routinely obtains and
uses information in consumer reports to conduct background checks
on prospective employees and existing employees, and frequently
relies on such information, in whole or in part, as a basis for
adverse employment action, such as termination, reduction of hours,
change in position, failure to hire, and failure to promote.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act makes it presumptively unlawful to
obtain and use a "consumer report" for an employment purpose. Such
use becomes lawful if and only if the "user" -- in this case
"Defendant" -- has complied with the statute's strict disclosure
and authorization requirements. 15 U.S.C. §1681b(b)(2). The
Defendant willfully violated these requirements in multiple ways,
in systematic violation of Plaintiff's rights and the rights of
other putative class members.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated 15 U.S.C.
section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) by procuring consumer reports on
Plaintiff and other putative class members for employment purposes,
without first making proper disclosures in the format required by
the statute. Under this subsection of the FCRA, Defendant is
required to disclose to its applicants and employees -- in a
document that consists solely of the disclosure -- that it may
obtain a consumer report on them for employment purposes, prior to
obtaining a copy of their consumer report. The Defendant willfully
violated this requirement by failing to provide Plaintiff with a
copy of a document that consists solely of the disclosure that it
may obtain a consumer report on him for employment purposes, prior
to obtaining a copy of his consumer report. The Defendant also
violated 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii) by obtaining consumer
reports on Plaintiff and other putative class members without
proper authorization, due to the fact that its disclosure forms
fail to comply with the requirements of the FCRA. The Plaintiff
applied, was hired, and performed work for Defendant as an hourly
employee at Defendant's Home Depot Store located in Santa Rosa,
California. During the application process Plaintiff filled out
Defendant's standard application form permitting Defendant to
obtain a consumer report verifying Plaintiff's background and
experience. However, the form, did not comply with the FCRA, the
lawsuit says.

Home Depot Inc. is an American home improvement supplies retailing
company that sells tools, construction products, and services. The
company is headquartered at the Atlanta Store Support Center in
unincorporated Cobb County, Georgia.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          William A. Baird, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
          E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
                  tbaird@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory E. Mauro, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS, APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com

HYDRADRY INC: Aaron Vedros Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------
AARON VEDROS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HYDRADRY, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 6:19-cv-00213-PGB-TBS (M.D. Fla., Feb. 5, 2019), seeks to
recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Hydradry, Inc. employs hourly workers
to perform home restoration services. During the relevant period,
Aaron Vedros and the other hourly employees like him regularly
worked more than 40 hours a week, including on weekends.
Specifically, Vedros and the other hourly employees like him worked
between eight-to-ten hours each day Monday through Friday and, as
necessary, would work between 7:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on weekends.


When Vedros and the other hourly employees worked on weekends,
Hydradry paid them a lump sum of $100.00 for each weekend day
worked with no overtime compensation, regardless of how many hours
they worked that week. Hydradry also failed to include the lump sum
weekend compensation it paid Vedros and the other hourly employees
like him in their regular rate for purposes of calculating
overtime, depriving these workers of overtime compensation
calculated at an appropriate rate of pay using a formula based on
all remuneration received, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N Orange Ave., Floor 14
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: 407 418-2069
          E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP , LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  litkin@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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

IDAHO: Court Partly Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Turney Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHILIP A. TURNEY, an individual; BILLY RAY BARTLETT,
an individual; MICHAEL A. McCALL, an individual; and REUBEN J.
CORTES, an individual, KENNETH MICHAEL WORKMAN, an individual, and
RAY MARVIN NICHOLS, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. HENRY ATENCIO, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00001-BLW, No.
1:18-cv-00097-BLW., 1:18-cv-00099-BLW, 1:18-cv-00100-BLW,
1:16-cv-00309-BLW (D. Idaho), Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' Motion for Sununary Judgment.

On July 8, 2016, Plaintiffs Workman and Nichols filed their pro se
lawsuit asserting that the Idaho Department of Correction ("IDOC")
and its contract medical provider Corizon Health Care, Inc. were
not providing constitutionally adequate Hepatitis C treatment.
They alleged that, while Hepatitis C can now be cured with a costly
new drug -- a non-interferon direct-action antiviral medication --
IDOC/Corizon policy is to treat only the prisoners with severe
symptoms.  The Plaintiffs asserted that prison officials instead
should treat all prisoners infected with Hepatitis C to prevent
their symptoms from becoming severe.  Workman and Nichols sought
only injunctive and declaratory relief in their original pro se
Complaint.

Workman developed liver cirrhosis.  He has since been treated and
essentially cured of Hepatitis C.  The Defendants' pending summary
judgment motion asserts that Workman's claims are now moot because
he has been cured.

On Jan. 3, 2018, Plaintiffs Turney, Bartlett, Hall, and Cortes
filed a similar Hepatitis C Complaint in Case No.
1:18-cv-00001-BLW, Turney v. Atencio.  The Court has since
consolidated Workman and Nichol's action into the Turney action.

Pending before the Court are several motions filed by the parties
in the lead and member cases.  The Defendants filed a dispositive
motion seeking dismissal of only Plaintiff Workman's claims.  In
addition, they asserted that they have not provided the
court-ordered supplemental disclosures to the Plaintiffs yet
because they need clarification from the Court about what to
provide.  Through the counsel, Plaintiff Workman has opposed
summary judgment by asserting that (1) he needs to conduct
additional discovery to be able to fully respond; and (2) he
intends to amend his Complaint to assert a claim for monetary
damages, which would not be mooted by Workman's successful
Hepatitis C treatment.

Judge Winmill finds that the Defendants still owe Plaintiff Workman
disclosures, which, when received, might play into the new
counsel's decision-making on whether or how to amend Workman's
pleadings.  Workman's proposed amended monetary damages claim based
on permanent liver damage that occurred before receiving his
curative treatment are not moot, and Workman will be granted leave
to amend the original Complaint to assert them.  Hence, the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment based on mootness will be
granted as to Workman's injunctive and declaratory relief claims,
but denied as to anticipated damages claims.

The counsel for the parties, Mr. Nichols (pro se Plaintiff), and
the staff attorney assigned to the case held a case management
conference on Jan. 22, 2019, at which time (1) Mr. Nichols
indicated that he intends to voluntarily dismiss all of his claims;
and (2) the counsel decided upon a phase 1 case management plan
aimed at clarifying and streamlining this litigation in an effort
to put it on a fast track toward resolution. The Court has reviewed
the case management plan and will adopt it for the first phase of
the litigation -- which is determining the status of the current
IDOC/Corizon Hepatitis C screening policy and its implementation.

Within 21 days after entry of the Order, the Judge directs the
Defendants to disclose all relevant documents and information about
the current IDOC/Corizon screening policy to the Plaintiffs'
counsel.  Within 21 days after disclosure, the parties may seek
additional items from each other via a request (letter) for
disclosure if, in their opinion, the duty to disclose should have
included additional items or information.  The parties may seek the
help of the staff attorney if they cannot resolve disclosure
disputes among themselves.

The Plaintiffs agree to withdraw their pending motions for summary
judgment, temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction
relief, and class action certification, without prejudice to
refiling them.

After reviewing the disclosures, the counsel and the staff attorney
will meet again to determine (1) whether current screening for
Hepatitis C is sufficient, such that it is now a non-issue; (2)
whether any other issues can be narrowed before Plaintiffs amend
their complaint and class action status is reconsidered; and (3) a
phase 2 case management plan. Counsel also are encouraged to use
their best efforts to narrow the issues among themselves, if
possible.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Winmill granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' Motion for Sununary Judgment, to the extent
set forth.  He approved, and the parties will follow, the case
management plan they have developed, as set forth.  The counsel may
adjust the disclosure deadlines over the next 60 days, as needed,
so long as the adjustments are reasonable and aimed at keeping the
case on a fast track toward resolution.  The counsel will notify
the Court of any adjustments by filing a notice.  Mr. Nichols will
file a motion to or notice of voluntary dismissal within 7 days.
Otherwise, his claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/hQZ3G4 from Leagle.com.

Kenneth Michael Workman, Plaintiff, represented by John B.
Ingelstrom, RACINE OLSON NYE BUDGE & BAILEY & Richard A. Hearn --
hearn@hearnlawyers.com -- HEARN LAW, PLC.

Ray Marvin Nichols, Plaintiff, pro se.

Corizon Medical Services & Murray Young, Dr., Regional Director for
Corizon Medical Services, Defendants, represented by Dylan
Alexander Eaton -- deaton@parsonsbehle.com -- Parson Behle &
Latimer & J. Kevin West -- kwest@parsonsbehle.com -- PARSONS BEHLE
& LATIMER.

Henry Atencio, Director of the Idaho Department of Corrections,
Defendant, represented by Emily A. Mac Master, Deputy Attorney
General Idaho Department of Correction.


ILLINOIS: Court Certifies Two Classes of IDOC Prisoners
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit JEFFREY ORR, et al., the Plaintiffs,
vs. WILLARD O. ELYEA, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
2:08-cv-02232-HAB (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Harold A. Baker
entered an order on Feb. 4, 2019:

   1. certifying two classes for injunctive relief:

      Class 1:

      "all current and future prisoners in Illinois Department of
      Corrections (IDOC) custody who have been, or will be,
      diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C virus, have at least sx
      months or more remaining on their sentence, and who have not

      previously received treatment which resulted in a sustained
      viral response"; and

      Class 2:

      "all current and future prisoners in IDOC custody who have
      been, or will be, diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C virus,
      have at least 1 year remaining on their sentence, have a
      fibrosis level of greater than or equal to two and an APRI
      score greater than or equal to 0.7, and have not received
      direct-acting antiviral drugs";

   2. appointing Ken Heller as class counsel; and

   3. directing Defendants to commence immediately the treatment
      of the Class 2 Plaintiffs' Hepatatis C in accordance with
      the new protocols adopted by the IDOC in January 2019 with
      the following revisions:

      -- inmates with a fibroscan greater than two and an ARPI
         greater than 0.7 will be referred to UIC and will receive

         HCV therapy unless UIC determines that treatment is
         contraindicated;

      -- fibrscan and ARPI levels will be determined within
         three months of admission to the IDOC; and

      -- HCV theraphy will be started within three months of a
         determination that the fibrosis level is a least two and
         the APRI is at least 0.7.[CC]

INDEPENDENT HOME: Mitchell Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Audrea Mitchell, On behalf of
herself and other members of the general public similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. Independent Home Care, Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-00717-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff moves the
Court for an order:

   1. granting certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and
      23(b)(3) of a settlement class consisting of:

      "all individuals who worked at IHC and provided
      companionship services, domestic services, home care, and/or

      in-home services, including home managers, support
      associates, caregivers, home health aides, and aides between

      Jan. 1, 2015 and August 31, 2017, who did not file
      consents to join this action;

   2. approving the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate
      under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e);

   3. approving the Settlement Agreement and that it be implemented

      according to its terms and conditions;

   4. approving that the total settlement amount of $300,000, the
      proposed allocations listed in the settlement agreement, and

      the class representative award are fair and reasonable, and
      that they be distributed in the manner, and subject to the
      terms and conditions, set forth in the Settlement Agreement;

   5. granting Class Counsel their attorney fees, expenses, and
      costs as provided in the Settlement Agreement;

   6. dismissing this action on the merits with prejudice; and

   7. terminating this case, but retaining jurisdiction of this
      matter for the purpose of enforcing the Settlement
      Agreement.

The Defendant does not oppose Plaintiffs' request, the Court
said.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and those similarly situated:

          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

               - and -

          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

INTEGRATED MAIL: Joseph Roberts Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Joseph Roberts, On behalf of
Himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs. vs.
Integrated Mail Industries, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-699
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an Order granting
conditional class Certification and approving a court-facilitated
notice of all potential class members.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
          310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: 414 271 4500
          Facsimile: 414 271 6308

IRVING KAPLAN: Weiser Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
Mirel Weiser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Irving Kaplan & Associates, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-01136 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 6, 2019), seeks
to recover damages for Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is regularly engaged, for
profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers.  In
its efforts to collect the debt, Defendant contacted Plaintiff by
letter dated April 4, 2018.  The Letter was the initial
communication Plaintiff received from Defendant. The Letter states,
at the top in larger font than any other writing in the body of the
letter: "FDPCA warning Notice". There is no legal predicate for an
"FDCPA WARNING." The inclusion of this "WARNING" would lead the
least sophisticated consumer to feel threatened.  The inclusion of
this "WARNING" would lead the least sophisticated consumer to feel
intimidated, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
          E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com

IRWIN INDUSTRIES: 9th Cir. Partly Affirms Curtis Claims Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARL CURTIS, an individual; ARTHUR WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. IRWIN INDUSTRIES, INC., a California
corporation; DOES, 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees,
Case No. 16-56515 (9th Cir.), Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and
remanded in part the district court's order affirming its dismissal
of Curtis' claims.

Curtis is a former employee of Irwin, a company that conducts
operations on oil platforms located off the coast of California, on
the Outer Continental Shelf.  While working for Irwin, Curtis was
regularly scheduled to work seven 12-hour shifts in a seven-day
period, with twelve hours on duty, followed by 12 hours off duty.

As a member of United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union, Local 1945, Curtis was subject to two
collective bargaining agreements ("CBAs") between the Union and
Irwin: the National Master Agreement by and between Irwin's
Operations Group and the Union, and the National Master Agreement
by and between Irwin's Maintenance and Construction Group and the
Union.  Both agreements include detailed provisions regarding
wages, overtime, and hours, as well as provisions requiring
employees to grieve and arbitrate disputes concerning the
application and terms of the CBAs.

Without using the dispute-resolution provisions of the CBAs, Curtis
filed a putative class action complaint against Irwin in California
state court.  The complaint was based on Curtis' theory that his 12
off-duty hours counted as "hours worked" for purposes of California
labor laws because, as a practical matter, he was unable to leave
the oil platform during that time. Extending Mendiola v. CPS Sec.
Sols., Inc.'s reasoning from on-call hours to off-duty hours,
Curtis argues that Irwin violated various California wage and hour
laws by failing to recognize his 12 hours of off-duty time as
"hours worked."  Specifically, the complaint alleges that Irwin
denied him overtime pay for the 12 hours he was off duty, failed to
give him meal and rest periods for that period, and failed to pay
him minimum wage for that period.  The complaint also raised four
claims that are derivative of his overtime, meal and rest period,
and minimum wage claims.

Irwin removed the action to district court, relying on Section 301
of the LMRA, and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act ("OCSLA"),
as the basis for federal jurisdiction.  Once in federal court,
Irwin filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Curtis' claims
are preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA.

The district court granted Irwin's motion to dismiss.  Curtis filed
a motion for reconsideration, arguing that his claims were founded
on non-negotiable state-law rights that are independent of the
CBAs.

Given the timing and minimal nature of this concession, it is not
surprising that the district court missed it.  Accordingly, the
district court affirmed its dismissal of Curtis' claims as
preempted under Section 301 on the ground that Curtis disputed the
applicability of the CBAs, and it would be necessary to give the
CBAs more than merely a cursory reading to determine whether they
actually apply to Curtis'claims.  The court did not address any
other basis for preemption. H owever, the district court retracted
the order to arbitrate.

Curtis timely appealed.  The central dispute on appeal is whether
Curtis' claims, which he styles as state law claims, are preempted
by Section 301 of the LMRA.

Judge Ikuta finds that Curtis' CBAs in the case meet the
requirements of section 514, and therefore Curtis' claim for
overtime pay is controlled by his CBAs.  Because Curtis' right to
overtime "exists solely as a result of the CBA," his claim that
Irwin violated overtime requirements by not paying him for the 12
off-duty hours is preempted under Section 301.  Thus, his claim
fails at step one of the preemption analysis.

Next, the Judge finds that the district court did not consider any
of preemption issues, focusing instead on Curtis' argument that the
CBAs did not apply to his activities on the Outer Continental
Shelf.  Although Curtis conceded the applicability of the CBAs in
his motion to reconsider reply brief, the district court did not
consider his claims in light of this concession.  Moreover, these
claims raise complex issues of state law that have not been fully
briefed by the parties.  Because the district court is better able
to decide these questions in the first instance, the Judge remands
to the district court to review Curtis's meal and rest period and
minimum wage claims, as well as the four derivative claims.

For these reasons, Judge Ikuta affirmed in part and remanded in
part the district court's order affirming its dismissal of Curtis'
claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/s7aG3x from Leagle.com.

Michael A. Strauss -- mike@strausslawyers.com -- (argued) and Aris
E. Karakalos -- aris@strausslawyers.com -- Strauss & Strauss APC,
Ventura, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Ronald J. Holland -- rjholland@mwe.com -- (argued), Ellen M.
Bronchetti -- ebronchetti@mwe.com -- and Christopher M. Foster --
cfoster@mwe.com -- DLA Piper LLP, San Francisco, California, for
Defendant-Appellee.


JOHNSON LAW: McCoy Sues over Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------
RYAN MCCOY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. Richard L. Johnson d/b/a Johnson Law And Tisha
M. Deming, the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00057 (D. Neb., Feb. 2,
2019), seeks declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, actual and
statutory damages, pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs' claims arise from
Defendants' routine practice of sending initial collection letters
with an enclosed captioned and signed unfiled collection complaint.
The letter contains language: (1) threatening a lawsuit "which will
likely produce a judgment followed up with Writs of executions and
garnishments" and that (2) "filing fees, costs, attorney fees and
other expenses must be paid by you", the lawsuit says.

Johnson Law is a national law firm specializing in general civil
litigation. Headquartered in Houston, Texas, the firm says its team
has recovered more than $1 billion in verdicts and settlements for
its clients.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Pamela A. Car, Esq.
          William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
          CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C., LLO
          2120 South 72nd St., Suite 1125
          Omaha, NE 68124
          Telephone: (402) 391-8484
          Facsimile: (402) 391-1103
          E-mail: pacar@cox.net

               - and -

          O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOCIATES
          25 East Washington Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-8822
          Facsimile: (312) 372-1673
          E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com

JS DISCOUNT: Anthony Santiago Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY SANTIAGO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. JS DISCOUNT CITY GROUP, JS
99, AND UP CORP., and XIAOMENG QU, as individuals, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01112 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 5, 2019), seeks unpaid
overtime wages, compensatory damages and liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable
remedies, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked 63 hours or more
per week during his employment by Defendants from March until
November 2018. The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff time and
half for hours worked over 40 hours ,a blatant violation of the
overtime provisions contained in the NYLL and FLSA, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: 718-263-9591

KLOECKNER METALS: Court Certifies Settlement Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit DAVID GALARZA, on behalf of himself and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. KLOECKNER METALS CORP., the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-04910-FMO-PJW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M.
Olguin entered an order on Feb. 4, 2019:

   1. granting motion for preliminary approval of class action
      settlement;

   2. preliminarily certifying a class for the purposes of
      settlement:

      "all persons who worked for Defendant as a non-exempt
      employee in California at any time between July 5, 2013 and
      June 25, 2018";

   3. preliminarily appointing David Galarza as class
      representative for settlement purposes;

   4. preliminarily appointing Gregory N. Karasik of Karasik Law
      Firm and Emil Davtyan of Davtyan PLC as Class Counsel for
      settlement purposes;

   5. preliminarily finding terms of the Settlement as amended
      by the Joint Stipulation Re Modification of Class Notice as
      fair, reasonable, and adequate, and comply with Rule 23(e)
      of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

   6. approving proposed manner of the notice of settlement the
      best notice practicable under the circumstances and complies

      with the requirements of due process;

   7. approving the form, substance, and requirements of the Class

      Notice;

   8. directing parties to carry out settlement and claims process

      according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement;

   9. directing Simpluris to complete dissemination of class
      notice, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, no
      later than March 6, 2019;

  10. directing any class member who wishes to: (a) object to the
      settlement, including the requested attorney's fees, costs
      and incentive award; or (b) exclude him or herself from the
      settlement must file his or her objection to the settlement
      or request for exclusion no later than May 6, 2019, in
      accordance with the Settlement Agreement, and Notice;

  11. directing class member who wishes to appear at the final
      approval (fairness) hearing, either on his or her own behalf

      or through an attorney, to object to the settlement,
      including the requested attorney's fees, costs and incentive

      awards, to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Appear
      at Fairness Hearing no later than May 6, 2019;

  12. setting final approval (fairness) hearing on June 20, 2019,
      at 10:00 a.m. in 16 Courtroom 6D of the First Street
      Courthouse, to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and
      adequacy of the Settlement as well as the award of
      attorney's fees and costs to class counsel, and an incentive

      award to the class representative;

  13. directing Plaintiff to file a motion for an award of class
      representative incentive payment and attorney's fees and
      costs no later than April 5, 2019; and

  14. directing Plaintiff, no later than May 20, 2019, to file
      and serve a motion for final approval of the settlement and
      a response to any objections to the settlement.[CC]

KLONDEX MINES: Briefing Schedule in Lawson Securities Suit Issued
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Larry R. Hicks of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada has entered a stipulated order on the amended pleading and
briefing schedule in the case, JOHN D. LAWSON, Plaintiff, v.
KLONDEX MINES LTD., RODNEY COOPER, MARK DANIEL, JAMIE HAGGARTY,
RICHARD J. HALL, PAUL ANDRE HUET, WILLIAM MATLACK, CHARLES OLIVER,
and BLAIR SCHULTZ, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00284-LRH-CBC (D.
Nev.).

On Dec. 18, 2018, the Court granted Lawson's motion to consolidate,
be appointed the Lead Plaintiff, and appoint the lead and liaison
counsel.  On Jan. 22, 2019, the counsel for the Defendants have
waived service of process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.

The parties have met and conferred on a proposed schedule for the
briefing of the action.  It is their first request for an extension
of time by any party.

They stipulated and agreed, and Judge Hicks granted, that (i) the
Plaintiff's amended verified class action complaint will be filed
on Feb. 4, 2019; (ii) the Defendants' opening brief in support of
their motion to dismiss will be filed on March 21, 2019; (iii) the
Plaintiff's response brief in opposition to Defendants' motion will
be filed on April 22, 2019; (iv) the Defendants' reply brief in
further support of their motion will be filed on May 13, 2019; and
(v) the parties will contact the Court to schedule a hearing on the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.

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

John D. Lawson, Plaintiff, represented by Donald J. Enright --
denright@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth
K. Tripodi -- etripodi@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP & John P.
Aldrich -- jaldrich@aldrichlawfirm.com -- Aldrich Law Firm, Ltd.

