CAR_Public/190221.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, February 21, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 38

                            Headlines

2720 CHURCH GROCERY: Supermarket Employees Underpaid, Alfaro Says
2721 FOURTH AVENUE: Underpays Front Desk Agents, Suit Alleges
ACE PARKING: Settlement in Byles Suit Has Preliminary Approval
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Pomerantz Law Firm Mulls Fraud Class Action
ADOREME INC: Conner Files Class Action Over ADA Violation

ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Cal. App. Affirms Class Certification Denial
AT&T: Customers File Class Action Over CCPA Violation
ATC HEALTHCARE: Torraca-Riano et al. Suit Moved to S.D. California
AXOGEN INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Stachon Alleges Price-Fixing of SSA Bonds

BARILLA AMERICA: Counsel to Submit Evidence Supporting Fees Request
BELL BLVD: Carlos Martinez Seeks Overtime Pay
BIG THINK CAPITAL: Accused by Cunnigham Suit of Violating TCPA
BIOGEN INC: Appeal in Massachusetts Class Action Underway
BITMAIN: Co-Founders to Step Down as Co-CEOs Amid Class Action

BLACKROCK INST'L: Discovery Letter on Strofs' Deposition Party OK'd
CAJUN ENERGY: Does Not Pay Overtime Wage, Baker Suit Says
CALIFORNIA CLOSET: Dawson Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
CANADA: 60s Scoop Class-Action Information Session Begins
CANADIAN HOCKEY: Former Kelowna Rocket Commences Head Trauma Suit

CHRYSLER: Tire Valve Stem Class Action Partially Dismissed
CLOROX CO: Privilege/Work Product Disputes in Gregorio Resolved
COMMERCIAL ACCEPTANCE: Garcia Sues over Debt Collection Practices
CP OPCO: Court OKs Preliminary Approval of $3MM McDonald Settlement
CSX CORP: Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation Still Ongoing

DAKOTA JEWELERS: Dawson Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
DANIEL WELLINGTON: Website Not Accessible, Haggar et al. Claim
DATREX INC: Web Site Not Blind-accessible, Thorne Suit Says
DAVIDSTEA USA: Dawson Files ADA Class Action in New York
DOORDASH INC: Webb et al. Seek Full Payment for Delivery Services

DXC TECHNOLOGY: Warren Police Retirement System Files Class Action
ELASTOS FOUNDATION: Owen Sues Over Unregistered ELA Securities
ELITE EYE: Dylan Wood Seeks Overtime Compensation for Workers
ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTING: Sued over Unsolicited Text Messages
FARMERS INSURANCE: Williams Suit over Vehicular Accident Underway

FLEX LTD: Hearing on Motion to Intervene Set for April 4
GAJS INC: Curko Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Withheld Gratuities
GC SERVICES: Thomas Suit Transferred to Eastern Dist. of Wisconsin
GDT ENTERPRISES: Jaime Value Seeks Overtime Pay for Kitchen Staff
GENERAL MOTORS: Economic Loss-Related Suits Still Ongoing

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Several Airbag Inflators-Related Suits
GLOBAL RADAR: FCRA Class Action Survives Key Hurdle
GO AU PAIR: Agrees to Settle Au Pair Wage Dispute
GREATER MIAMI CATERERS: Rodriguez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
HEMANI HOLDINGS: Hollingsworth Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA

HERSHEY COMPANY: Tomasella Appeals D. Mass. Ruling to 1st Circuit
HORIZONS SATELLITES: Bryant Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
HYUNDAI: Court Publishes Procedural Guidance Following Ruling
ILLINOIS: Chester License Dismissed from Champ Suit w/ Prejudice
INDIANA: OOIDA Files Class Action Over Truck Toll Increase

INTEGRATED DEVICE: Merger Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
KITEC: Plumbing System Claims Period Ends in January 2020
KOHN LAW: $270K Settlement in Rizzo FCRA Suit Denied w/o Prejudice
KULICKE AND SOFFA: Kumar Suit Moved to C.D. California
MARS INC: 1st Cir. Appeal Filed in Tomasella "Child Labor" Suit