Nelson Baker, 3:18-cv-288-LRH-CBC, Plaintiff, represented by Juan
Eneas Monteverde -- jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com -- Monteverde &
Associates PC, Christopher R. Tillotson --
christopher.tillotson@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, pro
hac vice, Martin Muckleroy & Michael J. Palestina --
michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC.

David Gunderson, 3:18-cv-256-LRH-CBC, Plaintiff, represented by
Evan Smith -- esmith@brodsky-smith.com -- Brodsk & Smith. LLC, Marc
L. Ackerman -- mackerman@brodsky-smith.com -- Brodsky & Smith, LLC
& John P. Aldrich, Aldrich Law Firm, Ltd.

Klondex Mines Ltd., Defendant, represented by Katherine Johnson,
pro hac vice, Thomas Swigert -- swigert.tom@dorsey.com -- Dorsey &
Whitney, pro hac vice & John D. Tennert -- jtennert@fclaw.com --
Fennemore Craig, P.C.

Rodney Cooper, Mark Daniel, Jamie Haggarty, Richard J. Hall, Paul
Andre Huet & Blair Schultz, Defendants, represented by Thomas
Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney, pro hac vice, John D. Tennert, Fennemore
Craig, P.C. & Kathryn Johnson, Dorsey & Whitney, pro hac vice.


KOVITZ SHIFRIN: Court Strikes Class Cert. Bid in Chacon Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit WENDY CHACON, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KOVITZ SHIFRIN
NESBIT, an Illinois Professional Corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-02766 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr.
entered an order on Feb. 4, 2019:

   1. overruling Plaintiff's objections to Magistrate Judge
      Weisman's November 2, 2018 discovery order;

   2. directing Plaintiff to tender all remaining discovery
      ordered to be produced by Judge Weisman within seven days of

      the order; and

   3. striking pending motions to certify class and for partial
      summary judgment without prejudice and with leave to refile
      instanter if the case does not settle, in view of the
      protracted time spent in discovery and the settlement
      conference with Magistrate Judge Harjani scheduled for
      February 19, 2019.

Plaintiff seeks to maintain a class action to prosecute claims
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  Defendant sought
discovery to obtain information relating to the financial
wherewithal of Plaintiff's counsel.  After a lengthy colloquy with
Magistrate Judge Weisman, the parties agreed to concentrate the
focus of that discovery not on counsel himself, but on the
resources of his law firm.  More specifically, Defendant requested
tax documents showing income and expenses for Plaintiff's counsel's
firm.

According to Judge Dow, even if the Court could find some ambiguity
in Judge Weisman's September 20 order to produce "financial records
of Plaintiff's counsel's firm so that Defendant and the Court can
evaluate counsel's ability to competently serve as class counsel",
there was no ambiguity in his later orders to produce specific,
unpredicted tax documents. The Plaintiff has resisted this order.
The thrust of Plaintiff's argument is that "this is a
run-of-the-mill FDCPA case" and that the information sought by
Defendant is not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case
-- and instead amounts to a harassing fishing expedition.

The Defendant raises several arguments in support of Judge
Weisman's order.  According to Judge Dow, the Court need only
address one, as it is dispositive. On the merits, Judge Weisman
order was not "clearly erroneous," Judge Dow held.  The Plaintiff,
Judge Dow said, chose to file this lawsuit and put herself forward
as a representative plaintiff on behalf of thousands of putative
absent class members. In so doing, she made relevant her counsel's
financial resources.

Judge Dow explained, "Tax returns are a common way of measuring a
person's or an entity's resources, as they are filed under penalty
of perjury and thus contain at least that solid indication of
trustworthiness. The Plaintiff does not claim that the requested
information is particularly onerous to produce; in fact, the
relevant documents appear to have been produced, but in highly
redacted form.  Thus, the general subject matter of counsel's
finances is abundantly relevant to an important issue in the case
-- class certification -- and there has been no showing that the
production ordered imposes an undue burden on Plaintiff, or any
burden at all that is out of proportion to a putative class of
thousands of plaintiffs. The fact that Judge Weisman could have
ordered less or different information to be produced does not
render the specific order that he entered an abuse of discretion.
And whether the cost of the notice to the class would be $10,000 or
$40,000, counsel still must satisfy the Court that his resources --
whatever they are -- will suffice to carry through the litigation
in all respects, not just the sending of notice. The Plaintiff also
loads into her objections other complaints about Defendant's own
redactions to financial documents and Defendant's alleged
violations of the protective order, but those are tangential from
the main issue and thus can be addressed expeditiously. It appears
that Defendant has redacted the amounts paid to each shareholder of
the firm, but has provided the overall financial picture of the
firm -- which would seem to be the critical information needed to
determine Defendant's overall exposure under the statute."

"In other words, the redactions look fine, and no proper objection
has been made in any event. In regard to the alleged violation of
the protective order, there is nothing in the record to indicate
that Plaintiff's counsel made a contemporaneous objection to the
statements as they were being spoken -- quite possibly because
nobody was in the courtroom to hear them other than persons who
were subject to the protective order -- a classic no harm, no foul
situation. Unless an objection was made off the record, the
argument is waived.  Nonetheless, given the agreement of the
parties, the path of least resistance is to accept their deal to
redact the one offending line of the transcript, and so that will
be ordered."[CC]

L-RAY LLC: Petra Yahuith Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------
PETRA YAHUITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. L-RAY LLC, dba ALTA RESTAURANT and
CHRISTOPHER CHESNUTT and EWA OLSEN, as individuals, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01114 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 5, 2019), seeks unpaid
overtime wages, compensatory damages and liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable
remedies, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked 66 hours or more
per week during her employment by Defendants from 2013 to 2018. The
Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff time and half for hours worked
over 40 hours ,a blatant violation of the overtime provisions
contained in the NYLL and FLSA, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          69-12 Austin Street
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: 718-263-9591

LIBERTY HEALTH: March 8 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 7 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against, Liberty Health Science Inc. ("Liberty" or the
"Company") (OTCMKTS: LHSIF) and certain of its officers.   The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, and indexed under 19-cv-00161, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than
Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise,
acquired Liberty common stock between June 28, 2018, and December
3, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Liberty Class A common stock
between June 28, 2018, and December 3, 2018, you have until March
8, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Liberty was incorporated under the Business Corporations Act
(British Columbia) on November 9, 2011, as SecureCom Mobile Inc.
The Company's principal business activity is the production and
distribution of medical cannabis through its wholly-owned
subsidiary DFMMJ LLC (d/b/a Liberty Health Sciences Florida Ltd.)

Aphria Inc. ("Aphria"), which also produces and distributes
cannabis, has had longstanding ties with Liberty, starting from the
very beginning of both companies.  When Aphria was founded in 2014,
Victor Neufeld ("Neufeld") joined the firm as CEO and co-founder.
One of Aphria's other early institutional backers included The
Delavaco Group, Front St. Capital, York Plains, and Broadband
Capital of NYC.

Neufeld became the Chairman of Liberty while Cole Cacciavillani,
Aphria's chief agronomist and co-founder, also became one of the
executives at Liberty.  Liberty was heavily influenced by Aphria
and individuals involved in the management of Aphria.  Neufeld and
the Serruya are large shareholders in both companies.

The complaint alleges throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies.  Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:  (i) Liberty, in conjunction with Aphria, was
involved in a scheme whereby numerous fraudulent acquisitions and
transactions were made to provide undue benefits to both companies'
insiders; and (ii) as a result, Liberty's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

In September 2018, Aphria announced that it had sold off its stake
in Liberty.  On December 3, 2018, Quintessential Capital Management
and Hindenburg Research issued a report entitled "Aphria:  A Shell
Game with a Cannabis Business on the Side," claiming that Aphria
was part of a scheme involving the acquisition of shell companies
at artificially inflated prices. Specifically, the report alleged:
"Aphria is part of a scheme orchestrated by a network of insiders
to divert funds away from shareholders into their own pockets."
The article detailed a thorough and on-the-ground investigation
into Aphria's latest investments that revealed the poor quality and
worth of the assets of those investments.  For example, the article
was accompanied by pictures showing that Aphria's latest investment
in Jamaica was an abandoned building on dilapidated property.

On this news, Liberty's stock fell $0.36, or nearly 34%, over the
next two trading days to close at $0.70 on December 4, 2018.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later,
the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established,
fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has
recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of
class members. [GN]


LYDIA M.C.: Zheng Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit JIE HUANG ZHENG, on his own behalf and
on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LYDIA
M.C. LLC d/b/a Lilac House; LC BISTRO LLC d/b/a LC Chen's; XING
CHEN, and LIN MA, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01126-JAM (D.
Conn.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order:

   1. granting collective action status under the Fair Labor
      Standards Act;

   2. directing the Defendants to produce an Excel spreadsheet
      containing first and last name, last known address with
      apartment number (if applicable), the last known telephone
      numbers, last known e-mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID
      and/or FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work
      location, dates of employment and position of ALL current
      and former non-exempt and non-managerial employees employed
      at any time from July 06, 2015 to the present within 21 days

      of the entry of the order;

   3. authorizing the dissemination of notice of the case, in
      any relevant language, via mail, email, text message, or
      social media messages or chats, to all members of the
      putative class within 21 days after receipt of a complete
      and accurate Excel spreadsheet with affidavit from
      Defendants certifying that the list is complete and from
      existing employment records;

   4. directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed
      Notice in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and
      unobstructed locations likely to be seen by all currently
      employed members of the collective, and the notice shall
      remain posted throughout the opt-in period, at the
      workplace;

   5. directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of Pendency,
      in an abbreviated form to be approved by the Court, at
      Defendants’ expense by social media and by publication in
      newspaper should Defendants fail to furnish a complete Excel

      list or more than 20% of the Notice be returned as
      undeliverable with no forwarding address to be published in
      English, Chinese, and Spanish; and

   6. directing the equitable tolling on the statute of limitation

      on this suit be tolled for 90 days until the expiration of
      the Opt-in Period.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff, proposed FLSA Collective and potential
Rule 23 Class:

          Gary Phelan,. Esq.
          MITCHELL & SHEAHAN, P.C.
          80 Ferry Blvd., Suite 216
          Stratford, CT 06615
          Telephone: (203) 873-0240
          E-mail: gphelan@mitchellandsheahan.com

               - and -

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324

M.D. CLEANING: Morales Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
ELSA VICTORIA MORALES and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff, vs. M. D. CLEANING AND TRANSPORT,
INC, MIAMI DADE CAR RENTAL LOGISTICS, INC, ADRIANA A CASTILLO a/k/a
ADRIANA A HIGGINS, and STEPHEN HIGGINS, the Defendants, Case
1:19-cv-20423-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 1, 2019), seeks overtime and/or
minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the case is brought as a collective
action under 29 USC 216(b). It is believed that the Defendants have
employed several other similarly situated employees like Plaintiff
(i.e. drivers, etc.) 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.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a driver and "lead" driver
from on or about November 28, 2016 through on or about January 21,
2019. The nature of the Defendant Corporations' business is to
transport rental cars from rental car agencies from one point to
another so that the cars can be serviced, maintained, and/or
cleaned and then returned to the rental car agencies. Defendant
Corporations' clients include, without limitation, Avis and Payless
Rent-A-Car, Budget, and other rental agencies. As a driver,
Plaintiff's job duties required of Plaintiff by Defendants, along
with other drivers, were, among other duties, to transport various
rental cars (i.e. cars, mini-vans, etc.) from rental car agencies
from one point to another (i.e. from the airport to Defendant
Corporations' clients including, without limitation, Avis and
Payless Rent-A-Car, Budget, and other rental agencies) so that the
cars could be serviced, maintained, and/or cleaned and then
returned to the rental car agencies. When Plaintiff was performing
these type of job duties as required by Defendants as a driver,
during the relevant time period, Plaintiff was paid an average of
$8.25 per hour a week for Defendants but was not paid the half-time
rate for the hours worked over 40 hours in a week as required by
the FLSA, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71 st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167

MARKEL CORPORATION: RM LAW Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Markel
Corporation ("Markel" or the "Company") (NYSE: MKL) securities
between July 26, 2017 and December 6, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Markel shareholders may, no later than March 12, 2019, move the
Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If you
purchased shares of Markel and would like to learn more about these
claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign
up online, click here.

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

The complaint alleges that 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.

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.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than March 12,
2019, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that
the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other
counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

         Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
         RM LAW, P.C.
         1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300
         Berwyn, PA 19312
         Telephone: 484-324-6800
                    844-291-9299
         Email: rm@maniskas.com [GN]


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Winkelstein Sues over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM WINKELSTEIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., STARWOOD
HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00557-KAW (N.D. Ill., Jan. 31, 2019), is a class action on
behalf of all persons in California whose personal information was
accessed, compromised or stolen from Marriott International, Inc.
due to one of the worst data breaches to date in the United States.
During the approximately four-year period between the initial
breach and its discovery, a sophisticated criminal, or criminals,
took advantage of basic vulnerabilities in Marriott's computer
systems to steal the personal information of an estimated 500
million individuals who had stayed at certain Marriott-affiliated
hotels during that period. Over this time, Marriott failed to
detect the hackers' infiltration, make note of the massive amount
of data that was being mined from its database, or take reasonable
steps to investigate the numerous warnings that should have put
Marriott on notice about the breach.

According to the complaint, on November 30, 2018, Marriott reported
that an investigation had determined that there was unauthorized
access to the Starwood guest reservation database, which contained
guest information relating to reservations at Starwood properties
on or before September 10, 2018. Marriott has not finished
identifying the affected information in the database, but believes
it contains information on up to approximately 500 million guests
who made a reservation at a Starwood property. For over 300 million
of these guests, the information includes some combination of name,
mailing address, phone number, email address, passport number,
Starwood Preferred Guest account information, date of birth,
gender, arrival and departure information, reservation date, and
communication preferences. For some, the information also includes
credit or debit card numbers and card expiration dates.

Marriott disregarded Plaintiff's and Class Members' rights by
intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems
were protected, failing to take appropriate steps to stop the
breach from occurring, and not informing its customers the fact
that its computer systems and security practices to safeguard
customers' Personal Information were inadequate. On information and
belief, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Personal Information was
improperly handled and stored, was unencrypted, and was not kept in
accordance with required cyber-security protocols, policies, and
procedures. As a result, Plaintiff and Class Members' Personal
Information was compromised and stolen, the lawsuit says.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed Class:

          Terry Gross, Esq.
          Adam C. Belsky, Esq.
          GROSS & BELSKY P.C.
          201 Spear Street, Suite 1100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 544-0200
          Facsimile: (415) 544-0201
          E-mail: terry@grossbelsky.com
                  adam@grossbelsky.com

MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Annamarie Nyirady at Satellite Today reports that Glancy Prongay
and Murray (GPM), a global investors rights law firm, revealed that
a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors that
purchased or otherwise acquired Maxar Technologies securities
between March 29, 2018 and Jan. 7, 2019, inclusive. Maxar investors
have until March 15, 2019 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

On Aug. 7, 2018, Spruce Point Capital published a report claiming
that Maxar "has pulled one of the most aggressive accounting
schemes Spruce Point has ever seen to inflate Non-International
Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) earnings by 79 percent," and
that the company's "$3.7 billion of rising debt with almost no cash
and free cash flow" necessitates that Maxar "eliminate its dividend
immediately, or risk wiping out equity holders." On this news,
Maxar's share price fell more than 13 percent on Aug.  7, 2018.

Then, on Jan. 7, 2019, Maxar disclosed that WorldView-4 had
experienced a failure in its Control Moment Gyroscope (CMGs),
preventing the satellite from collecting imagery due to the loss of
an axis of stability. On this news, the Company's stock price fell
$5.69 per share, or 48.5 percent, over the following two trading
sessions, to close at $6.03 on January 8, 2019.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose that Maxar improperly inflated the
value of its intangible assets, among other accounting
improprieties; Maxar's highly-valued WorldView-4 was equipped with
CMGs that were faulty and/or ill-suited for their designed and
intended purpose; and as a result, Maxar's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.[GN]


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Settlement in Moodie Suit Has Initial Okay
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit SHONNTEY MOODIE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MAXIM
HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No.
2:14-cv-03471-FMO-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin
entered an order on Feb. 4, 2019:

   1. granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Renewed Motion for Class
      Certification and Preliminary Approval of Settlement
      Agreement;

   2. preliminarily certifying the Settlement class defined as:

      "all individuals who (1) were hired by Maxim between May 5,
      2009 and August 27, 2012; (2) executed one of the forms or a

      substantively identical version of those forms; and (3) were

      the subject of a consumer report procured by Maxim before
      August 27, 2012";

   3. preliminary appointing Shonntey Moodie as class
      representative for settlement purposes;

   4. preliminarily appointing Zimmerman Reed and Mahoney Law
      Group, APC as class counsel for settlement purposes;

   5. The court preliminarily finds that the terms of the
      Settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate, and comply
      with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

   6. approving proposed manner of notice of the settlement;

   7. approving the form, substance, and requirements of the Mail
      Notice, Long Notice, and Claim Form;

   8. directing parties to carry out settlement and claims process

      according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement;

   9. directing JND Legal Administration to complete dissemination

      of class notice, in accordance with the Settlement
      Agreement, no later than April 5, 2019;

  10. directing any class member who wishes to: (a) object to the
      settlement, including the requested attorney's fees, costs
      and incentive award; or (b) exclude him or herself from the
      settlement must file his or her objection to the settlement
      or request for exclusion no later than June 4, 2019, in
      accordance with the Settlement Agreement, and Notice;

  11. Any class member who wishes to appear at the final approval
      (fairness) hearing, either on his or her own behalf or
      through an attorney, to object to the settlement, including
      the requested attorney's fees, costs and incentive award,
      shall, no later than June 4, 2019, file with the court a
      Notice of Intent to Appear at Fairness Hearing.

  12. setting final approval (fairness) hearing on August 22,
      2019, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6D of the First Street
      Courthouse, to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and
      adequacy of the Settlement as well as the award of
      attorney's fees and costs to class counsel, and service
      award to the class representative;

  13. directing Plaintiff to file a motion for an award of class
      representative incentive payment and attorney's fees and
      costs no later than May 3, 2019; and

  14. directing Plaintiff, no later than July 18, 2019, to file
      and serve a motion for final approval of the settlement and
      a response to any objections to the settlement.[CC]

MCDANIEL TECHNICAL: Stringer Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL STRINGER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MCDANIEL TECHNICAL SERVICES,
INC., the Defendant, Case No.: 7:19-cv-00032 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 1,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act against McDaniel Technical
Services, Inc.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is in the business of
providing inspectors, management, and other safety personnel to
operators and other oil field services companies to support oil and
gas production operations.  The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a
pipeline weld inspector during the relevant statutory time period.
The Plaintiff and the other workers like him were typically
scheduled for 12 hour shifts, seven days a week, for weeks at a
time. But these workers never received overtime for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying by the
hour and overtime as required by the FLSA, Defendant paid these
workers a daily rate.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713 352-1100
          Facsimile: 713 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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

MDL 2263: Claims Administrator Discloses Proposed Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Angeion Group disclosed a proposed class action settlement has been
reached involving purchasers of Dial Complete Liquid Hand Soap. If
you purchased Dial Complete Liquid Hand Soap, between January 1,
2001 and January 2, 2019, you may be eligible to receive a payment
from a class action settlement.

WHO IS AFFECTED?

You are affected by this class action settlement if, between:
January 1, 2001 and January 2, 2019, you purchased in the United
States the Dial Complete Liquid Hand Soap formulated with the
active ingredient triclosan and/or using the Kills 99.99% of Germs*
(*encountered in household settings) advertising claim (the "Dial
Complete Product").

For the precise terms and conditions of the settlement, please
visit www.soapsettlement.com or contact the Settlement Notice &
Claims Administrator at the telephone number or address below.

WHAT IS THE SETTLEMENT RELIEF PROVIDED?

To settle the case, Defendant will create a Settlement Fund in the
amount of $7,400,000. If you make a valid claim in the Settlement,
you will eligible to receive settlement compensation of $0.27 per
package of the Dial Complete Product purchased during the Class
Period. Claims made without providing actual purchase receipts are
capped at 30 packages. There is no limit on the number of packages
you can claim for which you submit proof of purchase. Proof of
purchase means itemized retail sales receipts showing, at a
minimum, the name of the product, and the date, place, and amount
of purchase. For more information about the Settlement Fund and the
requirements to make a valid claim, please visit
www.soapsettlement.com.

If, after subtracting from the Settlement Fund amount the
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, Notice and Claim Administration
Expenses, and any Service Awards made by the Court to Plaintiffs,
the funds remaining are insufficient to pay all timely valid
approved Claims, then payments will be reduced proportionately on a
pro rata basis.

HOW TO GET THE SETTLEMENT COMPENSATION?

To receive settlement compensation, visit the Settlement Website at
www.soapsettlement.com and download or complete a claim form. You
can also obtain a claim form by contacting the Settlement Notice &
Claims Administrator. All claims must be submitted online or
postmarked no later than April 12, 2019.

HOW TO OPT OUT OF THE SETTLEMENT?

Any Class Member who wishes to opt out of the settlement must do so
in writing, by mailing a request for exclusion to the Settlement
Notice & Claims Administrator postmarked no later than March 13,
2019. Additional information on Opting Out of the Settlement is
available on the Settlement Website, www.soapsettlement.com.

OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT

Any Class Member who does not timely and properly opt out of the
settlement may object to the fairness, reasonableness or adequacy
of the proposed settlement by filing a written objection no later
than March 13, 2019. For specific details on how to object, please
visit www.soapsettlement.com or contact the Settlement Notice &
Claims Administrator.

COURT HEARING AND ATTORNEYS' FEES

The Court will hold a hearing on May 29, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. to
consider whether to approve the settlement. The attorneys for the
class will ask the court to award them up to $1,900,000 in fees
from the Rule 23(b)(2) Component of the Settlement Fund, $1,925,000
from the Rule 23(b)(3) Component of the Settlement Fund, and
approximately $650,000 in out of pocket expenses, as well as
service awards in the amount of $5,000 for each of the
Representative Plaintiffs, to be drawn from the Settlement Fund. If
any balance remains in the settlement fund after payment of claims,
costs of settlement notice and administration, and court-awarded
fees, costs and incentives, the attorneys will ask the Court to
give the remaining balance to various charitable organizations as
further described at www.soapsettlement.com. Note that the hearing
date may change without further notice to you. Consult the
Settlement Website at www.soapsettlement.com for updated
information on the hearing date and time.

The case is: In re: Dial Complete Marketing and Sales Litigation,
United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, MDL
Docket No. 11-md-2263-SM.

         For additional information please:

         Visit the settlementwebsite:
                             www.soapsettlement.com
                       Call: 888-576-8327

         Or Contact:
         Settlement Notice & Claims Administrator
         by email:
                 info@soapsettlement.com
         by writing to:
                 Soap Settlement Administrator
                 1650 Arch St., Ste. 2210
                 Philadelphia, PA 19103

         Or Contact:
                 Angeion Group
                 Douglas S. Clauson
                 Director, Communications
                 Telephone: (215) 563-4116 [GN]


MDL 2817: Court Denies CDK's Bid to Dismiss Autoloop Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE DEALER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
MDL 2817. This document relates to: Loop, LLC, d/b/a Autoloop v.
CDK Global, LLC, Case No. 18-cv-2521, Case No. 18-cv-864 (N.D.
Ill.), Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the
Defendant CDK Global, LLC's motion to dismiss the amended complaint
filed by Plaintiff Loop, LLC.

Plaintiff Loop ("AutoLoop") brings the action on behalf of itself
and other automotive software application vendors to remedy and
enjoin purported ongoing antitrust and state law violations by
Defendant CDK.  It alleges that CDK and its non-party
co-conspirator The Reynolds and Reynolds Co. have committed
antitrust violations and inflicted widespread harm on automotive
dealers, vendors of software products and services (like the
Plaintiff), and the automotive industry by conspiring to eliminate
competition for providing data integration services for dealer
data.

The Plaintiff is an automotive software products and services
company, providing integrated software solutions to more than 2,000
car dealers across the country.  It offers three suites of
software: sales, service, and marketing.  Each suite includes
multiple software applications that dealers can select to enhance
their ability to sell cars and serve customers.  Vendors like the
Plaintiff need access to dealer data for their products and
services to function. This dealer data includes vehicle and parts
inventory, customer name and contact information, customer leads,
completed and pending sales information, vehicle financing and
insurance ("F&I") information, vehicle pricing information, and
service and repair information.

Dealers traditionally have stored a significant portion of their
data on a database within their data management system ("DMS"),
which is software that dealers use to help manage their businesses
(e.g., accounting, sales, service, and human resources).  The
Defendant and non-party Reynolds both have significant market power
in the DMS market.  In addition to their DMSs, the Defendant and
Reynolds offer standalone software applications that compete
directly with applications offered by the Plaintiff and other
third-party vendors.

The Data Integration Services ("DIS") market consists of services
that provide access to dealer data on their respective DMSs.  The
Defendant's data integration service is known as Third Party Access
("3PA"), and Reynolds's data integration service is known as the
Reynolds Certified Interface ("RCI").  The Defendant owns two such
third-party data integrators -- Digital Motorworks, Inc. ("DMI")
and IntegraLink.

Over time, Reynolds began to "close" its DMS by selectively
blocking third-party data integrators from accessing dealer data
stored on the Reynolds DMS.  As Reynolds reduced competition for
DIS through its blocking activities, Reynolds increased the fees it
charged for data integration through RCI.  The Defendant continued
to differentiate its product as an "open" DMS.  At the same time,
the Defendant's own data integration businesses provided vendors
with access to dealer data on the Reynolds DMS.

That competition between the Defendant and Reynolds halted in early
2015 when the Defendant began blocking dealers from granting
third-party access to dealer data and, at the same time, agreed to
shut down its data integration business for dealers using a
Reynolds DMS.  The Plaintiff alleges that these changes were the
result of horizontal agreements with Reynolds.

Effective Feb. 18, 2015, the Defendant and Reynolds entered into
three written agreements.  The centerpiece was a "Data Exchange
Agreement" -- also referred to as the "wind-down" agreement --
pursuant to which the Defendant agreed to wind down its data
integration business on the Reynolds DMS, with Reynolds promising
not to block the Defendant's access to the Reynolds system during
the wind-down period (approximately 5 years).  During that period,
Reynolds agreed that CDK could continue to extract dealer data just
as it had before, using login credentials provided by the dealer.
As for other independent integrators, Defendant and Reynolds agreed
that they would not "take any steps to assist any person that it
reasonably believes to have plans to access or integrate with the
other party's DMS."  In addition to the written agreements, senior
CDK and Reynolds executives also have admitted that they have
agreed to restrict access to dealer data and destroy data
integrators like Authenticom, Superior Integrated Solutions, Inc.,
and others.

Shortly after entering into the Data Exchange Agreement, the
Defendant began "renegotiating" its contracts with vendors for 3PA
access.  Consistent with its decision to close its DMS, the
Defendant imposed contractual provisions requiring that vendors
using 3PA for any of its dealer-customers on a CDK DMS agree to use
3PA exclusively for all of its of its dealer-customers on CDK DMSs.
These contractual provisions prohibit the Plaintiff from sharing
dealer data between its own products and services because the
Plaintiff's solutions cannot receive dealer data from any source
other than 3PA.

After entering into the Data Exchange Agreement, the Defendant also
took the new position that its existing contracts with dealers
prohibited allowing data integrators to access its DMS.  It also
recently forced many of its dealers to extend their contracts by
years by threatening to terminate their DMS service.  Without prior
notice, the Defendant informed these dealers that their DMS
services would terminate in less than 60 days unless the dealers
entered into years-long contracts.  The Plaintiff contends that
dealers generally had no choice but to sign the lengthy extensions
given the impossibility of switching DMS providers in such a short
amount of time.

Before the Court is Defendant CDKC's motion to dismiss Autholoop's
amended complaint.  

The Plaintiff's Managed Interface Agreement with the Defendant
contains no arbitration clause.  In its agreement with Reynolds,
however, the Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate "any dispute, claim,
question or disagreement arising from or relating to" the Reynolds
Interface Agreement.  Judge Dow finds that because detrimental
reliance is required to invoke equitable estoppel under Ohio law,
and because the Defendant does not even argue that it can show
detrimental reliance, it cannot invoke equitable estoppel to force
the Plaintiff to arbitrate.  Even if the Defendant could invoke the
doctrine of equitable estoppel to force the Plaintiff to arbitrate
its claims, the Defendant waived its right to do so.  The Judge
therefore denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
claims in favor of arbitration.

Turning to the Defendant's substantive arguments for dismissal, the
Judge finds that without the benefit of adequate briefing supported
by relevant case law, he declines to rule on whether the Plaintiff
sufficiently has alleged a market-division claim.  In the absence
of a sufficient justification to make a ruling, the tie goes to the
non-moving party and the horizontal conspiracy claim (Count I)
survives.

Next, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged
an exclusive dealing claim (Count II) based on the Defendant's
contract with vendors.  The Defendant alone controls approximately
45% of the DMS market.  Vendors like the Plaintiff are forced to
pay supracompetitive prices for data integration services because
they need to be able to service dealers who have CDK or Reynolds as
their DMS providers.  Vendors are likely only willing to pay such
prices because Authenticom (the only other remaining data
integrator) is foreclosed from competing for that business.

The Judge further finds that accepting all of the Plaintiff's
well-pleaded factual allegations and drawing all reasonable
inferences in its favor, the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged
that the Defendant's proffered justification for the challenged
conduct is pretextual.  Whether challenged conduct has a
procompetitive effect on balance so as to survive scrutiny under a
rule-of-reason analysis is a factual issue for trial.  Furthermore,
the Plaintiff specifically alleges that Defendant's security
justification is pretextual.

Because the Plaintiff's Section 1 claims survive, the Judge denied
the Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Section 2 claims
(Count II) for failure to allege exclusionary conduct.  And because
the Plaintiff's Sherman Act claims survive, the Judge denied the
Defendant's motion to dismiss  thPlaintiff's parallel state-law
claims.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Dow denied CDK's motion to dismiss
AutoLoop's amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/S6BWNx from Leagle.com.

Authenticom, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Collin R. White,
Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice,
Derek Tam Ho, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C.,
pro hac vice, Aaron Martin Panner -- apanner@kellogghansen.com --
Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice,
Allison W. Reimann -- areimann@gklaw.com -- Godfrey & Kahn,
Benjamin Louis Rudofsky, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel, & Frederick
P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Christine Ann Bonomo, Kellogg, Hansen,
Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C, pro hac vice, Daniel V. Dorris --
ddorris@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel &
Frederick, P.L.L.C., David L. Schwarz -- dschwarz@kellogghansen.com
-- Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., Jason
William Ethridge, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel, & Frederick, pro
hac vice, Jennifer L. Gregor -- jgregor@gklaw.com -- Godfrey & Kahn
SC, Joanna Tianyang Zhang -- jzhang@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg,
Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., Joshua Hafenbrack --
jhafenbrack@kellogghansen.com --  Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel &
Frederick, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Kendall W. Harrison --
kharrison@gklaw.com -- Godfrey & Kahn, S.c., Kevin J. Miller --
kmiller@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel &
Frederick, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Mark W. Hancock --
mhancock@gklaw.com -- Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., Michael N. Nemelka --
mnemelka@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel &
Frederick, P.L.L.C. & Samuel Issacharoff.

Teterboro Automall, Inc., and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Collin R. White, Kellogg,
Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Elizabeth
Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, pro hac vice, Peggy J. Wedgworth,
Milberg LLP, pro hac vice, James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi
Olstein Brody & Agnesso, P.C., John David Hughes , Milberg Tadler
Phillips Grossman LLP, pro hac vice, Justin Nicholas Boley, Wexler
Wallace Llp, Kenneth A. Wexler, Wexler Wallace LLP & Leonard A.
Bellavia, Bellavia Blatt & Crossett, Pc, pro hac vice.

Hartley Buick GMC Truck, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Collin R.
White, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., pro hac
vice, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP, pro hac vice,
Arthur N. Bailey, Arthur N. Bailey & Associates, pro hac vice, Gary
L. Specks, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, pro hac vice, Marco Cercone, RUPP BAASE
PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC, pro hac vice & Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, pro hac vice.

Motor Vehicle Software Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by
Collin R. White, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick,
P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Derek Tam Ho , Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel
& Frederick, P.L.L.C., Aaron Martin Panner , Kellogg, Hansen, Todd,
Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Benjamin Louis Rudofsky
, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel, & Frederick P.L.L.C., pro hac vice,
Christine Ann Bonomo , Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick,
P.L.L.C, pro hac vice, Daniel Jeffrey Friedman, GabrielSalomons
LLP, Gary K. Salomons, Gabriel Salomons LLP, Jason William
Ethridge, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel, & Frederick, pro hac vice,
Joshua D. Branson , Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick,
P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Joshua Hafenbrack, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd,
Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Michael N. Nemelka,
Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C. & Samuel
Issacharoff .

CDK Global, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Stanley Marovitz
-- amarovitz@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Britt Marie Miller
-- bmiller@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Christopher William
Kammerer , Kammerer Mariani PLLC, Jed Wolf Glickstein , Mayer
Brown, Llp, Jeffrey Allan Simmons, Foley & Lardner LLP, John F.
Mariani, Levy, Kneen, Mariana, Curtin, Wiene, John Nadolenco ,
Mayer, Brown & Platt, Joseph S. Harper, Foley & Lardner, MICHAEL
MARTINEZ , MAYER BROWN LLP, Mark W. Ryan, Mayer Brown, Matthew
David Provance, Mayer Brown LLP, Michael Anthony Scodro , Mayer
Brown LLP, Michelle M. Umberger, Perkins Coie LLP & William N.
Reed, BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC.

Reynolds and Reynolds Company, Defendant, represented by Amar
Shrinivas Naik, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Aundrea
Kristine Gulley, Gibbs & Bruns, L.L.P., Brandon M. Lewis , Perkins
Coie LLP, pro hac vice, Brian T. Ross , Brice A. Wilkinson,
Caroline Ayres Teichner, Perkins Coie LLP, Charles Grant Curtis,
Jr. , Perkins Coie LLP, Dylan I. Ballard, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton Llp, James Landon Mcginnis , Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton Llp, pro hac vice, Jesse Jonas Bair, Perkins Coie LLP, John
S. Skilton , Perkins Coie LLP, Justin David Patrick , Gibbs &
Bruns, LLP, Kathleen A. Stetsko , Perkins Coie LLP, Kathy D.
Patrick , Leo Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton Llp, pro
hac vice, Michael P.A. Cohen, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton,
LLP, Michelle M. Umberger, Perkins Coie LLP, Ross M. MacDonald &
TYLER BAKER, SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP.

Computerized Vehicle Registration, Inc., also known as CDK Vehicle
Registration, Inc., Defendant, represented by Britt Marie Miller,
Mayer Brown LLP, John Nadolenco, Mayer, Brown & Platt & Mark W.
Ryan, Mayer Brown.

XCELERATED, LLC, XCELERATED DATA LLC & PENSA LLC, Respondents,
represented by James Robert Irving, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP.

Dominion Enterprises, Inc., Respondent, represented by Deepti
Bansal, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Thomas Norberg, Neal &
McDevitt & Marc G. Schildkraut, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.


MDL 2817: Court Narrows Claims Against CDK Global in Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE DEALER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
MDL 2817. This document relates to: Loop, LLC, d/b/a Autoloop v.
CDK Global, LLC, Case No. 18-cv-2521, Case No. 18-cv-864 (N.D.
Ill.), Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, (i) denied the
Defendant CDK Global, LLC's motion to compel arbitration; and (ii)
granted in part and denied in part its alternative motion to
dismiss.

Defendants CDK and Reynolds and Reynolds Co. provide Dealer
Management System ("DMS") software and services to automobile
dealerships throughout the United States, including in Illinois.
In addition to providing DMS services, CDK and Reynolds also
provide data integration services ("DIS") indirectly to dealerships
throughout the United States, including in Illinois.

The Plaintiffs are automobile dealerships across the country who
are purchasing and/or who have purchased DMS services from CDK or
Reynolds.  They purport to bring the class action against
Defendants CDK and Reynolds for alleged violations of the Sherman
Act and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants unlawfully colluded and
conspired to restrain and/or eliminate competition by charging
supracompetitive prices in the markets for: (1) DMS software
services; and (2) DIS.

The DMS, sometimes described as the "central nervous system" for
dealerships, is an enterprise software system designed specifically
for automobile dealerships.  It functions as the dealerships'
central database and repository of all its operational
information.

CDK and Reynolds are in the business of providing DMS software and
services to dealerships like the Plaintiffs.  Together they control
approximately 75% of the United States DMS market measured by the
number of franchised automobile dealerships using their systems,
with CDK controlling approximately 45% of the DMS market and
Reynolds controlling approximately 30 percent of the DMS market.
The remaining 25% is divided among other smaller DMS providers that
typically service smaller dealerships in niche submarkets.  CDK and
Reynolds have even higher market shares when measured by revenue,
with CDK having approximately $2.2 billion in total annual revenue
and Reynolds having approximately $1.7 billion in total annual
revenue.

CDK and Reynolds also provide DIS separate from their DMS
offerings.  CDK's data integration service is known as Third Party
Access ("3PA"), and Reynolds's data integration service is known as
Reynolds Certified Interface ("RCI").  Historically, the DIS market
was active, with numerous DIS providers competing to provide
affordable, secure, and reliable access to DMS data for dealerships
and vendors.  In 2006, Reynolds began selectively and sporadically
blocking data integrators from accessing dealer data on the
Reynolds DMS by disabling data integrators' dealer-created login
credentials.

Despite CDK's success in wresting market share away from Reynolds,
its biggest competitor in the DMS market, competition between
Reynolds and CDK suddenly ceased in 2015.  The Plaintiff alleges
that this was the result of horizontal agreements between CDK and
Reynolds to restrain competition in the DMS and DIS markets.
Specifically, CDK and Reynolds agreed to cooperate in closing their
respective DMSs.  In February 2015, CDK and Reynolds entered into
three written agreements: (1) the Data Exchange Agreement or "Wind
Down" Agreement; (2) the 3PA Agreement; and (3) the RCI Agreement.
The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants agreed to force
vendors to use the Defendants (or their affiliates) to access their
respective DMSs.

The Plaintiffs allege that CDK and Reynolds have been able to
impose massive price increases on vendors as a result of their
agreements.  These increased fees are passed on to dealers.  The
Plaintiffs also allege that CDK began canceling and renegotiating
its 3PA vendor contracts to impose exclusive dealing provisions on
vendors shortly after entering the Data Exchange Agreement.

Six named Plaintiffs ("Reynolds Dealers") signed agreements that
oblige them to resolve certain claims against Reynolds in Dayton,
Ohio.  Relevant to the Order is a binding arbitration provision
included in every Reynolds Dealers' contract.  

Both CDK and Reynolds moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims in
favor of arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement or, in
the alternative, dismiss their claims for failure to state a claim.
Defendant Reynolds subsequently withdrew its motion.  Before the
Court is the motion to dismiss filed by CDK.

Judge Dow (i) granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motions for leave
to submit supplemental authority; (ii) denied the Defendant's
motion to compel arbitration; and (iii) granted in part and denied
in part its alternative motion to dismiss.

As to motion to compel arbitration, the Judge finds that (i)
because detrimental reliance is required to invoke equitable
estoppel under Ohio law, and because CDK does not even argue that
it can show detrimental reliance, CDK cannot invoke equitable
estoppel under Ohio law to force the Reynolds Dealers to arbitrate
their claims against CDK; and (ii) given CDK's substantial delay in
invoking its intent to arbitrate, forcing the Reynolds Dealers to
arbitrate now would be highly prejudicial.

As to the motion to dismiss, the Judge denied the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' federal antitrust claims for
injunctive relief (Counts II and IV) under AGC; horizontal
conspiracy claims (Counts I-II); exclusive dealing claim for
injunctive relief (Count IV); state antitrust claims and consumer
protection claims under Alaska, California, Florida, and South
Carolina law for failure to allege a federal antitrust violation;
state-law claims in states where no named Plaintiff operates for
lack of Article III standing; Massachusetts consumer protection
claim (Count XXXIX) for failure to allege that the challenged
conduct occurred primarily and substantially in Massachusetts; New
Hampshire consumer protection claim (Count XLIII);  TTPA claim for
failure to allege a tangible good; ADTPA claim (Count XXXIII);
WVCCPA claim (Count XXX) on the basis that antitrust violations are
not covered; class claims under Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, and
South Carolina based on the relevant class action bars in those
states; claims under California's Unfair Competition Law (Counts
VIII and XXXIV) based on the lack of availability of damages; claim
under the ADTPA (Count XXXIII) for failure to allege sufficient
consumer ties without prejudice to raising the argument in the
future; claim under New Mexico's consumer protection statute (Count
XLV) for failure to allege grossly unequal bargaining power; and
claim under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Count XLII)
for failure to identify the specific statutory provision upon which
Plaintiffs' claim relies.

He granted the Defendant's motion for dismissal of Plaintiffs'
South Carolina antitrust claim (Count XXV); claim under the
Delaware Consumer Fraud Act (Count XXXVI); claim under North
Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count XXII); Wisconsin
antitrust claim (Count XXXI); Alabama antirust claim (Count VI) for
failure to allege intrastate conduct; Tennessee antitrust case
(Count XXVII) for failure to allege sufficient intrastate conduct;
GFBPA claim (Count XXXVIII) for failure to allege sufficient
consumer ties; and ADTPA claim (Count XXXIII) for failure to allege
fraudulent and/or unconscionable acts.

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

Authenticom, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Collin R. White,
Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice,
Derek Tam Ho, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C.,
pro hac vice, Aaron Martin Panner -- apanner@kellogghansen.com --
Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice,
Allison W. Reimann -- areimann@gklaw.com -- Godfrey & Kahn,
Benjamin Louis Rudofsky, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel, & Frederick
P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Christine Ann Bonomo, Kellogg, Hansen,
Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C, pro hac vice, Daniel V. Dorris --
ddorris@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel &
Frederick, P.L.L.C., David L. Schwarz -- dschwarz@kellogghansen.com
-- Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., Jason
William Ethridge, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel, & Frederick, pro
hac vice, Jennifer L. Gregor -- jgregor@gklaw.com -- Godfrey & Kahn
SC, Joanna Tianyang Zhang -- jzhang@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg,
Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., Joshua Hafenbrack --
jhafenbrack@kellogghansen.com --  Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel &
Frederick, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Kendall W. Harrison --
kharrison@gklaw.com -- Godfrey & Kahn, S.c., Kevin J. Miller --
kmiller@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel &
Frederick, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Mark W. Hancock --
mhancock@gklaw.com -- Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., Michael N. Nemelka --
mnemelka@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel &
Frederick, P.L.L.C. & Samuel Issacharoff.

Teterboro Automall, Inc., and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Collin R. White, Kellogg,
Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Elizabeth
Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, pro hac vice, Peggy J. Wedgworth,
Milberg LLP, pro hac vice, James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi
Olstein Brody & Agnesso, P.C., John David Hughes , Milberg Tadler
Phillips Grossman LLP, pro hac vice, Justin Nicholas Boley, Wexler
Wallace Llp, Kenneth A. Wexler, Wexler Wallace LLP & Leonard A.
Bellavia, Bellavia Blatt & Crossett, Pc, pro hac vice.

Hartley Buick GMC Truck, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Collin R.
White, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., pro hac
vice, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP, pro hac vice,
Arthur N. Bailey, Arthur N. Bailey & Associates, pro hac vice, Gary
L. Specks, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, pro hac vice, Marco Cercone, RUPP BAASE
PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC, pro hac vice & Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, pro hac vice.

Motor Vehicle Software Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by
Collin R. White, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick,
P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Derek Tam Ho , Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel
& Frederick, P.L.L.C., Aaron Martin Panner , Kellogg, Hansen, Todd,
Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Benjamin Louis Rudofsky
, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel, & Frederick P.L.L.C., pro hac vice,
Christine Ann Bonomo , Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick,
P.L.L.C, pro hac vice, Daniel Jeffrey Friedman, GabrielSalomons
LLP, Gary K. Salomons, Gabriel Salomons LLP, Jason William
Ethridge, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel, & Frederick, pro hac vice,
Joshua D. Branson , Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick,
P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Joshua Hafenbrack, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd,
Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Michael N. Nemelka,
Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C. & Samuel
Issacharoff .