MATCH GROUP: Deal Reached in Suit over Tinder's Age-Tiered Pricing
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Bennett Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
MDL 2804: A.M.H. Suit v. Purdue over Opiates Sales Consolidated
MDL 2879: Fox Suit v Marriott over Data Breach Consolidated
MDL 2879: Perkins Suit vs Marriott over Data Breach Consolidated

MERCHANT GROUP: Abante Rooter Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
MERCHANTS BANK: Abante Rooter Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
MERSCORP HOLDINGS: Faces Zugay Suit in Pennsylvania State Court
MICROCHIP TECH: Continues to Defend Jackson Class Action
MIDLAND CREDIT: Artis Cash Sues over Debt Collection Practices

MONSANTO COMPANY: Claytons Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Florquist Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Ludovicys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MYRIAD GENETICS: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Kessman Suit
NEW DAY: Katzakian Sues over Unwanted Cellular Telephone Calls

NEW ORLEANS, LA: Dismissal of Taxi Cab Drivers' Suit Affirmed
NEWFIELD EXPLORATION: Booth Files Suit Over Sale to Encana Corp.
NORTH CAROLINA: High Court to Hold Conference Friday in "Bullock"
OPA-LOCKA, FL: Owes City Attorney $188K for Class Action Defense
OYSTER BAY: Vargas Seek Premium Overtime Wages

PAGEUP: Centennial Lawyers Mull Class Action After Malware Attack
PEPSI BEVERAGES: $262K Attorneys' Fees in Grice Approved
PIPERIN CORPORATION: Zamorano Sues over Wage & Hour Violations
PLANTRONICS INC: Continues to Defend Shin Class Action
POLLACK & ROSEN: Bello Files FDCPA Suit in Georgia

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Sued Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
POWER HOME: Brooks Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Court Denies Bid for Bench Trial in Racies Suit
QUINTA HOLDINGS: Sued over Defective & Unsafe Property
RAPID TRANSIT: Court OKs Final Approval of Moreno Settlement

RED RAVEN: Wagoner Seeks Minimum Wages for Entertainers
RELISH LABS: Faces Suit over Violation of Biometric Privacy
ROME: Codacons to Launch Class Action Over Poor State of Roads
SAL-MARK RESTAURANT: Court OKs $265K Settlement in Cruz Suit
SB SOUTHERN: Fails to Pay Welders' OT Under FLSA, Franklin Claims

SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: EZ Seed Litig. Resolved, Final Payment Pending
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: June Final Fairness Hearing on Song Bird Deal
SEQUEL MEDIA: Barton Seeks Damages for Copyright Infringement
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Home Caregivers' Rehearing Request Rejected
SNAP INC: Continues to Defend Suits over Initial Public Offering

SOUTH AFRICA: High Court Certifies Teachers' Class Action
STATE FARM: Baker Suit Moved to Middle District of Georgia
SUBURBAN PROPANE: Continues to Defend NY & Pennsylvania Suits
T-MOBILE US: Court Dismisses UCL Claim in 2nd Amended Ames Suit
TRANSDIGM GROUP: Consolidated Class Suit in Ohio Still Ongoing

TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Duryea Class Action
TYSON FOODS: Discovery Ongoing in Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit
UNITED MAINTENANCE: Underpays Janitors, Seidler & Binns Claim
UNITED STATES: Ramah Navajo Interpleader Suit vs. Miwok Underway
UNITED STATES: Underpays Fire Fighters, Anello et al. Allege

VISA: Settles Retailers' Class Action Over Swipe Fees
WAL-MART STORES: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Pitre Suit
WILSON SPORTING: Settlement in Oda Suit Has Final Approval
WONOLO INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cooper Suit Alleges
YOGAWORKS INC: Faces Cohen Securities Class Action Over 2017 IPO

[*] Aussie Banks Face Litigious Year After Hayne Royal Commission
[*] Homeowners Sue Insurers for Denying Pyrrhotite Concrete Claims
[*] Website-Related ADA Class Actions Expected to Rise in 2019