CDK Global, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Stanley Marovitz
-- amarovitz@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Britt Marie Miller
-- bmiller@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Christopher William
Kammerer , Kammerer Mariani PLLC, Jed Wolf Glickstein , Mayer
Brown, Llp, Jeffrey Allan Simmons, Foley & Lardner LLP, John F.
Mariani, Levy, Kneen, Mariana, Curtin, Wiene, John Nadolenco ,
Mayer, Brown & Platt, Joseph S. Harper, Foley & Lardner, MICHAEL
MARTINEZ , MAYER BROWN LLP, Mark W. Ryan, Mayer Brown, Matthew
David Provance, Mayer Brown LLP, Michael Anthony Scodro , Mayer
Brown LLP, Michelle M. Umberger, Perkins Coie LLP & William N.
Reed, BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC.

Reynolds and Reynolds Company, Defendant, represented by Amar
Shrinivas Naik, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Aundrea
Kristine Gulley, Gibbs & Bruns, L.L.P., Brandon M. Lewis , Perkins
Coie LLP, pro hac vice, Brian T. Ross , Brice A. Wilkinson,
Caroline Ayres Teichner, Perkins Coie LLP, Charles Grant Curtis,
Jr. , Perkins Coie LLP, Dylan I. Ballard, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton Llp, James Landon Mcginnis , Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton Llp, pro hac vice, Jesse Jonas Bair, Perkins Coie LLP, John
S. Skilton , Perkins Coie LLP, Justin David Patrick , Gibbs &
Bruns, LLP, Kathleen A. Stetsko , Perkins Coie LLP, Kathy D.
Patrick , Leo Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton Llp, pro
hac vice, Michael P.A. Cohen, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton,
LLP, Michelle M. Umberger, Perkins Coie LLP, Ross M. MacDonald &
TYLER BAKER, SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP.

Computerized Vehicle Registration, Inc., also known as CDK Vehicle
Registration, Inc., Defendant, represented by Britt Marie Miller,
Mayer Brown LLP, John Nadolenco, Mayer, Brown & Platt & Mark W.
Ryan, Mayer Brown.

XCELERATED, LLC, XCELERATED DATA LLC & PENSA LLC, Respondents,
represented by James Robert Irving, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP.

Dominion Enterprises, Inc., Respondent, represented by Deepti
Bansal, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Thomas Norberg, Neal &
McDevitt & Marc G. Schildkraut, Cooley LLP, pro hac vice.


MERCHANT GROUP: Abante Rooter Sues over Unwanted Phone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE MERCHANT GROUP
USA, LLC d/b/a 1800 MONEY MERCHANT; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
and each of them, the Defendant(s), Case No. 3:19-cv-00592 (N.D.
Cal., Feb. 1, 2019), seeks to recover damages and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal
actions of the Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
invading Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around January 2018,
the Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone
ending in -1080, in an effort to sell or solicit its services. The
Defendant called, including but not limited to around January 23,
2018 20 at 9:25 a.m. Defendant called from telephone numbers
including, but not limited to (727) 475 2441. The Defendant used an
"automatic telephone dialing system", as defined by 47 U.S.C.
section 227(a)(1) to place its calls to Plaintiff seeking to sell
or solicit its business services.

The Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency
purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A).  The
Defendant's calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a
cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for
incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(1). The Plaintiff
is not a customer of Defendant's services and has never provided
any personal information, including his cellular telephone number,
to Defendant for any purpose whatsoever. In addition, on at least
one occasion, the Plaintiff answered the telephone and told
Defendant to stop calling. Accordingly, Defendant never received
Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an
automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded
voice on her cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section
227(b)(1)(A), the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

MICHAEL C. KOEHN: Long Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit BRUCE LONG, individually on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
MICHAEL C. KOEHN and, JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 10, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00943-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   1. preliminarily approving the parties' settlement agreement;

   2. certifying for settlement purposes a Class defined as:

      "all persons to whom Michael C. Koehn mailed an initial
      written communication to an address in the State of
      Wisconsin, between June 21, 2017 and July 12, 2018, which
      stated a static amount as being the amount due even though
      the debts were accruing interest";

   3. appointing Stern Thomasson LLP as Class Counsel;

   4. appointing Plaintiff as representative of the Settlement
      Class;

   5. setting dates for Class Members to seek exclusion from, or
      object to, the Settlement;

   6. scheduling a hearing for final approval of the Settlement;

   7. approving mailing of notice and claim form to Class Members;

      and

   8. finding the mailing of such notice satisfies the
      requirements of due process.

Koehn's business records indicate there are approximately 765
persons who fit within the class definition and, therefore, are in
the Settlement Class, the Plaintiff said.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081
          Telephone (973) 379-7500
          E-mail: Philip@SternThomasson.com
                  Andrew@SternThomasson.com
                  Francis@SternThomasson.com

MICHIGAN: Counties, Treasurers Among Class Action Defendants
------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Charmoli, writing for Cadillac News, reports that treasurers
from Lake, Missaukee, Osceola and Wexford counties recently joined
a long list of their counterparts from across the state when they
were served notice in a class action lawsuit.

The lawsuit, which was filed by Outside Legal Counsel and attorney
Philip L. Ellison, states the government is entitled to collect
unpaid tax debts, but county treasurers should not be permitted to
take more than what is actually owed in taxes.

Each year, county and state treasurers throughout Michigan seize
and sell thousands of properties from property owners who owe past
due taxes. Many of these parcels are worth thousands or tens of
thousands of dollars and instead of returning the excess sale
proceeds or the "surplus equity' in excess of the tax debt,
treasurers keep the extra funds for the county's general budget.

As a result, several regional class action lawsuits were filed
seeking to force county treasurers and county governments to
provide refunds for the "equity" value of properties seized,
destroyed, and otherwise kept above the total tax debt owed.
Treasurers from Lake, Missaukee, Osceola and Wexford counties were
served with the suit on Dec. 28.

Missaukee County Treasurer Lori Cox said her county has never had
anything happen similar to the complaint stated in the lawsuit and
they are joining with other counties by having legal counsel
through the Michigan Municipal Risk Management Authority.

"We are just waiting to see what happens," Ms. Cox said.

Osceola County Clerk Lori Leuderman said her county also is
utilizing legal counsel from MMRMA. She said counties are only
following the law when it comes to how tax foreclosures are
handled.

"We have been following the law and everything the counties in the
state have done is the law,' she said. "We do try to prevent
foreclosures that we can and we bend over backward to work with
people.'

Ms. Leuderman said her office works with people to try and avoid
forfeiture, which is the first step in the process. She said it
takes a total of three years before a property is foreclosed and
her office does everything it can to work with the property owner
to make sure that doesn't happen.

Wexford County Treasurer Jayne Stanton said like Ms. Cox and Ms.
Leuderman that she was served with the class action lawsuit on Dec.
28 and in addition to herself, the county board of commissioners
also was named in the suit.

Ellison, together with attorney Matthew Gronda, will be appearing
for oral arguments before the Tuscola County Circuit Court on Jan.
7 for the first of several court hearings following the filing of
the class action lawsuit challenging the legality of tax
foreclosures by county treasurers in Midland, Bay, Saginaw,
Isabella, Gratiot, and Tuscola counties.

Another key case also is pending before the Michigan Supreme Court:
Rafaeli v Oakland County. Uri Rafaeli lost a rental property when
he miscalculated the amount of interest he owed on 2011 property
taxes by $8.41. Oakland County foreclosed and sold the home for
$24,500. The current class action and the Rafaeli case make similar
legal arguments.

The hearing on Jan. 7 in Tuscola County is a request by Ellison to
put the case on hold until the Michigan Supreme Court makes a
decision in Rafaeli. [GN]


MINDBODY INC: Hyun Tang Balks at Merger Deal with Vista Equity
--------------------------------------------------------------
HYUN TANG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MINDBODY, INC., RICK STOLLMEYER,
KATHERINE BLAIR CHRISTIE, COURT CUNNINGHAM, GAIL GOODMAN, CIPORA
HERMAN, ERIC LAW, ADAM MILLER, and GRAHAM SMITH, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00210-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 31, 2019), stems from a
proposed transaction announced on December 24, 2018, pursuant to
which Mindbody, Inc. will be acquired by affiliates of Vista Equity
Partners. On December 23, Mindbody's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Torreys
Parent, LLC and Torreys Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of
the Merger Agreement, Mindbody's stockholders will receive $36.50
per share in cash for each share of Mindbody common stock they
hold. On January 23, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the Proposed Transaction.  The Proxy Statement,
which scheduled a stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction for
February 14, 2019, omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading, the lawsuit says.

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Gregory Mark Nespole, Esq.
          HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA
          & CHEVERIE, LLP
          112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 213-8311
          Facsimile: (212) 779-0028

               - and -

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Bordeaux Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BORDEAUX, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00160 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 2, 2019), seeks
to recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, 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 maintains 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' 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 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:

          D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
          Joseph B. Carnduff, Esq.
          Gori Julian & Associates, P.C.
          156 N. Main St.
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 659-9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659-9834
          E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com
                  jcarnduff@gorijulianlaw.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Coulter Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHAD COULTER, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00161 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 2, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by Plaintiffs, 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 maintains 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' 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 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:

          D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
          Joseph B. Carnduff, Esq.
          Gori Julian & Associates, P.C.
          156 N. Main St.
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 659-9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659-9834
          E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com
                  jcarnduff@gorijulianlaw.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Kirsch Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
NEIL KIRSCH, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00159 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 2, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by Plaintiffs, 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 maintains 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' 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 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:

          D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
          Joseph B. Carnduff, Esq.
          Gori Julian & Associates, P.C.
          156 N. Main St.
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 659-9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659-9834
          E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com
                  jcarnduff@gorijulianlaw.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Mosley Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA MOSLEY, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 6:19-cv-00006-JRH-CLR (S.D. Ga., Feb. 1, 2019), seeks to
recover damages suffered by Plaintiffs, 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 maintains 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' 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 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:

          Eugene C. Brooks, Esq.
          BROOKS LAW FIRM
          313 West York Street
          Savannah, GA 31401
          Telephone: 912 233 9696
          E-mail: gbrooks@brooks-law.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Rice Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
GORDON RICE, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00158 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 1, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by Plaintiffs, 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 maintains 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' 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 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:

          D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
          Joseph B. Carnduff, Esq.
          GORI JULIAN LAW
          156 N. Main St.
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 659-9833
          Facsimile: (618) 659-9834
          E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com
                  jcarnduff@gorijulianlaw.com

MOVIEPASS INC: Weinbergers Sue over Bait-and-Switch Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE WEINBERGER and LAURIE WEINBERGER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
MOVIEPASS INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01039 (S.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 1, 2019), alleges that MoviePass, a discount movie ticket
service, has engaged in a deceptive and unfair bait-and-switch
scheme.

According to the complaint, MoviePass led consumers to purchase
subscriptions that it claimed would allow the consumers to have
"unlimited" access to tickets to movies playing in theaters, or
would allow the consumers to purchase a ticket to "any movie" in
"any theater" on "any day," up to one movie per day. Defendant's
representations about the Subscriptions were false and misleading,
however, because the Subscriptions did not provide "unlimited"
access to movie tickets and did not provide access to tickets to
"any movie" in "any theater" on "any day." Instead, subscription
purchasers routinely could not use their subscriptions to obtain
tickets to any movies, were faced with only a limited selection of
movies, showtimes, and theaters, or otherwise experienced
significant difficulty in obtaining movie tickets through their
subscriptions, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail mreese@reesellp.com
                 ggranade@reesellp.com

MULLOOLY JEFFREY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Dewick FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cathy Seibel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissed the case, EPHRAIM DEWICK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. MULLOOLY, JEFFREY, ROONEY & FLYNN, LLP, Defendant,
Case No. 18-CV-5273 (CS) (S.D. N.Y.).

Dewick is a resident of Monsey, New York who allegedly incurred a
debt to Bank of America that the Defendant, a debt collector, was
contracted to collect.  On March 13, 2018, the Defendant caused a
letter to be delivered to the Plaintiff regarding the alleged debt.
The envelope contained a transparent or "glassine" window in the
bottom left corner of the envelope.  Visible through the window
were the Plaintiff's name and address as well as the words
"Current," "MJRF File," and "Account."

On June 12, 2018, the Plaintiff commenced the putative class action
suit alleging that the Defendant violated Section 1692f(8) of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), by allowing the name
of the debt collector as well as other personal information to be
visible from the outside of the envelope.

On July 10, 2018, the Defendants submitted a letter requesting a
pre-motion conference in anticipation of their motion to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  The
Plaintiff responded by letter on July 30, 2018, and on Aug. 3,
2018, the Court held a pre-motion conference to discuss the
motion.

On Sept. 4, 2018, the Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint,
arguing that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.  The Plaintiff filed his brief in opposition on Sept. 14,
2018, and the Defendant replied on Sept. 24, 2018.

Because the use of "MJRF File," "Current," and "Account" on a
collection envelope is not the kind of abusive debt collection
practice that the FDCPA was intended to prohibit, Judge Seibel will
grante the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's FDCPA
claim.

The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff should be ordered to show
cause why he should not pay the Defendant's attorney's fees and
costs and further requests that the Court compels the Plaintiff to
testify in open court concerning his reasons for filing the instant
action.  The Judge will deny the request.  She finds that the
merits of an FDCPA claim turn on a question of law that has not
been decided by the Second Circuit, the claim by itself does not
establish bad faith within the meaning of Section 1692k(a)(3).
That courts other than the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit
have rejected the Plaintiff's contentions does not suffice to
suggest that the Plaintiff initiated the action in bad faith and
for the purpose of harassment.

Finally, the Judge finds that the problem with the Plaintiff's
claim is substantive, and thus better pleading will not cure it and
repleading would be futile.  Accordingly, she declines to grant
leave to amend sua sponte.

For the reasons stated, Judge Seibel granted the Defendant's motion
to dismiss.  The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to
terminate the pending motion, and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/ly8lr2 from Leagle.com.

Ephraim Dewick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Harris Kohn --
dkohn@steinsakslegal.com -- Stein Saks, PLLC.

Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, LLP, Defendant, represented by
Robert Louis Arleo, Robert L. Arleo, Esq..


MUREX PROPERTIES: Faces RICO Suit by Mobile Homeowners
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Murex Properties,
L.L.C., and several defendants on behalf of current and past mobile
homeowners who own or owned a mobile home and lease or leased the
lot underneath their home at the Schalamar Creek Golf Mobile Home
Park.  The case is brought under the federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organization, and various other federal and state
common law doctrines or statutes.  The action arises out of the
Defendants' fraudulent and conspiratorial acts to illegally and
unreasonably:

     -- force the surrender of the Plaintiff homeowners' resale
purchasers' right to assume the resale sellers' less expensive lot
rental prospectus (denoted P1 through P5) and instead require the
Plaintiff homeowners to assume and adopt a later P6 prospectus
requiring significantly higher lot rental, an increased rent
escalation percentage, and causing a $10,000 to $15,000 reduction
in resale value;

     -- require payment by the Plaintiff homeowners of fraudulent,
excessive, and improperly calculated ad valorem tax pass-ons
resulting from the fraudulent 2011 sale and purchase of the Park by
the Defendants and currently illegal and fraudulent inclusion of ad
valorem tax pass-ons related to income producing portions of the
Park clubhouse, a bank, a restaurant, and RV storage lot;

     -- retaliate against the representative Plaintiff Schalamar
Creek Mobile Homeowner's Association, Inc., and Plaintiff
homeowners who are critical of the Defendants' insistence that all
listing or purchasing homeowners assume and adopt the P6
prospectus;

     -- require direct-billed annual payment by the Plaintiff
homeowners of perpetual sanitation costs to Defendant Julie
Jennings, Defendant Randall Knapp's sister and her family-owned
corporation, J & J Sanitation Services, Inc., as a condition of
home ownership;

     -- extort the representative Plaintiff Schalamar Creek Mobile
Homeowner's Association, Inc., and the Plaintiff homeowners to
amend the lot rental agreement for all homeowners in the Schalamar
Creek Golf Mobile Home Park to pay cableTV and Internet assessments
as a pass-on in the lot rental; and

     -- deprive the elderly and disabled Plaintiff homeowners of a
handicap accessible Park clubhouse, facilities, golf course, and
common areas.

The Plaintiffs have asked the Court for declaratory judgment that
the Defendants' conduct violates various Federal and Florida laws,
and for an award of treble damages, actual, statutory, and to the
extent permitted, punitive damages, attorneys fees and costs for
themselves and each member of the Class.

The case is captioned Schalamar Creek Mobile Homeowner's
Association, Inc., on behalf of the homeowner-members in its
representative capacity and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs Steven Adler, Lorraine
DeMarco, R. Scott Provost, Charles Crook, Marti Newkirk, Murex
Properties, L.L.C., The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company,
Randall Knapp, Julie Jennings, f/k/a Julie Knapp, J & J Sanitation
Services, Inc., Osprey Links, LLC, Schalamar GP, Inc., Richard Lee,
David Eastman, Lutz, Bobo & Telfair, P.A., d/b/a Lutz, Bobo,
Telfair, Eastman & Lee, f/k/a Lutz, Webb & Bobo, P.A., Florida
Manufactured Housing Association, Inc., the Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-00291 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 4, 2019).[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Daniel W. Perry, Esq.
          4767 New Broad St, No. 1007
          Orlando, FL 32814-6405
          Telephone: 407-894-9003
          E-mail: dan@danielperry.com

NATURAL HEALTH: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP  disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been  filed against Natural  Health Trends Corp.
("Natural Health Trends" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: NHTC) in  the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, on behalf of a  class  consisting  of  investors who
purchased  or  otherwise  acquired securities of Natural Health
Trends between April 27, 2016 and January 5, 2019 (the "Class
Period"), inclusive.

Investors who have incurred losses in the shares of Natural Health
Trends Corp. are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action on our website,
www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of you may Natural
Health Trends Corp., no later than March 11, 2019,  request that
the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please
contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an
investor in Natural  Health Trends Corp.

Follow the firm and learn about newly filed cases on Twitter and
Facebook.

The filed Complaint alleges that  during   the class period,
Defendants made  false and/or misleading  statements  and/or failed
to  disclose that:

Natural Health Trends was operating as a pyramid scheme in China,
which is contrary to Chinese law;

consequently, Natural  Health Trends was  not in  compliance with
applicable Chinese law; and as a result, Defendants statements
about Natural Health  Trends business,  operations, and  prospects,
were  false  and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

On January 7, 2019, GeoInvesting reported that China Central
Television, a prominent state television broadcaster in China,
aired an exposé asserting that Natural Health Trends was operating
as a pyramid scheme in China, contrary to Chinese law.

Following this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $4.89 per
share, or nearly 25% in value, to close on January 7, 2019 at
$14.88 per share, on heavy trading volume.

         Kevin Cooper, Esq.
         Gregory Stone
         Director of Case and Financial Analysis       
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
         Telephone: (800) 575-0735
                    (212) 545-4774
         Website: www.whafh.com.
         Email: gstone@whafh.com
                kcooper@whafh.com
                classmember@whafh.com [GN]


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Daniel et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit EDWING DANIEL, WILLIAM COTTRILL, BROOKE
PADGETT, ELAINE LAREINA LAI, the Plaintiffs, vs. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-02503-SCB-JSS (M.D. Fla., Jan.
31, 2019), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying the case as a class action pursuant to Rule
      23(b)(3) on behalf of the Class of:

      "all individuals in the United States who: (1) have federal
      student loans that are or were serviced by Navient Solutions

      LLC; (2) are, or after October 1, 2007, were, employed full-
      time in public service by a qualifying organization for
      purposes of the PSLF program; (3) were told by Navient their

      loans were eligible for the PSLF program; and (4) on or
      after October 25, 2013, learned they were ineligible for the

      PSLF program because their federal student loans are not
      Direct Loans and/or they were not on a payment plan that is
      eligible for the PSLF program";

   2. certifying Subclasses:

      Florida Subclass defined as:

      "all individuals who: (1) are residents of Florida; (2) have

      federal student loans that were serviced by Navient
      Solutions LLC; (3) are, or after October 1, 2007, were,
      employed full-time in public service by a qualifying
      organization for purposes of the PSLF program; (4) were told

      by Navient their loans were eligible for the PSLF program;
      and (5) on or after October 25, 2015, learned they were
      ineligible for the PSLF program because their federal
      student loans are not Direct Loans and/or they were not on a
      payment plan that is eligible for the PSLF program"; and

      Colorado Subclass defined as

      "all individuals who: (1) are residents of Colorado; (2)
      have federal student loans that were serviced by Navient
      Solutions LLC; (3) are, or after October 1, 2007, were,
      employed full-time in public service by a qualifying
      organization for purposes of the PSLF program; (4) were told

      by Navient their loans were eligible for the PSLF program;
      and (5) on or after January 30, 2015, learned they were
      ineligible for the PSLF program because their federal
      student loans are not Direct Loans and/or they were not on a

      payment plan that is eligible for the PSLF program";

   3. appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives;

   4. appointing Daniel, Cottrill, and Padgett as class
      representatives of the Florida Subclass and appointing
      Lareina as class representative of the Colorado Subclass;
      and

   5. appointing Plaintiffs Counsel as counsel to the Class and
      Subclasses.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Katherine Earle Yanes, Esq.
          Brandon K. Breslow, Esq.
          KYNES, MARKMAN & FELMAN, P.A.
          Post Office Box 3396
          Tampa, FL 33601-3396
          Telephone: (813) 229-1118
          Facsimile: (813) 221-6750
          E-mail: kyanes@kmf-law.com
                  bbreslow@kmf-law.com

               - and -

          Gus M. Centrone, Esq.
          Brian L. Shrader, Esq.
          CENTRONE & SHRADER, PLLC
          612 W. Bay Street
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 360-1529
          Facsimile: (813) 336-0832
          E-mail: gcentrone@centroneshrader.com
                  bshrader@centroneshrader.com

NEW YORK: Dept of Education Faces Class Action From Fired Teacher
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Holter, writing for Yahoo Lifestyle, reports that a former
New York City teacher is heading to court after she was accused of
forcing black students to lie on the floor while she stood on their
backs during a lesson about slavery. Following her termination in
October, Patricia Cummings said she was the victim of reverse
discrimination and is now ramping up a $1 billion class-action
lawsuit.

"I have no career at this point," Cummings said on Jan. 10 press
conference, per the New York Post, describing how the allegation
made against her has affected her life.

Cummings says the accusation that she stepped on students' backs is
a lie, though she acknowledges that she had her students sit close
together on the floor to demonstrate the conditions on slave
ships.

"Ms. Cummings is a dedicated and competent teacher who should never
have been subjected to these false accusations, which have damaged
her career and her reputation," Cummings's attorney, Thomas Liotti,
Esq. told local affiliate ABC 7 on Jan. 10. "This is a case of
blatant reverse discrimination." Yahoo Lifestyle has reached out to
Liotti for further comment.

The 37-year-old former teacher said on Jan. 10 press conference
that the testimony of a black teacher who saw the slavery lesson in
question will clear her name.

"Anyone who has met me knows I don't have that bone in my body,"
Cummings said. "I was brought up — you treat everybody the way
you want to be treated."

Cummings filed a $120 million lawsuit against the New York City
Department of Education and other city agencies, as reported by the
Post, but Liotti says they're also building a class-action case
with other alleged victims of reverse discrimination. He believes
that case is worth $1 billion.

The New York City Department of Education, however, said in a
statement to ABC 7 that Cummings was terminated "based on a
thorough investigation and a review of her performance as an
educator," adding that it will review her complaint.[GN]

NEWFIELD EXPLORATION: Faces 6 Encana Merger-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Newfield Exploration Company said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated February 5, 2019,
that the company has been named as defendant in six purported class
action lawsuits related to its merger agreement with Encana
Corporation and Neapolitan Merger Corp, a wholly owned subsidiary
of Encana.

On October 31, 2018, Newfield Exploration Company ("Newfield")
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement") with Encana Corporation ("Encana") and Neapolitan
Merger Corp, a wholly owned subsidiary of Encana ("Merger Sub"),
providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into Newfield, with
Newfield surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Encana (the "Merger").

In connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby, six purported class action complaints have
been filed on behalf of Newfield stockholders against Newfield,
members of the Newfield board of directors, and, in one complaint,
Encana and Merger Sub in the United States District Courts for the
District of Delaware and the Southern District of New York. The six
complaints are captioned as follows: Stein v. Newfield Exploration
Co., et al., Case 1:18-cv-02001 (D. Del.) (Dec. 17, 2018), Franchi
v. Newfield Exploration Co., et al., Case 1:18-cv-02020 (D. Del.)
(Dec. 19, 2018), Booth Family Trust v. Newfield Exploration Co., et
al., Case 1:18-cv-02056 (D. Del.) (Dec. 27, 2018), Clay v. Newfield
Exploration Co., et al., Case 1:19-cv-00018 (S.D.N.Y.) (Jan. 2,
2019), Farias v. Newfield Exploration Co., et al., Case
1:19-cv-00059 (D. Del.) (Jan. 9, 2019) and Wilks v. Newfield
Exploration Co., et al., Case 1:19-cv-00134 (D. Del.) (Jan. 24,
2019), which Newfield and Encana refer to collectively as the
"Stockholder Actions."

In general, the Stockholder Actions allege that the defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), or aided and abetted in such
alleged violations, because the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus
allegedly omits or misstates material information. The Stockholder
Actions seek, among other things, injunctive relief preventing the
consummation of the Merger, unspecified damages and attorneys'
fees.

Newfield, Encana and the other named defendants believe that no
supplemental disclosures are required under applicable laws;
however, to avoid the risk of the Stockholder Actions delaying the
Merger and to minimize the expense of defending the Stockholder
Actions, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing,
Newfield and Encana are making certain disclosures that supplement
and revise those contained in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus,
which Newfield and Encana refer to as the litigation-related
supplemental disclosures.

Newfield, Encana and the other named defendants have denied, and
continue to deny, that they have committed or assisted others in
committing any violations of law, and expressly maintain that, to
the extent applicable, they complied with their legal obligations
and are providing the litigation-related supplemental disclosures
solely to try to eliminate the burden and expense of further
litigation, to put the claims that were or could have been asserted
to rest, and to avoid any possible delay to the closing of the
Merger that might arise from further litigation. Nothing in the
litigation-related supplemental disclosures shall be deemed an
admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable
laws of any of the litigation-related supplemental disclosures.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://goo.gl/qXxJGo

Newfield Exploration Company, an independent energy company,
engages in the exploration, development, and production of crude
oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids in the United States. The
company has operations principally in the Anadarko and Arkoma
basins of Oklahoma, the Williston Basin of North Dakota, and the
Uinta Basin of Utah. The company was founded in 1988 and is
headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas. As of February 13, 2019,
Newfield Exploration Company operates as a subsidiary of Encana Oil
& Gas (USA) Inc.


OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Nagan Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
STACY NAGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. OPTIO SOLUTIONS, LLC, doing business
as QUALIA COLLECTION SERVICES, the Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00170
(E.D. Wisc., Feb. 1, 2019), alleges that the Defendant engaged in
illegal practices when attempting to collect an alleged debt from
Plaintiff in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  Those
practices include attempting to collect consumer debts by engaging
in conduct prohibited by, or failing to engage in conduct required
by, the FDCPA. The FDCPA regulates the behavior of "debt
collectors" (including collection agencies, collection attorneys,
debt buyers) when attempting to collect a consumer debt. Congress
found "abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and
unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors" which
"contribute to a number of personal bankruptcies, marital
instability, loss of jobs, and invasions of individual privacy",
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          3010 South Appleton Road
          Menasha, WI 54952
          Telephone (973) 379-7500
          E-mail: Philip@SternThomasson.com
                  Andrew@SternThomasson.com
                  Francis@SternThomasson.com

OVERSTOCK.COM: Website not Accessible to Blind, Traynor Says
------------------------------------------------------------
YASEEN TRAYNOR, on behalf of himself and :all others similarly
situated, the zlaintiffs, vs. OVERSTOCK.COM, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00944 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2019), alleges that
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the
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. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired
and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to
read website content using his computer. Plaintiff uses the terms
"blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual
impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they
have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x
200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited
vision. Others have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. Because
Defendant's website, www.overstock.com, is not equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, the
lawsuit says.

Overstock.com, Inc. is an American internet retailer headquartered
in Midvale, Utah, near Salt Lake City. Patrick M. Byrne founded the
company in 1997 and launched the company in May 1999.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

PAM TRANSPORT: Court Certifies Class in Browne Minimum Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID BROWNE; ANTONIO CALDWELL; and LUCRETIA HALL, on
behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. P.A.M. TRANSPORT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:16-CV-5366 (W.D.
Ark.), Judge Timothy L. Brooks of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, (i) denied
PAM's Motion to Decertify Conditional Collective FLSA Action, and
(ii) granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

The Plaintiffs, who worked as truck drivers for PAM, have brought a
variety of claims against PAM under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), several Arkansas statutes including the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act ("AMWA"), and the Arkansas common law of contracts and
unjust enrichment.  They brought their claims as a putative
collective action under the FLSA, and as a putative class action
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. See id.  With PAM's consent, the Court
conditionally certified the collective action on May 8, 2017.
Roughly 3,000 individuals have since opted in as collective-action
Plaintiffs.

On Nov. 2, 2018, PAM moved the Court to decertify the FLSA
collective action. Three days later, the Plaintiffs moved the Court
to certify its state-law claims as a class action under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23.  An oral argument was conducted at the hearing on Dec.
20, 2018.

PAM contends that neither Plaintiff Caldwell nor Plaintiff Hall is
capable of providing fair and adequate class representation, though
for different reasons.  Regarding Plaintiff Caldwell, PAM argues
that he "is subject to a unique defense" of judicial estoppel that
was previously raised in PAM's Rule 12 motion practice.  The
gravamen of PAM's opposition to class certification is the issue of
whether questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over questions affecting only individual members.

Judge Brooks finds that the first question of whether the class
members were on duty for periods of 24 hours or more, is where the
heart of the dispute over predominance can be found.  He also finds
that Arkansas has the most significant relationship with all the
class members' claims sounding in contract, and its law should
apply to those claims.  Common questions of fact and law
predominate over individual issues in the case.  All the
requirements for class certification under Rule 23(b) are
satisfied.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification will be granted.

Turning now to the matter of FLSA collective action certification:
other than choice-of-law issues, which obviously are not implicated
for this federal-law claim, he Judge holds that the issues
discussed are all substantively identical.  As he explained, the
Plaintiffs intend to use evidence common to all members of the
collective action to prove that PAM had "a single, FLSA-violating
policy."  He has already explained that federal minimum wage law
and Arkansas minimum wage law are substantively identical in all
respects pertinent to the Order's analysis.  Thus, decertification
of the FLSA collective action is inappropriate, and PAM's Motion to
Decertify will be denied.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Brooks (i) granted Plaintiffs David
Browne's, Antonio Caldwell's, and Lucretia Hall's Motion for Class
Certification pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23; and (ii) denied the
Defendant's Motion to Decertify Conditional Collective FLSA Action.
The parties must confer and then provide the Court with an
agreed-to form of and plan for notice to the class members by no
later than Feb. 8, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/TvA2KA from Leagle.com.

David Browne, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated, Antonio Caldwell, on behalf of himself and all those
similarly situated & Lucretia Hall, on behalf of herself and all
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua S.
Boyette -- jboyette@swartz-legal.com -- Swartz Swudler LLC, pro hac
vice, Justin L. Swidler -- jswidler@swartz-legal.com -- Swartz
Swidler LLC, pro hac vice, Richard Swartz --
rswartz@swartz-legal.com -- Swartz Swidler LLC, pro hac vice &
Travis Martindale-Jarvis -- tmartindale@swartz-legal.com -- Swartz
Swudler LLC, pro hac vice.

PAM Transport Inc, Defendant, represented by Amber Prince --
aprince@cwlaw.com -- Conner & Winters, Martin D. Holmes --
mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, Morris Reid
Estes, Jr. -- restes@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC,
Peter Fredrick Klett -- pklett@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson
Wright PLLC, Robert L. Jones, III -- bjones@cwlaw.com -- Conner &
Winters, K. Scott Hamilton -- khamilton@dickinsonwright.com --
Dickinson Wright PLLC & Kerri E. Kobbeman -- kkobbeman@cwlaw.com --
Conner & Winters, LLP.

John Does, Defendant, represented by Martin D. Holmes, Dickinson
Wright PLLC, Morris Reid Estes, Jr., Dickinson Wright PLLC, Peter
Fredrick Klett, Dickinson Wright PLLC & K. Scott Hamilton,
Dickinson Wright PLLC.


PARSONS CORPORATION: Ram Wagle Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
RAM CHANDRA WAGLE, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated,
the Plainitiff, vs. PARSONS CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00359 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 1, 2019), alleges that Parsons
failed to pay Ram Chandra Wagle and other workers like him,
overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Instead,
Parsons pays Wagle, and other workers like him, the same hourly
rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a
workweek.

According to the complaint, Wagle is an hourly employee of Parsons.
Parsons touts itself as a global leader in diverse markets focusing
on infrastructure, defense, security, and construction. Parsons
pays Wagle $48.077 per approved hour worked. Wagle continued to
work with Parsons into January of 2019. Wagle reported the hours he
worked to Parsons on a regular basis. If Wagle works fewer than 40
hours in a week, he is paid only for the hours worked. But Wagle
normally worked more than 40 hours in a week. For example, in the
workweek period ending on March 16, 2018, Wagle worked 50. For that
week, Parsons paid Wagle for 50 hours at his hourly rate of
$48.077. The hours Wagle and the Putative Class Members' worked are
reflected in Parson's hours, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713 352-1100
          Facsimile: 713 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Centeno Suit Moved to E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A case, Merling A. Centeno, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC and PRA Group, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
617728/2018, was removed from the Suffolk County Supreme Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Central Islip) on Feb. 6, 2019. The E.D.N.Y. Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:19-cv-00765 to the proceeding. The suit demands $501,000
and alleges Fair Debt Collection Act violation.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, also known as Anchor
Receivables Management, manages past-due accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Defendants:

          Stephen Jay Steinlight, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          875 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 704-6000
          Facsimile: (212) 704-6288
          E-mail: stephen.steinlight@troutmansanders.com

PROFLOW LLC: Stutes Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
JAMES STUTES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ProFlow LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00260-S (N.D. Tex., Feb. 1, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages from Defendant under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the
Ohio Prompt Pay Act, and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a
Flowback Operator. The Plaintiff and the other workers like them
regularly worked for Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week. But
these workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of
40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as
required by the FLSA, Ohio Wage Acts, and PMWA, the Defendant
improperly classified Plaintiff and those similarly situated
workers as independent contractors and paid them a daily rate with
no overtime compensation, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant specializes in flowback and well testing for oil and
natural gas energy producers throughout the United States,
including Pennsylvania and Ohio.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713 352 1100
          Facsimile: 713 352 3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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

PROVIDENCE PLANTATION: Nickerson Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Jason Nickerson, the
Plaintiff, vs. Providence Plantation, et al., the Defendants, Case
No.:1:19-cv-00030-WES-LDA (D.R.I.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
certify a class of similarly-situated Inmates.[CC]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

QIHOO 360: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") disclosed that on January
17, 2019, it filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of
its client ODS Capital LLC ("ODS Capital") against Qihoo 360
Technology Co. Ltd. (NYSE:QIHU) ("Qihoo 360" or the "Company") and
certain of its executives (collectively, "Defendants"). The action,
captioned ODS Capital LLC v. Qihoo 360 Technology Co. Ltd., No.
19-cv-00501 (S.D.N.Y.), asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on
behalf of all former owners of Qihoo 360 stock and American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs") who sold shares, and were damaged
thereby, during the period between January 11, 2016 and July 15,
2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").

On December 18, 2015, Qihoo 360, purported to be the leading
internet company in the People's Republic of China, announced that
it had entered into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which
it would be acquired by a consortium of investors in an "all-cash
transaction valued at approximately $9.3 billion, including the
redemption of approximately $1.6 billion of debt" (the "Merger").
Pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, the Company's shares
and ADS would cease to exist in exchange for the right to receive a
cash amount without interest.

Contrary to the Company's repeated reassurances about no
substantial changes to its structures or relisting following the
Merger, shortly after the going-private deal closed, media news
outlets reported on the Company's relisting plans, which was
formally announced on November 6, 2017. This deal, operating as a
"backdoor listing," would allow Qihoo 360 to return to the stock
market by relisting on the Shanghai Stock Exchange at a multiple,
to the detriment of shareholders who unknowingly sold Qihoo 360
stock and ADS at substantially deflated values during the Class
Period.

The Complaint alleges that Qihoo 360 shareholders were misled into
accepting consideration from the Merger that was well below fair
value for their Qihoo 360 shares. Specifically, defendants failed
to disclose: (1) that the Company's Proxy materials and Annual
Report misrepresented and/or omitted material information that was
necessary for Company shareholders to make an informed decision
concerning whether to vote in favor of the Merger; (2) that
contrary to the representations in the Proxy and the Annual Report,
the Company already had plans to relist its shares in China prior
to closing the Merger and its delisting from the NYSE; and (3) as a
result, the Company's statements about its business, operations,
and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.

If you sold Qihoo 360 stock or ADS during the Class Period, and was
damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to
seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers
must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York no later than March 18, 2019. The Lead
Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of
the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to
share in any Class recovery in this action. If you are a Class
member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that
recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your
choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any
questions about this lawsuit you may;

         Francis P. McConville, Esq.
         Labaton Sucharow LLP
         Telephone: (800) 321-0476
         Email: fmcconville@labaton.com [GN]


QUALITY INTEGRATED: Wolford Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL WOLFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. QUALITY INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00109-LPL (W.D. Pa., Feb. 1, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from QIS
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act.

According to the complaint, QIS is an oil and gas and construction
staffing company. QIS employs oilfield personnel to carry out its
work. Wolford and the other workers like him regularly worked for
QIS in excess of 40 hours each week. But these workers never
received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA
and the PMWA, QIS improperly classified Wolford and those similarly
situated workers as exempt employees and paid them a daily rate
with no overtime compensation, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713 352-1100
          Facsimile: 713 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 766-1455
          Facsimile: (412)766-0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

RCO REFORESTING: $500K Rodriguez FLSA Suit Settlement Gets Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESUS SILVA RODRIGUEZ and RIGOBERTO ZEPEDA LOA,
Plaintiffs, v. RCO REFORESTING, INC. and JUDGMENT ROBERTO OCHOA,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-2523 WBS DMC (E.D. Cal.), Judge
William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted the parties' Joint Motion for
Approval of Settlement and Entry of Stipulated Judgment.

Rodriguez and Loa brought the action against the Defendants,
asserting various wage and hour and employment law claims under
federal and state law.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiffs as temporary forestry
workers pursuant to the H-2B visa program.  The Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants had a policy of not paying the Plaintiffs for
overtime work and not reimbursing them for their travel and visa
costs, which reduced their pay to below minimum wage.  They further
allege that the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiffs with
legally mandated meal and rest periods, itemized wage statements,
and reimbursements for necessary protective gear.  These practices
allegedly violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the
Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act ("AWPA"),
and various provisions of California law.

The Plaintiff filed their original complaint on Oct. 22, 2016.
After the Court granted Rodriguez's motion to amend his complaint
to add Loa, the Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint on
April 17, 2017.  Shortly thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a motion
to conditionally certify a FLSA collective action and provide
notice to the potential opt-in Plaintiffs.  After the Court denied
the Plaintiffs' initial motion without prejudice, the Plaintiffs
filed another motion to certify a FLSA collective action and the
Court granted that subsequent motion.  The Court ordered the
Defendants to produce the contact information of all potential
class members, approved an opt-in period of six months, and
authorized notice to all prospective class members.

By this time, the Plaintiffs, pursuant to a joint stipulation,
filed their second amended complaint, adding a cause of action
under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") of 2004,
California Labor Code Section 2698, et seq. Since then, both
parties engaged in discovery and agreed to mediate their dispute
before a magistrate judge of the Court.  The parties took part in
six different settlement conferences, ultimately reaching a
settlement on Nov. 13, 2018.

The settlement agreement provides that judgment will be entered in
favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants in the amount of
$500,000.  The judgment would be allocated in the following manner:
$24,553.25 payable to Plaintiff Rodriguez to settle his individual
claims; $84,816.50 payable to Plaintiff Loa to settle his
individual claims; $313,943.27 representing underpaid wages payable
to absent aggrieved employees; $36,056.73 representing penalties
pursuant to the PAGA, $27,042.40 of which payable to the California
Labor Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") and $9,014.33 of which
payable to the absent aggrieved employees; and $40,630.25
representing attorneys' fees and costs payable to the Plaintiffs'
counsel.

The Defendants would pay $20,000 within 180 days after approval of
the settlement and $500 per month commencing no later than 10 days
after approval of the settlement.  If they fail to make three or
more payments or have significant improvement in their financial
situation, the monetary amount of the judgment increases at most to
$1 million.  As part of the settlement, the parties propose a
distribution plan whereby the Plaintiffs' counsel would provide
notice and distribute payments to the absent aggrieved employees,
including those located in Mexico.

The proposed stipulated judgment also includes injunctive relief.
The injunctive relief would cover all H-2B workers employed by
defendants for the performance of forestry and reforesting
services.

Judge Shubb concludes that the settlement reached is a fair and
reasonable resolution of bona fide disputes.  Accordingly, he
approvedof the parties' settlement of the Plaintiffs' FLSA and PAGA
claims.  

The Judge also finds that given that the attorneys' fees award is
substantially less than what would they could recover under their
estimated lodestar and does not represent a substantial portion of
the overall settlement, he finds the requested fees to be
reasonable.  He therefore approved of the Plaintiffs' request for
attorneys' fees.

Concurrent with the filing of the Memorandum, Judge Shubb will sign
and enter the stipulated judgment with minor modifications.
A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/0u6v6v from Leagle.com.

Jesus Silva Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Laura Clauson
Ferree, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., Benjamin Richard
Botts -- ben@cdmigrante.org -- Centro de los Derechos del Migrante,
Inc., Cynthia Louise Rice -- crice@crla.org -- California Rural
Legal Assistance, Inc., Elizabeth Dale Mauldin --
elizabeth@cdmigrante.org -- Centro de los Derechos del Migrante,
Inc, Javier Jose Castro -- jcastro@crla.org -- California Rural
Legal Assistance, Inc. & Jessica Michel Hiller -- jhiller@crla.org
-- California Rural Legal Assistance.

Rigoberto Zepeda Loa, Plaintiff, represented by Cynthia Louise
Rice, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., Javier Jose Castro,
California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., Benjamin Richard Botts,
Centro de los Derechos del Migrante, Inc. & Laura Clauson Ferree,
California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc.

RCO Reforesting, Inc. & Roberto Ochoa, Defendants, represented by
Christopher Fredrick Wohl -- cwohl@pkwhlaw.com -- Palmer Kazanjian
Wohl Hodson, LLP & Larry M. Kazanjian -- lkazanjian@pkwhlaw.com --
Palmer Kazanjian Wohl Hodson LLP.


RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Waived Right to Arbitration in Ramsey Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHILLIP RAMSEY, Plaintiff, v. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-1059 (S.D.
Ohio), Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, held
that RPM has waived its right to arbitration.

The matter is before the Court following the Jan. 24, 2019
telephone conference with the parties.  The Court set a deadline of
May 17, 2017 for RPM to inform the Court whether it intended to
file a motion to compel arbitration.  The following month, RPM
notified the Court that after attempting to obtain additional
information, and after further investigation of the ability to
pursue arbitration in the matter, it is unable to proceed with a
motion to compel arbitration.

On Dec. 27, 2018, over one and one-half years later, RPM sent an
email to the counsel for the Plaintiff requesting that the
Plaintiff dismisses the lawsuit and proceed with arbitration.  The
Plaintiff objected, arguing there was no basis for the Defendant to
move to compel arbitration.

The parties requested a conference with the Magistrate Judge on
whether RPM is barred from seeking to compel arbitration at this
juncture of the lawsuit.

The Magistrate finds that assuming the parties entered into an
agreement to arbitrate the case, the actions taken by RPM are
inconsistent with any reliance on the right to arbitration.  The
length of time a party engages in active litigation is a factor to
consider in this regard.  In Johnson Assocs. Corp. v. HL Operating
Corp., the Sixth Circuit determined the defendant waived the right
to arbitration where the request to compel arbitration was made
eight months into the case, the defendant failed to raise
arbitration in its answer, and the defendant actively scheduled and
requested discovery, including depositions, rather than moving to
compel arbitration following the end of formal settlement
discussions.  While RPM, unlike the defendant in Johnson, did raise
the arbitration defense in its answer, RPM nevertheless explicitly
notified the Court and the Plaintiff early in the litigation that
it would not be pursuing arbitration.

The circumstances of the instant case are even stronger than those
in Johnson for a showing of prejudice.  The delay involved is over
two years, far in excess of the eight months in Johnson.  Assuming
the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate the dispute
before the Court, the Magistrate finds that RPM has waived its
right to arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/bSRHs2 from Leagle.com.