                            *********

2720 CHURCH GROCERY: Supermarket Employees Underpaid, Alfaro Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erickson Torres Alfaro, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 2720 Church Grocery Corp.,
4121 Church Meat Corp., dba Shop Fair Supermarkets, WFS Brothers
Realty LLC, Best Brothers Realty, LLC, Walid Shehaded, David
Shehaded, Farid Shehaded, and Mogammed Shehaded, Jointly and
Severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00774 (E.D.N.Y., Feb.
7, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, like all Class Members,
is a supermarket employee of Defendants who worked pursuant to
their corporate policies. The Plaintiff was paid less than the
statutory minimum wage for all hours worked, was not paid overtime
premium pay for hours worked over 40 hours in a given workweek, was
not paid spread-hours premiums when working a shift of ten or more
hours and/or split shift, did not receive proper wage statements
and wage notices. If Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for the
claims enumerated in the complaint, they are also liable to all
Class Members, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative FLSA Collective and
Class:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          www.PeltonGraham.com


2721 FOURTH AVENUE: Underpays Front Desk Agents, Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY MESKER, and JOHN EANES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 2721 FOURTH AVENUE, L.P.;
425 QUEEN ANNE, LLC; PACIFIC INN PARTNERS, LLC; 2301 THIRD AVENUE,
L.P.; and BRIAN ZAUGG, Case No. 19-2-02520-4-SEA (Wash. Super.,
King Cty., Jan. 24, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for
unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as front desk
agents.

2721 Fourth Avenue, L.P. provides lodging in Seattle, Washington.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James B. Pizl, Esq.
          ENTENTE LAW PLLC
          315 Thirty-Ninth Ave. SW Suite 14
          Puyallup, WA 98373-3690
          Telephone: (253) 446-7668


ACE PARKING: Settlement in Byles Suit Has Preliminary Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRUCE BYLES, individually, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ACE PARKING MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. C16-0834-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John C.
Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class settlement agreement.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the Judge
ordered that the action may proceed on behalf of the class of all
persons to whom Ace provided an electronically printed receipt for
parking at the 999 Third Avenue garage on or after June 3, 2011
bearing the expiration date of the customer's personal credit or
debit card.

He appointed Bruce Byles as the Class Representative, and the firm
of Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala, PLLC ("PCVA") as the Class Counsel
and the Settlement Administrator.

The Court will conduct the Fairness Hearing on Aug. 20, 2019 at
9:00 a.m.  The class members who wish to be heard at the Fairness
Hearing in opposition to the settlement, or on any of the other
issues identified, must file notice of such intent by June 13, 2019
(60 calendar days after the last day of the 30-day notice period).

Any class member may be excluded from the class (i.e., "opt out")
if he or she timely elects not to participate in the settlement or
be bound by its terms.  Those who choose to "opt out" will do so no
later than June 13, 2019 (60 calendar days after the last day of
the 30-day Notice period).

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties are
directed to give notice to the class of the pendency of the action,
the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the procedure for exercising
the opt-out right, and the procedures for filing written objections
or appearing at the Fairness Hearing.  The proposed Notice and the
notice program submitted by the Plaintiff to the Court are
approved.

The settlement approval schedule is as follows:

     a. Deadline for printing class Notice - March 15, 2019

     b. Printed Notice period - March 15, 2019 to April 14, 2019

     c. Deadline for class members to object or "opt out" - June
13, 2019

     d. Deadline for class members to file claim - July 13, 2019

     e. Class Counsel's motion for attorney fees and costs due date
- July 18, 2019

     f. Fairness Hearing date - Aug. 20, 2019

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/mxBDq7 from Leagle.com.

Bruce Byles, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Eric Love --
chris@pcvalaw.com -- PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA PLLC & Darrell L.
Cochran -- darrell@pcvalaw.co -- PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA PLLC.

Ace Parking Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by John M.
Kreutzer -- jkreutzer@smithfreed.com -- SMITH FREED & EBERHARD PC.


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Pomerantz Law Firm Mulls Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Taormina, writing for Gamerant, reports that Call of Duty
publisher Activision Blizzard is under investigation for fraud
after a claim was brought forth by the company's investors.
Currently, the lawfirm of Pomerantz LLP is gathering potential
investors for a class action lawsuit, but as of yet no official
suit has been filed.

Although the timing of the announcement would suggest that the
investigation is related to Activision and Bungie's recent
separation, the press release does not mention any connection.
Still, Activision's stock did drop following the announcement that
Bungie would split from Activision and take publishing rights for
the Destiny franchise, which certainly didn't please the company's
investors.