Phillip Ramsey, Plaintiff, represented by Cori R. Besse, The Law
Firm of Sadlowski & Besse L.L.C. & Adam V. Sadlowski.

Receivables Performance Management, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Brant T. Miller -- btmiller@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees & Sean P.
Flynn -- sflynn@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP, pro hac vice.

Howard George, Defendant, represented by Sean P. Flynn, Gordon &
Rees LLP, pro hac vice.


RED ROBIN: Vigueras Seeks to Distribute Class Certification Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit MANUEL VIGUERAS, on behalf of
themselves individually and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS
IN CALIFORNIA AS RED ROBIN BURGER SPIRITS EMPORIUMS, a Nevada
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 8:17-cv-01422-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move
the Court on March 4, 2019, for an order approving the Notice of
Class Certification, and distribution to the Class and Subclasses.

According to the complaint, the motion is made on the grounds that
the Court certified the Class and Subclass on October 23, 2018,
under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3), there is no justification for Red
Robin's refusal to distribute Notice, and the Notice meets all the
requirements of Rule 23.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  christina@jameshawkinsaplc.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Lonnie D. Giamela, Esq.
          Sean F. Daley, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071

REMCO INSURANCE: Valenzuela Seeks Unpaid Wages for Sales Agent
--------------------------------------------------------------
GILBERT VALENZUELA, and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. REMCO INSURANCE AGENCIES, INC., and RAHIM PEERBHAI,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00090 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 6, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by
Defendants from June 16, 2016, until March 23, 2017, as a "Sales
Manager & Sales Agent" in Austin, Texas. The Plaintiff's principle
duties were customer service and sales of insurance products within
the state of Texas. The Plaintiff's duties were primarily performed
via telephone and internet. The Defendant operates a
company that primarily operates an insurance agency.

Throughout the employment of Plaintiff and others similarly
situated, the Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated Sections
7 and 15 of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate
Plaintiff at a rate not less than one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek. Specifically, Plaintiff, and all others similarly
situated, were never paid any overtime for the work in excess of 40
hours in a workweek. The work schedules for the Plaintiff, and all
others similarly situated, required them to work in excess of 40
hours in a workweek on a regular and recurring basis during
numerous workweeks, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
          Daniel B. Ross, Esq.
          ROSS LAW GROUP
          1104 San Antonio Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 474-7677
          Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
          E-mail: Charles@rosslawpc.com

RGS FINANCIAL: Terry Frank Seeks to Certify FDPCA Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit TERRY FRANK, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RGS FINANCIAL
INC., a Texas Corporation; and, JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1
THROUGH 25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01239-WCG (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
      Practices Act and the Texas Debt Collection Act:

      "all persons with addresses in the State of Wisconsin to
      whom RGS mailed a written communication to collect a debt
      between September 12, 2015 and October 3, 2017, which was
      not returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal
      Service, and which:

      -- stated, "The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requires
         financial institutions to annually report to the IRS
         discharges of debt in amount of $600 or greater. If the
         settlement you agreed to pay results in a discharge of
         $600 or more of the principle [sic] balance due on your
         account, the owner of the debt may report that amount
         to the IRS by filing form 1099c"; and

      -- failed to disclose how much of the "Amount Owed"
         consists of principal and whether, or in what amount or
         order, payments made to RGS would be applied to
         principal, interest, late charges, and other
         charges/fees; and

   2. appointing Plaintiff to represent the putative class and
      subclass members, and that his attorneys, Stern Thomasson
      LLP and Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, be
      appointed counsel for the class and subclass.

The Plaintiff also brings this claim on behalf of a Subclass of all
persons who meet the class definition set forth, supra, except the
letter was sent between September 12, 2016 and October 3,
2017.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson,
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          3010 South Appleton Road
          Menasha, WI 54952
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          E-mail: Philip@SternThomasson.com
                  Andrew@SternThomasson.com
                  Francis@SternThomasson.com

RIA INVESTMENT: Rife et al. Seek Overtime Wage Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against RIA Investment, Inc., seeks to
recover declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including a reasonable attorney's
fee, as a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs and all
other hourly-paid employees, including, but not limited to, front
desk employees, housekeeping employees and maintenance employees,
and all other salaried front desk employees, lawful overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week, under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants had a practice of not
paying Plaintiffs and other hourly employees and salaried front
desk employees a lawful overtime rate of 1.5 times their regular
rate for any hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Rather than
pay Plaintiffs and other hourly employees 1.5 times their regular
rate for their hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the
Defendants simply either would not pay anything for the those hours
worked in excess of 40 or Defendants would occasionally pay
Plaintiffs and other hourly employees a minimal sum of cash for
those hours, generally at a rate less than their regular hourly
rate, the lawsuit says.

The case is captioned as JOHNDA RIFE and AARON GRENIER, Each
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
PLAINTIFFS , vs. RIA INVESTMENT INC.; HMV INVESTMENTS, CORP.;
SITARAM INVESTMENTS, INC.; RMH HOSPITALITY LLC; BLUE HOTELS,
L.L.C.; AIDEN HOSPITALITY, INC.; JAHA HOSPITALITY, INC.; KRISHA
INVESTMENTS, INC.; PLANO JOINT VENTURE, LLC; FAIRVIEW HOSPITALITY
LLC; PRIYANEAL MANAGEMENT, LLC; PKNR HOSPITALITY, LLC; VISHALKUMAR
(VISHAL) K. PATEL; ANILKUMAR (ANIL) R. PATIDAR; HETAL PATIDAR
(PATEL); HIMESH D. PATEL; PINAKIN (PETER) DESAI; and CHINTUBHAI
(CHINTU) S. PATEL, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 3:19-cv-00261-N (N.D.
Tex., Feb. 1, 2019)[BN].

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R.
          MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1360 North White Chapel, Suite 200
          Southlake, TX 76092
          Telephone: (817) 416-5060
          Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
          E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com

ROCK HOLDINGS: Accused by Hansen Suit of Sending Illegal Text Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL HANSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ROCK HOLDINGS, INC., d/b/a CORE DIGITAL MEDIA; LMB
MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., d/b/a LOWERMYBILLS.COM; and DIGITAL MEDIA
SOLUTIONS, LLC, d/b/a DCMG, Case No. 2:19-cv-00179-KJM-DMC (E.D.
Cal., January 29, 2019), accuses the Defendants of illegally
transmitting text message advertisements to the Plaintiff's
cellular device without "prior express written consent" within the
meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Rock Holdings, Inc., doing business as Core Digital Media,
maintains its corporate headquarters in Plymouth, Michigan.  In
2017, RHI acquired the Web sites LowerMyBills.com and
ClassesUSA.com from Core Digital Media, Inc., and since that time
has marketed and advertised the commercial availability of the
services offered at those Web sites under the fictional name Core
Digital Media.

LMB Mortgage Services, Inc., doing business as LowerMyBills.com,
maintains its corporate headquarters in Playa Vista, California.
LMB is a subsidiary of Defendant RHI.

Digital Media Solutions, LLC, doing business as Dcmg, maintains its
corporate headquarters in Clearwater, Florida.  DMS is a "digital
marketing agency that develops, executes and optimizes integrated,
cross-channel marketing campaigns on behalf of [its] clients",
including RHI and LMB, with which it collaborates as "Dcmg."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RTG FURNITURE: Blobner Seeks Certification of Purchasers Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned ROBERT BLOBNER, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. R.T.G. FURNITURE
CORP., Case No. 8:17-cv-01676-JSM-SPF (M.D. Fla.), seeks to certify
this Class:

     All persons who purchased any Bonded Leather Furniture from
     Rooms To Go since June 1, 2013.

The Court is not bound by this definition and has the discretion to
modify it as necessary, Mr. Blobner says.

Mr. Blobner also asks the Court to (1) appoint him as Class
representative, (2) appoint his counsel as Class Counsel, and (3)
order that reasonable and adequate notice be provided to the Class
under Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local
Rule 4.04(b) through a direct notice process as set forth in the AB
Data Affidavit.

The Defendant sold Bonded Leather Furniture in Florida.  This class
action seeks redress for Rooms To Go's alleged unfair and deceptive
business practices, actions, and material omissions in connection
with its sale of hundreds of thousands of pieces of Bonded Leather
Furniture to consumers in Florida.  Mr. Blobner alleges that Rooms
To Go knew its Bonded Leather Furniture was inherently defective
and not merchantable because, among other things, such bonded
leather material was not of fair average quality, was not fit for
its ordinary purchase for which it is used (i.e., living room
furniture), and was not suitable for sale to Florida
consumers.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Daniel Clark, Esq.
          Anthony T. Martino, Esq.
          CLARK & MARTINO, P.A.
          3407 W. Kennedy Boulevard
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: (813) 879-0700
          Facsimile: (813) 879-5498
          E-mail: dclark@clarkmartino.com
                  amartino@clarkmartino.com

               - and -

          Christopher S. Polaszek, Esq.
          THE POLASZEK LAW FIRM PLLC
          3407 W. Kennedy Blvd.
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: (813) 574-7678
          E-mail: chris@polaszeklaw.com

               - and -

          Richard J. McIntyre, Esq.
          Eric Seidel, Esq.
          MCINTYRE, THANASIDES BRINGGOLD ELLIOTT GRIMALDI
          & GUITO, P.A.
          500 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 200
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 230-4947
          Facsimile: (813) 899-6069
          E-mail: rich@mcintyrefirm.com
                  eric@mcintyrefirm.com

               - and -

          Katherine Earle Yanes, Esq.
          KYNES, MARKMAN & FELMAN, P.A.
          Post Office Box 3396
          Tampa, FL 33601-3396
          Telephone: (813) 229-1118
          Facsimile: (813) 221-6750
          E-mail: kyanes@kmf-law.com


SAMSUNG TELECOM: Norcia Seeks to Certify Class of Galaxy S4 Owners
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned DANIEL NORCIA, on his own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs vs. SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a New York
Corporation, and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New Jersey
Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-00582-JD (N.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order on May 2, 2019:

   1. certifying a class of people:

      "all persons or entities who purchased one or more 16 GB
      Galaxy S4 smart phones in the State of California from April

      2013 until July 2013"; and

   2. appointing Plaintiff as Class representative and appointing
      his counsel as Class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of
      Civil Procedure 23(g).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Eduardo G. Roy, Esq.
          Daniel C. Quintero, Esq.
          John R. Hurley, E
          PROMETHEUS PARTNERS L.L.P.
          220 Montgomery Street, Suite 1094
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415 527 0255

               - and -

          Alec Cierny, Esq.
          THE CIERNY FIRM
          650 California Street, Floor 7
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2737
          Telephone: 415.259.4646
          Facsimile: 415.230.5777

SAND AND SEA: Arbitration Order in Prado Unpaid OT Suit Vacated
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHANTALL PRADO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
SAND AND SEA, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B278307
(Cal. App.), Judge Lamar Baker of the Court of Appeals of
California for the Second District, Division Five, directed the
superior court to vacate its Aug. 12, 2016 order granting the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and to enter a new and
different order denying the motion.

Plaintiffs Prado and Felecia Scott appeal the trial court's order
compelling arbitration of certain wage and hour causes of action
against their employer, Sand and Sea, doing business as Shore
Hotel.  Because the trial court's order does not compel the
Plaintiffs to arbitrate the class claims individually, the
exception to the general rule that interlocutory orders are not
appealable that is embodied in the "death knell doctrine" does not
apply.  Nonetheless, Judge Beker exercises his discretion to treat
the appeal as a petition for a writ of mandate and granted the
petition.

During their employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiffs received
a 56-page employee handbook.  The Defendant contends the Plaintiffs
are bound by an "agreement to arbitrate" included in the handbook
notwithstanding the handbook's "welcome page," which states the
handbook is not intended to create any legally enforceable
obligations on the part of the Defendant or its employees.  The
Plaintiffs signed a "policy acknowledgment" form included at the
end of the handbook that highlights the handbook's purpose to
provide information regarding various policies, practices and
procedures that apply to them including the Arbitration Agreement.
The acknowledgement form states employees are expected to have read
the 56-page handbook in its entirety no longer than one week after
receiving it.

Although the Plaintiffs challenged the existence of a mutual
agreement to arbitrate in their opposition to the Defendant's
motion to compel arbitration in the trial court, they now present a
more robust argument informed by the Court of Appeal's decision in
Esparza v. Sand & Sea, Inc. -- a case that involves the very same
employee handbook at issue in the instant case and that was decided
only after briefing in the trial court was complete.  Contrary to
the Defendant's argument, the Plaintiffs are not prohibited from
presenting on appeal a legal argument that differs from the legal
theory raised in, and addressed by, the trial court -- particularly
where the argument made relies on intervening authority.

Judge Baker agrees with the conclusion in Esparza that the employee
handbook's disclaimer of "any legally enforceable obligations," the
emphasis upon its informational purpose, and the recognition that
employees would not have read it when they signed the policy
acknowledgment form preclude a finding that the parties agreed,
expressly or impliedly, to arbitrate disputes.

He rejects the Defendant's contention that the Court of Appeal's
reasoning in Esparza does not apply because that was a
single-plaintiff tort case and the case is a putative wage and hour
class action.  The handbook's meaning does not vary based on the
number of the Plaintiffs or the nature of the claims against the
Defendant.

The Judge also rejects the Defendant's suggestion that the Court
should decline to follow Esparza because the Plaintiffs had longer
to review the handbook than did the plaintiff in Esparza; the
provisions disclaiming any binding legal obligations would not have
taken on a different meaning for the Plaintiffs with additional
study.  Finally, he finds that the Defendant is mistaken when it
asserts that the Plaintiffs did not allege, like the plaintiff in
Esparza, that they were required to sign the policy acknowledgment
form as a condition of employment.  The Plaintiffs alleged they
felt like they would be immediately terminated if they did not sign
the form.  Furthermore, even if signing the handbook was not in
fact a condition of employment, that is immaterial—assuming the
Plaintiffs signed the policy acknowledgment on a purely voluntary
basis, the handbook, to use its own words, created no "legally
enforceable obligation" to arbitrate for the reasons stated in
Esparza.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Baker ordered to let a peremptory
writ of mandate issue directing the superior court to vacate its
Aug. 12, 2016, order granting the Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration and to enter a new and different order denying the
motion.  The Plaintiffs will recover their costs in the
proceeding.

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

Srourian Law Firm, Daniel Z. Srourian -- legal@slfla.com; Solouki
Savoy, Grant Joseph Savoy -- grant@soloukisavoy.com -- and Shoham
J. Soulaki -- shoham@soloukisavoy.com -- for Plaintiffs and
Appellants.

Yarian & Associates and Levik Yarian for Defendant and Respondent.


SEFCU: Sotir and Randall Sue over Overdraft Fee Charges
-------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER M. SOTIR, AND JENNY LEA RANDALL individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SEFCU
and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00147-GLS-CFH
(N.D.N.Y., Feb. 5, 2019), seeks monetary damages, restitution, and
injunctive relief due to SEFCU's policy and practice of assessing a
fee on transactions when there was enough money in the checking
account to cover (pay for) the transactions presented for payment.
The charges breach SEFCU's contracts with its customers, who
include Plaintiffs and the members of the class. SEFCU also
violated those contracts by charging its members fees on ACH, ATM,
check, and debit card transactions who did not opt-into the
overdraft program fees, when SEFCU clearly contractually promised
that only members who opted-in would be charged those fees.

The case is a class and representative action brought by Plaintiffs
to assert claims in their own right, and in their capacities as the
class representatives of all other persons similarly situated, as
well as in their capacities as private attorneys general on behalf
of the members of the general public. SEFCU wrongfully charged
Plaintiffs and the class members overdraft fees. Additionally,
SEFCU violated General Business Law Sec. 349 by charging fees
against its members based on a misleading Opt-In Contract, in that
SEFCU not only charged fees in a manner other than described by the
Opt-In Contract which resulted in more fees being imposed by SEFCU
on its members, but also because SEFCU provided no benefit
whatsoever to those who did opt-in while nonetheless imposing on
them an additional financial detriment above and beyond that
imposed on those who did not opt-in. Finally, SEFCU also violated
General Business Law Sec. 349, as well as other laws, by
transferring money from members' savings accounts into their
checking accounts for the supposed purpose of avoiding a negative
balance and a fees resulting from the negative balance, but despite
this automatic transfer which would avoid the negative balance
would nonetheless impose the fee on its members.

The charging of these fees also violates federal law. Because SEFCU
failed to describe its actual overdraft service in its Opt-In
Contract (because the language in its Opt-In Contract fails to
describe the actual method by which SEFCU calculates its overdraft
fees), and because, alternatively, SEFCU did not obtain opt-ins
from its customers whatsoever, Regulation E of the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act prohibited SEFCU from assessing overdraft fees for
automated teller machine (ATM) and non-recurring debit card
transactions, but SEFCU did so anyway, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          J. Patrick Lannon, Esq.
          CHERUNDOLO LAW FIRM, PLLC
          AXA Tower I, 17th Floor
          100 Madison Street
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          Telephone (315) 449-9500
          Facsimile (315) 449-9804
          E-mail: plannon@cherundololawfirm.com

               - and -

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
          3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  ejk@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          Robert Dart, Esq.
          THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
          815 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: (310) 395-2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
          E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com
                  Robert@kicklawfirm.com

SOCIAL SECURITY: Court Grants Steigerwald's Summary Judgment Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHANIE STEIGERWALD, on behalf of herself and the
class, Plaintiffs, v. NANCY BERRYHILL, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-CV-1516 (N.D. Ohio),
Judge James S. Gwin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio granted the Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment regarding liability on the sole count of the complaint.

The mechanics of the alleged underpayment are fairly byzantine.
Before the lawsuit, the Defendant had found the Plaintiffs eligible
for both retroactive disability benefits under Title II of the
Social Security Act and retroactive supplemental security income
("SSI") under Title XVI of the Act.  The Plaintiffs retained an
attorney or representative to help them obtain benefits, and chose
to have the SSA pay their attorney fees from their awarded
benefits.

The recipient's income impacts both eligibility for SSI benefits
and the amount of SSI benefits.  Title II disability payments
become income for calculating SSI benefits.  The disability benefit
payments become income that must be considered when calculating the
right to SSI benefits and when calculating the amount of those SSI
benefits.  For this reason, the Social Security Administration
adjusts claimants' retroactive SSI retirement payments to account
for Title II disability income when they qualify for both
retroactive Title II disability payments and SSI benefits.  The
Social Security Administration calls this the "Windfall Offset
Calculation."

So far, so good.  The case focuses on a problem that can occur when
a claimant chooses to pay her legal fees out of their retroactive
Title II disability benefits.

The Social Security Administration often pays attorney fees well
after the Social Security Administration has set the SSI retirement
benefit payment level.  However, after paying disability claimant's
attorney fees, it then reduces the monthly Title II disability
benefit to recoup the attorney fee payment.  But because Title II
disability benefits reduce with the attorney fee award, the SSI
retirement benefit should rise because the claimant no longer has
the same amount of disability payment income.  Simply described,
the Social Security Administration considers the Title II
disability benefit when calculating the monthly SSI retirement
benefit amount.  The Plaintiffs say the SSI retirement benefits
should have increased after the Title II disability monthly benefit
fell after the attorney fee award.

Because the attorney fee payment reduces the recipient's income,
the attorney fee monthly reduction may increase the recipient's SSI
retirement benefit amount.  Thus, the Plaintiffs argue that the
Social Security Administration should twice perform the Windfall
Offset Calculation: once when the claimant is awarded retroactive
benefits, and again when the claimant's representative fees are
paid out of their Title II benefits and the claimant's monthly
benefits are reduced to recoup the attorney fee award.  The
Plaintiffs call this second Windfall Offset Calculation the
"Subtraction Recalculation."

The Plaintiffs claim that they should receive increased SSI
benefits because the Social Security Administration failed to
perform the Subtraction Recalculation.  Based on class discovery,
the Plaintiffs estimate that the Social Security Administration did
not perform the Subtraction Recalculation for 37,675 class period
claimants.  If true, that would mean that the Social Security
Administration did not do the Subtraction Recalculation in 39% of
the cases where it should have performed the Recalculation.

The Plaintiffs now move for summary judgment on the sole count of
their complaint.  They argue that they are entitled to summary
judgment because the Defendant has conceded that the Social
Security Administration must perform the Subtraction Recalculation
and conceded that the Social Security Administration has failed to
do so.

Judge Gwin finds that the Plaintiffs show that there is no genuine
issue as to whether Defendant failed to conduct the legally
required Subtraction Recalculation.  Thus, he will grant the
Plaintiffs summary judgment on their complaint.

The Judge also joins the Greenberg v. Colvin in holding that the
Plaintiffs' counsel are eligible Section 406(b) fees, in an amount
to be decided at a later date.  The Plaintiffs' counsel may also be
simultaneously eligible for fees under the Equal Access to Justice
Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 2412(d).  The Judge does not decide their
eligibility under this act at this time.  The Plaintiffs' counsel
may move for fees under this Act later.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gwin granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment.  He ordered the Defendant to perform
the Subtraction Recalculation for the Plaintiffs and pay any
past-due benefits to them within 90 days.

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

Stephanie L. Steigerwald, Plaintiff, represented by Bezalel A.
Stern -- bstern@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley, Drye & Warren, pro hac
vice, Ira T. Kasdan -- ikasdan@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley, Drye &
Warren, pro hac vice, Jon H. Ressler -- jressler@rooselaw.com --
Roose & Ressler, Joseph D. Wilson, III -- jwilson@kelleydrye.com --
Kelley, Drye & Warren, pro hac vice & Kirk B. Roose, Roose &
Ressler.

Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant, represented by Erin E.
Brizius, Office of the U.S. Attorney Northern District of Ohio,
Justin M. Sandberg, U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Division
Federal, M. Kathryn Bailey, U.S. Department of Justice - Federal
Programs & Ruchi V. Asher, Office of the U.S. Attorney Northern
District of Ohio.


SOUTHFIELD, MI: Certification of Classes Sought in Oren 2015 Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled OREN 2015, LLC, on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated v. CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, Case
No. 2:18-cv-12671-MAG-APP (E.D. Mich.), asks the Court to certify
these Classes:

   (A) All persons and entities that paid any rental registration
       or inspection fees to the City of Southfield at any time
       from August 27, 2012 through the date of final judgment
       under the City's unconstitutional Inspection Ordinances
       that requires property owners to forfeit their rights to
       be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; and

   (B) All persons and entities that have been deprived of a
       certificate of compliance for refusing or otherwise
       failing to have their property unconstitutionally
       inspected by the City of Southfield at any time from
       August 27, 2012 through the date of final judgment under
       the City's unconstitutional Inspection Ordinances that
       requires property owners to forfeit their rights to be
       free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Defendant has conducted thousands of warrantless searches
during the proposed class period, the Plaintiff alleges.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to allow it to amend the spelling
of its name to ORON 2015, LLC.  The Plaintiff asserts that due to a
typo its name on the Complaint is "OREN 2015, LLC".  The correct
spelling is "ORON" 2015, LLC.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron D. Cox, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF AARON D. COX, PLLC
          23380 Goddard Rd.
          Taylor, MI 48180
          Telephone: (734) 287-3664
          E-mail: Aaron@aaroncoxlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Wasvary, Esq.
          MARK K. WASVARY, P.C.
          2401 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 100
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 649-5667
          E-mail: markwasvary@hotmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          T. Joseph Seward, Esq.
          Kali M. L. Henderson, Esq.
          SEWARD HENDERSON, PLLC
          210 E. 3rd St., Suite 212
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 733-3580
          E-mail: jseward@sewardhenderson.com
                  Khenderson@sewardhenderson.com


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Fairness Hearing Set for March 22
-----------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the fairness hearing
for the settlement of a class action lawsuit in New York over
airline fees has been scheduled for March 22, 2019.

On July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the Company,
American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines to limit
capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.

Since then, a number of similar class action complaints were filed
in the United States District Courts for the Central District of
California, the Northern District of California, the District of
Columbia, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of
Florida, the Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of
Illinois, the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of
Louisiana, the District of Minnesota, the District of New Jersey,
the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New
York, the Middle District of North Carolina, the District of
Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern
District of Texas, the District of Vermont, and the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.

On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation centralized the cases to the United States District
Court in the District of Columbia. On March 25, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the
consolidated cases alleging that the defendants conspired to
restrict capacity from 2009 to present. The plaintiffs seek to
bring their claims on behalf of a class of persons who purchased
tickets for domestic airline travel on the defendants' airlines
from July 1, 2011 to present. They seek treble damages, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees and expenses.

On May 11, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint, and on October 28, 2016, the Court denied this
motion. On December 20, 2017, the Company reached an agreement to
settle these cases with a proposed class of all persons who
purchased domestic airline transportation services from July 1,
2011, to the date of the settlement.

The Company agreed to pay $15 million and to provide certain
cooperation with the plaintiffs as set forth in the settlement
agreement. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement
on January 3, 2018.

The plaintiffs provided notice to the settlement class pursuant to
a notice program approved by the Court, and the deadline for class
members to opt out or object was January 4, 2019. The fairness
hearing for the settlement is scheduled for March 22, 2019.

The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing.

Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the United States and
near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in
1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Petition for Certiorari in Bag Fees Suit Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a petition for writ
of certiorari commenced by plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit
over bag fees has been denied.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta Air
Lines, Inc. and AirTran Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary AirTran
Airways, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that AirTran attempted
to monopolize air travel in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the
first item of checked luggage in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act. The initial complaint sought treble damages on behalf
of a putative class of persons or entities in the United States who
directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on domestic flights
beginning December 5, 2008.

After the filing of the May 2009 complaint, various other nearly
identical complaints also seeking certification as class actions
were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia; Orlando,
Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada.

All of the cases were consolidated before a single federal district
court judge in Atlanta. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed
in the consolidated action on February 1, 2010, which broadened the
allegations to add claims that Delta and AirTran conspired to
reduce capacity on competitive routes and to raise prices in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

In addition to treble damages for the amount of first baggage fees
paid to AirTran and to Delta, the Consolidated Amended Complaint
sought injunctive relief against a broad range of alleged
anticompetitive activities, as well as attorneys' fees.

On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that
AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the
Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the
imposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and
pricing decisions. On July 12, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class of all persons who paid first bag fees to
AirTran or Delta from December 8, 2008 to November 1, 2014 (the
date on which AirTran stopped charging first bag fees). Defendants
appealed that decision.

On March 29, 2017, the Court granted defendants' motion for summary
judgment and dismissed all claims against AirTran. On March 9,
2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to AirTran and Delta, and on June 8,
2018, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' petition for
rehearing and rehearing en banc.

On November 5, 2018, the plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court
for a writ of certiorari, which the Supreme Court denied on January
7, 2019. AirTran denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including
those in the Consolidated Amended Complaint.

Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the United States and
near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in
1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Still Awaits Service of Saskatchewan Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a class action
complaint in Saskatchewan court has not been served on the
Company.

On July 8, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action filed in the Federal Court in Canada alleging that the
Company, Air Canada, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United
Airlines colluded to restrict capacity and maintain higher fares
for Canadian residents traveling in the United States and for
travel between the United States and Canada.

Similar lawsuits were filed in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia on July 15, 2015, Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
on August 4, 2015, Superior Court of the Province of Quebec on
September 21, 2015, and Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
October 6, 2015.

In December 2015, the Company entered into Tolling and
Discontinuance agreements with putative class counsel in the
Federal Court, British Columbia, and Ontario proceedings and a
discontinuance agreement with putative class counsel in the Quebec
proceeding.

The other defendants entered into an agreement with the same
putative class counsel to stay the Federal Court, British Columbia,
and Quebec proceedings and to proceed in Ontario. On June 10, 2016,
the Federal Court granted plaintiffs' motion to discontinue that
action against the Company without prejudice and stayed the action
against the other defendants. On July 13, 2016, the plaintiff
unilaterally discontinued the action against the Company in British
Columbia.

On February 14, 2017, the Quebec Court granted the plaintiff's
motion to discontinue the Quebec proceeding against the Company and
to stay that proceeding against the other defendants. On March 10,
2017, the Ontario Court granted the plaintiff's motion to
discontinue that proceeding as to the Company.

On September 29, 2017, the Company and the other defendants entered
into a tolling agreement suspending any limitations periods that
may apply to possible claims among them for contribution and
indemnity arising from the Canadian litigation. The Saskatchewan
claim has not been served on the Company, and the time for the
Company to respond to that complaint has not yet begun to run.

The plaintiff in that case generally seeks damages (including
punitive damages in certain cases), prejudgment interest,
disgorgement of any benefits accrued by the defendants as a result
of the allegations, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and
other costs.

The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
vigorously defend this civil case in Canada. The Company does not
currently serve Canada.

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

Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the United States and
near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in
1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


SPAR GROUP: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Hogan Labor Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Juan R. Torruella of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of SPAR's motion to
compel arbitration in the case, PARADISE HOGAN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Appellee, v.
SPAR GROUP, INC., Defendant, Appellant, SPAR BUSINESS SERVICES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-1286 (1st Cir.).

SPAR, a retail services provider, obtains most of its personnel
from a staffing company named SPAR Business Services, Inc. ("SBS").
SBS engaged Plaintiff-Appelle Hogan as an independent contractor
and assigned him to perform services for SPAR.  Hogan and SBS
entered into an "Independent Contractor Master Agreement" to which
SPAR was not a party.  

On Jan. 6, 2017, Hogan filed a putative class action complaint
against both SBS and SPAR essentially alleging that they
misclassified him and other Field Specialists as independent
contractors rather than employees, such that they avoid paying
mandated expenses and cause them to earn less than minimum wage.
Hogan asserted various causes of action, including breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and violations to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Massachusetts wage and hour statutes.

On May 2, 2017, after SBS and SPAR moved to compel arbitration or
dismiss for failure to state a claim, Hogan requested to amend the
complaint to "narrow the scope of his claims."  The district court
allowed Hogan's request and denied as moot the Defendants' motion
to compel arbitration.  On May 17, 2017, Hogan filed his
Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint and Demand for
Jury Trial, abandoning all but his claims pursuant to the
Massachusetts Wage Act, and the Massachusetts Independent
Contractor Statute.

In response, SBS and SPAR renewed their request to compel
arbitration.  On March 12, 2018, the district court denied the
motion to compel arbitration as to SPAR, finding that it had no
legal basis to compel Hogan to arbitration.  As to SBS, the
district court noted that Hogan was not contesting that his claims
were subject to arbitration, but rather that the court was barred
from enforcing the arbitration agreement pursuant to the National
Labor Relations Act because it precluded him from pursuing class
remedies in legal proceedings.  Finally, the district court denied
the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal request.

On April 4, 2018, SPAR filed a notice of appeal.  It presses two
alternate theories for why it can compel Hogan to arbitrate despite
not being a party to the agreement containing the arbitration
clause.   It posits that: (1) it is a third-party beneficiary of
the agreement between Hogan and SBS; and (2) Hogan is equitably
estopped from avoiding arbitration of his claims against SPAR.

After SPAR filed its notice of appeal, the Supreme Court decided in
Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, that employees' arbitration agreements
waiving class and collective action procedures are enforceable, as
pertinent in the instant case.  In response, the district court
dismissed Hogan's claims against SBS, compelling arbitration of
those claims.

Judge Torruella finds that a review of the language of the Master
Agreement, and more particularly its arbitration clause, shows that
SPAR was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the
signatories' agreement to arbitrate.  Hogan does not claim any
benefit or right from SPAR arising from the Master Agreement.  He
concludes that he finds no legal basis to compel Hogan to
arbitration, as the clear terms of the Master Agreement show that
he did not consent to arbitrate his claims against SPAR.  The
district court's judgment is therefore affirmed.

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

James M. Nicholas -- jnicholas@foley.com -- with whom Jillian M.
Collins -- jcollins@foley.com -- and Foley & Lardner LLP were on
brief, for appellant.

Brook S. Lane -- brook@fairworklaw.com -- with whom Hillary Schwab
-- hillary@fairworklaw.com -- and Fair Work, P.C. were on brief,
for appellee.


STAG CONSULTING: Saltzman Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------
Tyler Saltzman, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. Stag Consulting, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00383 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 4, 2019), seeks to recover overtime
wage compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Stag Consulting, LLC (Stag) employs
drilling workers to perform directional drilling. Stag "staffs"
many of these drilling workers (including Tyler Saltzman) to
third-party work entities. Although Stag classifies these staffed
workers as independent contractors, they are in fact
employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Saltzman and the other drilling workers employed by Stag regularly
work more than 40 hours a week but Stag does not pay them overtime.
Instead, Stag pays them a daily-rate with no overtime compensation.
This violates the FLSA, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713 352-1100
          Facsimile: 713 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  litkin@mybackwages.com

                - 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

SUMMERSALT INC: Website not Accessible to Blind, Slade Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
LINDA SLADE, Individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs. SUMMERSALT, INC.,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01056-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 4,
2019), alleges that Summersalt failed 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 complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired
and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to
read website content using her computer. The Plaintiff uses the
terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with
visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in
that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or
equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have
limited vision; others have no vision.  Based on a 2010 U.S. Census
Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United
States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind,
and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015
report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the
State of New York.

The Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Summersalt provides to their non-disabled customers
through http://www.Summersalt.com. The Defendants' denial of full
and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its
products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act. Summersalt.com provides to the public a wide
array of the goods, services, price specials, employment
opportunities and other programs offered by Summersalt. Yet,
Summersalt.com contains thousands of access barriers that make it
difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it
impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a
transaction on the website. Thus, Summersalt excludes the blind and
visually-impaired from the full and equal participation in the
growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of
the common marketplace and daily living. In the wave of
technological advances in recent years, assistive computer
technology is becoming an increasingly prominent part of everyday
life, allowing blind and visually-impaired persons to fully and
independently access a variety of services, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          44 Court St., Suite 1217
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 373-9128
          E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com

SWAPP LAW: Court Certifies Class of Drivers in Wilcox Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JADE WILCOX on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situation, Plaintiff, v. JAMES CRAIG SWAPP, individually;
and SWAPP LAW, PLLC, doing business as Craig Swapp and Associates,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-CV-275-RMP (E.D. Wash.), Judge Rosanna
Malouf Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Washington granted Wilcox's Motion for Class Certification.

Following car accidents in Washington, the Washington State Patrol
("WSP") prepares Police Traffic Collision Reports ("PTCRs") using a
standardized collision report form.  Before the Court issued a
preliminary injunction in the Batiste case requiring the WSP to
institute procedures to redact personal information, the WSP would
sell these unredacted records to any third party who would ask and
pay for them.

Ms. Wilcox claims that the PTCRs are prepared using a software
called SECTOR.  SECTOR allows officers to scan the bar code on a
driver's license or a vehicle registration to auto-populate the
PTCR form with a driver's personal information. Id. The data are
placed on the bar codes by the Washington State Department of
Licensing ("DOL") when the DOL creates the licenses and
registrations.  The information scanned from a driver's license's
bar code includes a driver's name, address, license number, and
date of birth, among other things.  The information scanned from a
motor vehicle registration's bar code includes a driver's name and
home address, as well as information about the driver's vehicle.

Ms. Wilcox alleges that the Defendants purchased more than 10,000
of these PTCRs from the WSP between 2013 and 2017.  The Defendants
would then use the personal information on the PTCRs to send
letters and pamphlets to the persons involved in the accidents to
solicit clients for their automobile personal injury practice.  The
letters would contain Defendant Craig Swapp's signature.

Ms. Wilcox claims that she was involved in two separate car
accidents on Aug. 1, 2015, and on July 11, 2016.  She alleges that
the Defendants purchased the PTCRs created as a result of these
accidents.  She alleges that the Defendants sent her a letter
advertising their services on July 14, 2016, using her personal
information gleaned from her Collision Reports.  The letter was
signed by Defendant Craig Swapp.

Based on the Defendants' conduct, Ms. Wilcox alleges that
Defendants violated the DPPA each time they obtained and used the
class members' personal information to solicit clients for their
automobile injury practice.  The DPPA sets forth the three elements
giving rise to liability, i.e., that a defendant (1) knowingly
obtained, disclosed or used personal information, (2) from a motor
vehicle record, (3) for a purpose not permitted.

Ms. Wilcox submits the following proposed class definition to be
certified by the Court: All drivers identified in Police Traffic
Collision Reports whose Personal Information, as defined by the
DPPA, was derived from a Department of Licensing record (e.g.
license, registration or database) and the Report was obtained by
the Swapp Law Firm (doing business as Craig Swapp & Associates) or
Mr. Swapp from the Washington State Patrol between Sept. 1, 2013
and June 23, 2017.

Judge Peterson finds that Ms. Wilcox has met the four requirements
of Rule 23(a) and the additional requirements to certify a damages
class under rule 23(b)(3).  Therefore, she granted Ms. Wilcox's
motion for class certification, and certified the class of all
drivers identified in Police Traffic Collision Reports whose
Personal Information, as defined by the DPPA, was derived from a
Department of Licensing record (e.g. license, registration or
database) and the Report was obtained or used by the Swapp Law Firm
(doing business as Craig Swapp & Associates) or Mr. Swapp from the
Washington State Patrol between Sept. 1, 2013 and June 23, 2017.
The class is certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3).

The Judge appointed Ms. Wilcox as the class representative, and
Thomas Jarrard and Block & Leviton as the co-lead class counsel.

Prsuant to the Court's order staying discovery deadlines, she
directed the parties to file a Joint Status Report within 14 days
of the entry of the Order.  The Joint Status Report will include a
plan for class notice pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(B).

The District Court Clerk is directed to enter the Order and provide
copies to the counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/u1PdKw from Leagle.com.

Jade Wilcox, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Richard Sweetser,
Sweetser Law Office, Jason M. Leviton -- jason@blockesq.com --
Block & Leviton LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Joseph Barton --
joe@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas G.
Jarrard -- TJARRARD@att.net -- Law Office of Thomas G Jarrard &
Marcus Sweetser, Sweetser Law Office.

James Craig Swapp, individually & Swapp Law PLLC, doing business as
Craig Swapp and Associates, Defendants, represented by Barbara J.
Duffy -- duffyb@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC, Ryan P. McBride
-- mcbrider@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC & Taylor Washburn --
washburnt@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC.

James R Sweetser & Sweetser Law Office, Interested Partys,
represented by Michael Bradley Love -- mike@michaellovelaw.com --
Michael Love Law Firm PLLC.


TARGET CORP: Jamison Alleges Mislabeling of Graham Crackers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Freddie Jamison individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Target Corporation, the Defendant,
Case no. 1:19-cv-00650-NGG-PK (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2019), alleges
that Defendant claims its graham cracker products were derived
predominantly from whole grains (graham flour) as opposed to
refined white or enriched flour.  When the proportion or amount of
a component has a material bearing on price or consumer acceptance,
it is deceptive and misleading for the representations to create
the erroneous impression that component is present in an amount
greater than is actually the case.

Target Corporation manufactures, markets, distributes and sells
products identified as "graham crackers" or "honey graham crackers"
under its private label brand, Market Pantry. The Products are
packaged in boxes of 408g (14.4 oz) and 816g (28.8 oz) and sold to
consumers from defendant’s more than 1,800 stores across the
country and website.  The front label representations identify the
Products as "Graham Crackers," emphasize "honey" through modified
and larger font above "Graham Crackers," "Made with Real Honey" and
the flight path of a bee, depict darker colored crackers pressed
against a marshmallow chocolate combination (s'mores), state "No
High Fructose Corn Syrup" and claim "8g Whole Grains" with "per
serving" in smaller font. The presence of honey as a sweetening
component is accentuated through the darker yellow color scheme,
because consumers associate this color with honey.

According to the complaint, the Market Pantry brand encompasses
numerous grocery items, with total yearly sales exceeding $1
billion. The representations of the Products as "graham crackers"
is misleading, false, deceptive and unfair because it creates an
erroneous impression that graham flour is the predominant or
exclusive flour component, as opposed to white flour. This is
because the predominant flour in is not graham flour but refined,
white flour ("unbleached enriched flour"), indicated on the
ingredient list, reproduced below, in miniscule font below the
nutrition facts on the side panel.

The modifying term, "graham" gives the incorrect and misleading
impression that the flour used is exclusively or predominantly
graham flour (whole grain) instead of the refined flour which
actually is the main flour component. Consumers expect products to
have common or usual names which describe the food in as simple and
direct terms as possible, its basic nature and its characterizing
properties or ingredients.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

               - and -

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          Levin-Epstein & Associates, P.C.
          1 Penn Plaza, Suite 2527
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 792-0046

TARGET CORPORATION: Greenberg Seeks to Certify Classes
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit TODD GREENBERG, On Behalf of Himself
and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TARGET
CORPORATION, a Minnesota Corporation, INTERNATIONAL VITAMIN
CORPORATION, a New Jersey Corporation, and PERRIGO COMPANY OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, INC., a South Carolina company, the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-01862-RS (N.D. Cal., Jan. 31, 2019), the Plaintiff will
move the Court for an order on July 18, 2019:

   1. certifying classes:

      9-State Class with laws similar to California's UCL or
      California-Only UCL Class:

      "all California consumers who, within the applicable statute

      of limitations period until the date notice is disseminated,

      purchased Biotin Products"; and

      California-Only CLRA Class:

      "all California consumers who, within the applicable statute

      of limitations period until the date notice is disseminated,

      purchased Biotin Products.

   2. appointing Plaintiff as Class representative, and appointing

      Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C., and Siprut, PC,

      as Class Counsel.

      Excluded from all Classes are Defendants and their officers,

      directors, and employees, and those persons who purchased
      the Products for the purpose of resale.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Carrie A. Laliberte, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN
          & BALINT, P.C.
          Manfred P. Muecke (222893)
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 798-4593
          E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com
                  mmuecke@bffb.com
                  eryan@bffb.com
                  claliberte@bffb.com

               - and -

          Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
          Michael Chang, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          E-mail: sweltman@siprut.com
                  mchang@siprut.com

TENARIS SA: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP alerts investors
that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against
Tenaris S.A. (NYSE: TS) ("Tenaris") on behalf of purchasers of
Tenaris securities between May 1, 2014 and November 27, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors who purchased Tenaris securities during the Class Period
may, no later than February 11, 2019, seek to be appointed as a
lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional
information or to learn how to participate in this litigation
please visit www.ktmc.com/tenaris-securities-class-action.

According to the complaint, Tenaris produces and sells seamless and
welded steel tubular products and related services for the oil and
gas industry and other industrial applications.  Tenaris has a
significant investment in Ternium S.A and, as of December 31, 2017,
held 11.46% of Ternium's share capital (including treasury shares).
Ternium was created in 2005 by the consolidation of Siderar of
Argentina, Sidor of Venezuela, and Hylsa of Mexico.  In 2008,
Venezuela ordered the transformation of Sidor, a Venezuelan steel
company, into a state-owned enterprise.  On May 7, 2009, Ternium
sold its 59.7% stake in Sidor to Corporación Venezolana de
Guayana, a Venezuelan state-owned entity. Ternium agreed to receive
$1.97 billion for the sale of its interest. It took several years,
from 2009 to 2012, for Ternium to receive the money.

The Class Period commences on May 1, 2014. On April 30, 2014, after
market hours, Tenaris filed a Form  20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2013 with the SEC, which provided Tenaris' year-end
financial results and position.  The Form 20-F stated that Tenaris
was "committed to conducting business in a legal and ethical manner
in compliance with local and international statutory requirements
and standards."

According to the complaint, on November 27, 2018, Bloomberg
reported that Paolo Rocca, who served as Tenaris' Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") throughout the Class Period, was
indicted for his role in a graft scheme.  Specifically, the article
stated that an Argentine judge indicted Mr. Rocca after he
testified that one of his company's executives paid an undisclosed
amount of cash to government officials in monthly installments from
2009 to 2012 to speed up a compensation payment from Venezuela's
Hugo Chavez for the nationalization of Sidor.

Following this news, Tenaris' stock fell $2.64 per share, or nearly
10%, to close at $24.36 per share on November 27, 2018.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Tenaris' CEO and Chairman, Paolo Rocca, knew
that one of his company's executives paid cash to government
officials from 2009 to 2012 to speed up compensation payments for
the sale of Sidor; (2) this conduct would lead to Mr. Rocca being
charged in a graft scheme, and subject Tenaris, its affiliates,
and/or executives to heightened governmental scrutiny; and (3) as a
result, Tenaris' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

Tenaris investors who wish to discuss this securities fraud class
action lawsuit and their legal options are encouraged to contact
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or
Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com.