Given that information, it's possible that investors called for the
investigation in order to see how much Activision Blizzard knew
ahead of the split and if that had an impact on the stock price.
Another possibility is that stock shares were sold right before the
split was announced, which would constitute insider trading.

The only thing that we can say for certain at this point is that
Activision's officers allegedly participated in fraud or other
unlawful business practices. It's a very broad claim that could
possibly have huge ramifications for Activision if true, but could
just as easily be swept away after some general questioning.

Nevertheless, it's fair to say that Activision has had a rough
week. Though the split from Bungie seems to be amicable, many
Destiny fans and even other publishers are excited by the prospect
of Bungie operating apart from Activision. There is a belief among
the community that Activision was pushing a lot of the unpopular
features in Destiny like Eververse and Season Passes, but it was
only an assumption. In essence, Activision is what prevented
Destiny from realizing its true potential.

Regardless, it's important to point out that Activision Blizzard is
only under investigation. There is no active lawsuit and Pomerantz
is merely trying to grab investors for a potential class action.
[GN]


ADOREME INC: Conner Files Class Action Over ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AdoreMe, Inc. The
case is styled as Mary Conner, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. AdoreMe, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01170 (S.D. N.Y.,
Feb. 7, 2019).

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

Adore Me is a women's intimates company based in New York City. The
company manufactures and sells lingerie, sleepwear, swimwear,
activewear, and other products. The brand offers inclusive
intimates in sizes ranging from petite to plus.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ANHEUSER-BUSCH LLC: Cal. App. Affirms Class Certification Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment denying Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned  MANMOHAN
DHILLON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC
et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. F074952. (Cal. App.).

The Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent own and operate
retail convenience stores in Fresno and Madera counties, and sell
beer manufactured by defendant, Anheuser-Busch, LLC
(Anheuser-Busch) and distributed by defendant, Donaghy Sales, LLC
(Donaghy). The Plaintiffs alleged that, in violation of the
wholesale beer pricing and unfair competition laws, the defendants
engaged in a systematic scheme to favor certain retailers over
others in the pricing of beer defendants sold to them. The
Plaintiffs alleged that, as a result of this scheme, favored
retailers who received the coupons effectively paid wholesale
prices below the prices filed with the ABC, and lower than the
prices paid by nonfavored retailers, giving them an unfair
competitive advantage. The Plaintiffs alleged four causes of
action: (1) unlawful business practices (2) unfair business
practices, including allegations of incipient violation of
antitrust law (3) secret payment or allowance of rebates and (4)
soliciting or participating in a violation of the unfair
competition laws.

They contend the trial court erroneously determined their proposed
class was unascertainable by looking at the allegations of their
pleading and the content of their experts' reports, rather than
solely at the class definition proposed in their motion.  

Standard of Review

The denial of certification to an entire class is an appealable
order. On review of a class certification order, an appellate
court's inquiry is narrowly circumscribed. The decision to certify
a class rests squarely within the discretion of the trial court,
and the Court afford that decision great deference on appeal,
reversing only for a manifest abuse of discretion: Because trial
courts are ideally situated to evaluate the efficiencies and
practicalities of permitting group action, they are afforded great
discretion in granting or denying certification

Standards for Class Certification

Code of Civil Procedure section 382 authorizes class actions`when
the question is one of a common or general interest, of many
persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable
to bring them all before the court. The party seeking certification
has the burden to establish the existence of both an ascertainable
class and a well-defined community of interest among class members.
The community of interest' requirement embodies three factors: (1)
predominant common questions of law or fact; (2) class
representatives with claims or defenses typical of the class and
(3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.

Ascertainable Class: A class is ascertainable if it identifies a
group of unnamed plaintiffs by describing a set of common
characteristics sufficient to allow a member of that group to
identify himself or herself as having a right to recover based on
the description.

Class definition

The definition of the class in the original complaint, the first
amended complaint, and the second amended complaint was as
follows:

All persons who own retail business establishments in Fresno and
Madera Counties where that retail business establishment, or if the
person owns more than one such establishment at least one of those
establishments, is of a physical size not exceeding 5,000 square
feet (Convenience Store) and purchased from Defendant Donaghy beer
manufactured and/or sold by Defendant Anheuser-Busch during the
period from four years prior to the filing of this Complaint to the
date of the filing of this Complaint (the class period), excluding
persons identified in this Complaint as co-conspirators with
Defendants Donaghy and Anheuser-Busch and any co-conspirators
subsequently identified after the filing of this Complaint.