Tenaris investors may, no later than February 11, 2019, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

         James Maro, Jr., Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (888) 299-7706
                    (610) 667-7706
         Website: www.ktmc.com
         Email: abell@ktmc.com
                jmaro@ktmc.com [GN]


TRANSPORTATION MEDIA: Murray Suit Moved to District of Oregon
-------------------------------------------------------------
A case, COLIN W. MURRAY, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TRANSPORTATION MEDIA, INC.
d/b/a BENCH CRAFT COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03036,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
(Portland 3) on Feb. 6, 2019. The District of Oregon  Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00180-JR to the proceeding. The suit
alleges Fair Labor Standards Act violation. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Jolie A. Russo.

Transportation Media, Inc. was founded in 1999. The Company's line
of business includes preparing advertising and placing such
advertising in periodicals.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
          MAZAHERI & MAZAHERI LAW FIRM
          325 Shelby Street
          Frankfort, KY 40601
          Telephone: (210) 570-2301

               - and -

          W. John Gadd, Esq.
          W. JOHN GADD, PA
          2727 Ulmerton Road
          Bank of America Building, Suite 250
          Clearwater, FL 33762-3369
          Telephone: (727) 524-6300
          
Attorneys for Transportation Media, Inc.:

          Anna Reinert, Esq.
          John D. Keen, Esq.
          Philip Timothy Barrett, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP-DENVER
          555 17th Street, Suite 3400
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 534-5160
          Facsimile: (303) 534-5161

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Trujillo Suit Wins Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit David Trujillo, etc., et al., the
Plaintiffs, vs UnitedHealth Group, Inc., et al., the Defendants,
Case No. 5:17-cv-02547-JFW-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John F.
Walter entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification of:

   "all persons covered under United plans, governed by Employee
   Retirement Income Security Act, self-funded or fully insured,
   whose requests for prosthetic arm and leg devices have been
   denied during the applicable statute of limitations on the
   basis of the Minimum Specifications Limitation."

Not included in the class are persons whose requests for arm and
leg devices have been denied for other reasons.

The Court also appointed Gianelli & Morris and Doyle Law as class
counsel. If, at anytime, it appears that the requirements of
Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(a) or Rule 23(b) are no longer satisfied, the
Court said it will not hesitate to decertify the Class.[CC]

US BANK: Can Compel Arbitration in McGovern UCL Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted the Defendant's motion to
compel arbitration in the case, REYNA McGOVERN, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. BANK
N.A., Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-1794-CAB-LL (S.D. Cal.).

McGovern initiated the putative class action lawsuit on Aug. 2,
2018, with a complaint asserting claims for breach of contract and
violation of California's unfair competition law ("UCL"), arising
out of USB's practices concerning the assessment of two types of
fees.  The complaint refers to these fees as "OON Fees" and "OD
Fees."

The OON Fee claims arise out of USB's alleged practice of charging
two fees for use of out-of-network ("OON") automated teller
machines ("ATMs") when an accountholder checks her account balance
and then withdraws funds. The OD Fee claims arise out of USB's
alleged practice of charging an overdraft fee for transactions made
with a debit card at a time when sufficient funds were available
because in the time between when the debit card transaction is made
and when it settles, an intervening transaction on the checking
account reduces the amount of funds in the account to less than the
amount of the prior debit card transaction.  The complaint calls
these transactions "Authorize Positive, Purportedly Settle Negative
Transactions" or "APPSN Transactions."  McGovern alleges that these
duplicate OON Fees and OD Fees are not permitted by the account
agreements governing her and other account-holders' relationships
with USB.  

The complaint defined two classes, one for California
account-holders who were assessed duplicate OON fees when checking
their balances before making an OON ATM withdrawal, and one for
California account-holders who were charged an OD Fee on a debit
card transaction that was authorized at a time when the account
balance exceeded the amount of the transaction.  The complaint
asserted separate breach of contract and UCL claims on behalf of
each class, and sought a declaration that USB's OON Fee and OD Fee
policies were unfair and a breach of contract, restitution of the
improperly assessed fees, disgorgement, actual, statutory and
punitive damages, and an order on behalf of the general public
enjoining USB from continuing to employ unfair methods of
competition and commit unfair and deceptive acts and practices
alleged in the complaint.

USB responded to the original complaint with a motion to compel
arbitration based on the Plaintiff's agreement to arbitrate in her
deposit account agreement.  The Plaintiff, in turn, filed a first
amended complaint ("FAC") instead of opposing the motion to compel.
The FAC added an "Injunctive Relief Class" consisting of all
persons in California eligible to open a consumer checking account.
The FAC asserted the same four claims as the original complaint
(two breach of contract claims and two UCL claims) but added the
Injunctive Relief Class as a party to the UCL claims.  It also
removed the prayer for an "order on behalf of the public" from the
original complaint and added a prayer for a public injunction that
enjoins USB from continuing to misrepresent its OD Fee policy
governing APPSN transactions and OON Fee policies in its publicly
available account documents and marketing materials such as its
'Account Agreement,' 'Fee Schedule,' and the 'Simple Snapshot.'

USB once again moves to compel arbitration of the lawsuit pursuant
to the arbitration provision in the Deposit Account Agreement
between the Plaintiff and USB.  USB makes two arguments in its
motion: (1) that McGill v. Citibank, N.A. does not apply because
the FAC does not actually seek public injunctive relief, as that
term is defined in McGill; and (2) that McGill is preempted by the
FAA.  McGovern opposes, arguing that McGill applies and is not
preempted, and that pursuant to the "poison pill" language at the
end of the first paragraph of the arbitration provision, the
arbitration provision is null and void in its entirety.  McGovern
argues that if the Court intends to grant the motion to compel, it
should dismiss this case to allow for an immediate appeal.

Judge Bencivengo finds that because the McGill rule would expressly
prohibit parties from private streamlined bilateral arbitration
seeking relief intended to redress only the Plaintiff's claims, it
stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the
full purposes and objectives of Congress, and is preempted by the
FAA.

Next, the Judge finds that a motion to stay is mandatory and must
be granted as to all matters within the scope of the arbitration
agreement.  Accordingly, she must stay the case in light of its
finding that McGovern's claims are subject to the terms of the
arbitration provision in her account agreement.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Bencivengo granted the motion to
compel arbitration.  She stayed the case pending completion of the
arbitration.  The parties will file a notice with the Court within
five business days of a final ruling in the arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 25, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/FfXc4c from Leagle.com.

Reyna McGovern, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Annick Marie
Persinger -- apersinger@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Hassan
Ali Zavareei -- hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Todd
D. Carpenter -- tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet
Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP, Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel --
jdkaliel@gmail.com -- Kaliel PLLC & Sophia Goren Gold , Kaliel
PLLC.

U.S. Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by James R. McGuire --
jmcguire@mofo.com -- Morrison and Foerster, Claire Celeste Bonelli
-- cbonelli@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster & Sarah Nicole Davis --
sarahdavis@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP.


VAN SUILICHEM: Thomas Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
CHARLES THOMAS, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs, VAN SUILICHEM
ENTERPRISES, LLC, A Michigan Limited Liability Company, and DAVID
WAYNE VAN SUILICHEM​ , an individual, jointly and severally, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00090 (W.D. Mich., Feb. 5, 2019),
seeks to recover damages for the Defendants' willful and knowing
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is similarly situated
with other employees who worked for or are working for Defendants
who were not paid minimum wage for all hours worked. The Plaintiff
is similarly situated with other employees who worked for or are
working for the Defendants and were not compensated mandated
overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a work
week, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff:

          Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq.
          AVANTI LAW GROUP PLLC
          600 28th Street SW
          Wyoming, MI 49509
          Telephone: (616) 257-6807
          E-mail: ralvarez@avantilaw.com

VELOX EXPRESS: York et al. Seek Minimum & OT Wages for Couriers
---------------------------------------------------------------
VANESSA YORK, MARSHAL EMMERLING, and MATTHEW MOSS, Each
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. VELOX EXPRESS, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00092-DJH (W.D. Ky., Feb. 6, 2019), seeks to recover
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiffs and all
others similarly situated minimum and overtime wages as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were employed by
Defendant as courier/delivery drivers, performing services for
Defendant in Arkansas. The piece rate Defendant paid to Plaintiffs
did not include any amount intended to cover any of Plaintiffs'
expenses in operating their vehicles in the performance of their
job duties for Defendant. The Defendant did not pay Plaintiffs any
amount in addition to the piece rate to cover any of Plaintiffs'
expenses in operating their vehicles in the performance of their
job duties for Defendant. Each Plaintiff drove an average of 600
miles per week for Defendant, which took an average of between 40
and 45 hours, the lawsuit says.

Velox is a large logistics company.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michele Henry, Esq.
          CRAIG HENRY PLC
          239 South Fifth Street, Suite 1400
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 614-5962
          Facsimile: (502) 614-5968
          E-mail: mhenry@craighenrylaw.com

WAL-MART STORES: Court Dismisses Class Discrimination Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
class claims in the case, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-783-bbc (W.D. Wis.).

Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed the
lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging
that the Defendant discriminated against Alyssa Gilliam and other
pregnant employees by failing to accommodate their
pregnancy-related medical restrictions, even though it accommodated
the medical restrictions of non-pregnant employees.

Gilliam was an employee of the Defendant's Distribution Center
#6025 in Menomonie, Wisconsin when she became pregnant in
approximately April 2015.  Early in her pregnancy, Gilliam asked
the Defendant whether it would accommodate pregnancy-related
lifting restrictions, and the Defendant told her that light duty
work was available only to employees on workers' compensation.
Over the following months, Gilliam requested a variety of
accommodations, including light duty, transfer to a less physically
demanding position, shorter work days, a chair and additional
breaks.  The Defendant denied all of her requests, forcing Gilliam
to take intermittent leave and then transfer to a part-time
position that resulted in a loss of her benefits and a reduction in
pay.  After Gilliam submitted a doctor's note with a five-pound
lifting restriction on Nov. 10, 2015, the Defendant placed Gilliam
on involuntary, unpaid leave under the Family Medical Leave Act for
the remaining two months of her pregnancy.

From 2014 to October 2017, the Defendant denied requests for
accommodations (including light duty) for pregnancy-related medical
restrictions from other pregnant employees at Distribution Center
#6025, even though it provided light duty to similarly-situated,
non-pregnant employees with work-related injuries.  

Gilliam filed a charge of discrimination with the Plaintiff.  On
May 8, 2018, the Plaintiff found reasonable cause to believe that
the Dfendant had violated Title VII when it did not accommodate the
pregnancy-related medical restrictions of Gilliam and a class of
female employees at Distribution Center #6025.  The Plaintiff
invited the Defendant to engage in informal conciliation efforts to
provide appropriate relief but no agreement was reached.

Now before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's class claims.  It contends that the Plaintiff's
complaint includes no allegations that would suggest that other
pregnant associates experienced the same treatment as Gilliam, such
as details about whether defendant's decision was motivated by a
common policy, who else was denied pregnancy-related
accommodations, who received accommodations unrelated to pregnancy
and whether others receiving accommodations were similar to Gilliam
in their ability or inability to work.

Contrary to the Defendant's assertion, Jugde Crabb finds that the
Plaintiff has done more than merely "recite the statutory elements"
of a class action claim without any factual support.  Her
allegations are sufficient to place the Defendant on notice of the
class claim that she seeks to pursue, identifying a general policy
with respect to pregnancy-related accommodations applied by the
Defendant at its Menomonie store during a specific time period.  At
this early stage, it is not necessary for the Plaintiff to identify
the non-pregnant employees who were treated differently or the
nature of their job functions or accommodations.  Accordingly, the
Judge denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/VTclQ0 from Leagle.com.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, represented by
Carrie Vance, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission &
Elizabeth B. Banaszak, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, doing business as Wal-Mart Distribution
Center #6025, Defendant, represented by Susan M. Zoeller --
Susan.Zoeller@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C..


WAYFAIR INC: March 11 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP notifies investors in Wayfair Inc.
(NYSE: W) of the securities class action pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the
March 11, 2019 Lead Plaintiff deadline.  If you purchased or
otherwise acquired Wayfair securities between August 2, 2018 and
October 31, 2018 (the "class period") and suffered losses contact
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.  For more information visit:

https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/wayfair

or contact Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation,
by calling 510-725-3000 or emailing

Wayfair@hbsslaw.com.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, Defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or did not disclose
adverse information about Wayfair's business, including that it
experienced (a) significant diminished demand for its online
product offerings, and (b) significant increased advertising
spending.

Moreover, during the class period certain Defendants sold company
stock worth millions of dollars.

Then, on November 1, 2018, Defendants announced a massive $151.7
million GAAP net loss for Wayfair's 2018 third quarter and blamed
the disappointing financial results in part on skyrocketing
advertising expenses.

This news drove the price of Wayfair shares down $14.13, or about
13%, to close at $96.16 that day.

"We're focused on investors' losses, the extent to which
management's statements about Wayfair's advertising strategies and
positioning to take market share may have been misleading, and
whether insiders' sales were improper," said Hagens Berman partner
Reed Kathrein.

Whistleblowers:  Persons with non-public information regarding
Wayfair should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.  Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC.  For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 510-725-3000 or email Wayfair@hbsslaw.com.

About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national investor-rights law firm headquartered
in Seattle, Washington with 80+ attorneys in 10 offices across the
country.  The Firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers
and consumers in complex litigation.  More about the firm and its
successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com.  For the latest news
visit our newsroom or follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw.

         Reed Kathrein, Esq.
         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
         Telephone: 510-725-3000
         Twitter:  @classactionlaw
         Email: Wayfair@hbsslaw.com
                reed@hbsslaw.com [GN]


WAYFAIR INC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), a national
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, is notifying
investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against
Wayfair Inc. ("Wayfair" or the "Company") (NYSE:NYSE:W) and other
defendants, related to alleged violations of federal securities
laws. If you purchased Wayfair common stock between August 2, 2018
and October 31, 2018, you are encouraged to contact a Scott+Scott
attorney at (844) 818-6982 for more information.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding
Wayfair's business and prospects, including that Wayfair had been
experiencing significantly diminished demand for its online product
offerings and had significantly increased advertising spending to
increase sales. As a result, the price of Wayfair stock was
artificially inflated. In addition, during that time, certain of
Wayfair's senior executives and directors sold more than $87.75
million of their personally held shares.

On November 1, 2018, pre-market, Wayfair issued a press release
announcing its third quarter 2018 financial results. The Company
reported a large $151.7 million GAAP net loss for the quarter, or
$(1.69) per share, compared with a GAAP loss of $76.4 million, or
$(0.88) per share, for the third quarter of 2017. Advertising
expenses had skyrocketed to more than $202.5 million, an increase
of 43%.

On this news, the price of Wayfair stock dropped nearly 13% to
close at $96.16 per share on November 1, 2018.

What You Can Do

If you purchased Wayfair stock between August 2, 2018 and October
31, 2018, inclusive, or if you have questions about this notice or
your legal rights, please contact attorney Joe Pettigrew at (844)
818-6982, or at jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. The lead plaintiff
deadline is March 11, 2019.

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


WAYFAIR INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP disclosed that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of those
who purchased or acquired the securities of Wayfair,  Inc.
("Wayfair" or the "Company") (NYSE: W) between August 2, 2018 and
October 31, 2018, both dates inclusive (the  "Class Period").

Investors who have incurred losses in the shares of Wayfair Inc.
are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com
or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional
information concerning the action on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of Wayfair, Inc., you
may, no later than March 11, 2019, request that the Court appoint
you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
Wayfair, Inc.

According to the filed complaint, throughout the Class Period
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that Wayfair had been experiencing significantly
diminished demand for its online product offerings and had
significantly increased advertising spending to grow sales.

As  a result of Defendants' false statements and/or omissions, the
price of Wayfair stock was artificially inflated to more than
$149.00 per share during the Class Period. Meanwhile, with the
price of Wayfair common stock artificially inflated, certain of its
senior executives and directors cashed in, selling more than
$87.75 million worth of their personally held shares.

Then, on November 1, 2018, Wayfair announced its third quarter 2018
financial results. The Company reported a massive $151.7 million
GAAP net loss for the quarter, or $(1.69) per share, compared with
a GAAP loss of $76.4 million, or $(0.88) per share, for the third
quarter of 2017.  In reality, advertising expenses had skyrocketed
in the third quarter of 2018 to more than $202.5 million, an
increase of 43%.

On this news, Wayfair stock fell $14.13 per share, or over 12%,
from its previous closing  price to close at $96.16 per share on
November 1,  2018.

         Kevin Cooper, Esq.
         Gregory Stone
         Director of Case and Financial Analysis       
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
         Telephone: (800) 575-0735
                    (212) 545-4774
         Email: gstone@whafh.com
                kcooper@whafh.com
                classmember@whafh.com [GN]


WELLS FARGO: $30MM Settlement in Fowler Suit Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VANA FOWLER, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-02092-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (i) granted the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval
of class action settlement; and (ii) granted in part and denied in
part their motion for fees, costs and incentive awards.

The Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo unlawfully and unfairly
collected post-payment interest on mortgages insured by the Federal
Housing Administration ("FHA") -- part of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development ("HUD") -- by failing to provide proper
notice to borrowers.  The Plaintiffs state that as a result, they
were charged interest twice -- both by the Defendant and by their
new lenders after refinancing.  The Plaintiffs seek any applicable
damages on behalf of a class of nationwide borrowers.

On June 28, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval.  The Court granted the motion for preliminary approval on
Aug. 22, 2018.

The key terms are as follows:

     a. Class Definition: The Class is defined as the nationwide
group who had an FHA Insured Loan that was originated beginning
June 1, 1996 and ending Jan. 20, 2015, where (i) Wells Fargo, its
agent, or its predecessor was the mortgagee as of the date the
total amount due on the FHA-Insured Loan was brought to zero, (ii)
Wells Fargo collected Post-Payment Interest on the FHA-Insured Loan
during the applicable Limitations Period, and (iii) the borrower
made a prepayment inquiry, request for payoff figures, or tender of
prepayment but did not receive a Payoff Statement containing the
verbatim Post-Payment Interest disclosure language in the Housing
Handbook.

     b. Settlement Benefits: The Net Settlement Fund will consist
of $30 million, minus the costs of settlement administration,
incentive awards, and attorneys' fees and expenses.  Each
settlement class member will receive a refund of a percentage of
the Net Settlement Fund proportional to the amount of post-payment
interest collected in connection with that member's loan as
compared to all other class members' post-payment interest.

     c. Class Notice: A third-party settlement administrator
sentclass notices via U.S. mail to each member of the class, using
a class list provided by the Defendant.  The notice included the
nature of the action, a summary of the settlement terms, and
instructions on how to object to and opt out of the settlement,
including relevant deadlines.

     d. Opt-Out Procedure: Any putative class member who does not
wish to participate in the settlement must have signed and
postmarked a written request for exclusion to the settlement
administrator no later than Nov. 20, 2018.

     e. Incentive Award: Pursuant to the settlement agreement,
Plaintiff Fowler now applies for an incentive award of $7,500 and
Plaintiff Michael Peters applies for an incentive award of $5,000.
Six class members who prepared but did not file claims are each
also seeking a $500 incentive award.

     f. Attorneys' Fees and Costs: Pursuant to the settlement
agreement, the Plaintiffs have filed an application for attorneys'
fees in the amount of $7.5 million (25% of the settlement fund),
and litigation expenses of $70,000.

Pending before the Court are the motions for final approval of
class action settlement and for attorneys' fees filed by Plaintiffs
Fowler and Peters.

Judge Gilliam (i) granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement; and (ii) granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiff's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees,
Reimbursement of Costs to Class Counsel, and Incentive Award.  He
approved the settlement amount of $1.3 million including payments
of costs in the amount of $70,000; incentive awards of $7,500 to
Plaintiff Fowler, and $5,000 to Plaintiff Peters; and attorneys'
fees in the amount of $7.5 million (less the incentive awards
total).

The Judge declined to award the requested $500 each to the
non-Named Plaintiff class members Gerald Braxmeyer, Henry Yrlas,
Russell Reece, Seth Hawk, Sandra McKenzie, and Dane Yetzer.  He has
found the settlement to be a good and fair deal for the class
members generally, and concludes that it is fair for these class
members as well.  The Judge does not believe it appropriate to
award more than 15 times the maximum recovery projected for other
class members to these individuals based on their contributions to
claims that were never filed.  He is of the view that incentive
awards should be reserved for the named Plaintiffs, to avoid
creating tiers of differently-treated class members.

The parties and settlement administrator are directed to implement
the Final Order and the settlement agreement in accordance with the
terms of the settlement agreement.  The parties are directed to
submit a joint proposed judgment by Feb. 1, 2019.

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

Vana Fowler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Lewis Hoipkemier --
adam@ehdhlaw.com -- Epps, Holloway, DeLoach and Hoipkemier, LLC,
pro hac vice, Kevin Epp -- kevin@ehdhlaw.com -- EHDH, LLC, pro hac
vice, Michael Francis Ram -- mram@robinskaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan
LLP, Jeffrey William DeLoach, Epps, Holloway, DeLoach and
Hoipkemier, LLC, Samuel Joseph Strauss -- sam@turkestrauss.com --
Turke and Strauss LLP & Susan S. Brown -- SBrown@RobinsKaplan.com
-- Robins Kaplan LLP.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by David S. Reidy --
dreidy@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, K. Issac deVyver --
kdevyver@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Karla
Lynn Johnson -- kjohnson@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP &
Sara F. Holladay-Tobias -- stobias@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods
sLLP, pro hac vice.


WEST MARINE: Does Not Pay Min. and Overtime Wages, Adams Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIANNE ADAMS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, and as a private attorney general v. WEST MARINE
PRODUCTS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 19CIV00436 (Cal. Super., San Mateo Cty.,
January 22, 2019), accuses the Defendants of failing to pay
overtime compensation, provide meal periods, authorize and permit
rest periods, pay minimum wage, timely pay wages, provide accurate
wage statements, and maintain accurate payroll records.

West Marine Products, Inc., is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the state of California and registered to do
business in the state of California.  The Plaintiff is ignorant of
the identities of the Doe Defendants.

The Defendants operate as a specialty retailer of boating supplies,
gear, apparel, footwear, and other water life-related
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heather Davis, Esq.
          Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
          S. Emi Minne, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP
          136 Main Street, Suite A
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 290-3095
          Facsimile: (866) 264-7880
          E-mail: heather@protectionlawgroup.com
                  amir@protectionlawgroup.com
                  emi@protectionlawgroup.com



                            *********

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 ***