In their motion for class certification, plaintiffs changed the
definition of the class they wished to have certified. The
definition presented in the motion was as follows:

     All persons who own retail business establishments in Fresno
and Madera Counties classified in the Donaghy sales database within
one of the following channel descriptions and channel id numbers
(Cid#): (a) Convenience/Cid#190) b) Oil and service/Cid#195) c)
Grocery/Cid#265 d) Gas and convenience/Cid#294 (e) Package
liquor/Cid#290 f) Mom and Pop/Cid#175 (g) Deli/Cid#180 h)
Bodega/Cid#185; and (i) Package Liquor/Cid#290 and which purchased
from Defendant Donaghy beer manufactured and/or sold by Defendant
Anheuser-Busch during the period from October 10, 2010 through
December 31, 2014 excluding Vikram and Vinay Vohra and Hardeep
Singh and all entities owned, controlled by or affiliated with any
of them.

Trial court's ruling

In its ruling, the trial court first noted the difference between
the class definition proposed in the motion for class certification
and the class definition included in the second amended complaint.
It stated plaintiffs had not explained the reason for the change,
such as by identifying new facts revealed during discovery that
justified the change or indicated it was a more precise definition.
The second amended complaint named only Vikram and Vinay Vohra, and
the stores they owned or operated, as retailers excluded from the
class. The class definition proposed in the motion for class
certification also excluded Hardeep Singh. The trial court stated
plaintiffs added Singh as a favored retailer and co-conspirator who
was excluded from the class, but did not explain how they
determined he fell within that description. Further, plaintiffs
offered no evidence regarding how they determined that the Vohras
and Singh, and no others, conspired with defendants in the alleged
couponing scheme.

The trial court determined the class was either unascertainable or
ascertainable only based on a case-by-case reference to Donaghy's
business records and some other unknown and unidentified criteria
to determine who allegedly conspired with Defendants. It noted:
Nowhere in Plaintiffs' papers is there a mention or attempt to
explain how the list of favored retailers' came about. It concluded
plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the existence of an ascertainable
class by failing to identify the means available for identifying
class members without unreasonable time by reference to official
records.

Precision of definition

One of the requirements of a class definition is that it be
precise. The original definition of the class described its members
as retail business establishments of a certain size that purchased
beer from defendants during the class period, excluding
coconspirators of defendants. The second amended complaint
repeatedly referred to the businesses as convenience stores. The
Plaintiffs contend they were entitled to use a more precise
definition in the motion. They presented no evidence, however, that
the definition proposed in the motion for class certification was
more precise than the one included in the second amended
complaint.

The Plaintiffs' counsel asked her to identify the relevant channels
in the Donaghy sales database that most closely approximated the
type of retail establishments represented by the Named Plaintiffs
and Favored Retailers, which in general parlance would likely be
understood as convenience stores.

DeMario gave a general definition of the term convenience store,
but did not explain how she determined which of Donaghy's
categories corresponded to that definition. She provided no
evidence of Donaghy's definitions of those categories. She did not
explain whether she obtained definitions from Donaghy, or simply
chose the categories based on the titles and her assumptions of
what they should include. DeMario did not explain how she
determined these categories corresponded to convenience stores of
the size described in the original class definition.

Common objective characteristics and transactional facts

When the class, as defined, describes a set of common
characteristics sufficient to allow a member of that group to
identify himself or herself as having a right to recover based on
the description, and the plaintiff has proposed an objective method
for identifying class members when that identification becomes
necessary, there exists an ascertainable class.

The original class definition, as set out in the second amended
complaint, excluded:
persons identified in this Complaint as co-conspirators with
Defendants Donaghy and Anheuser-Busch and any co-conspirators
subsequently identified after the filing of this Complaint. Such
additional co-conspirators will be identified prior to the
certification of the Class.

Thus, the second amended complaint identified the persons to be
excluded as coconspirators with defendants. It identified two
individuals, the Vohra brothers, as alleged coconspirators. The
motion added a third excluded person, Singh. Nowhere in the
pleadings or in the motion for class certification did plaintiffs
explain how they determined the specified individuals, and no
others, were coconspirators with defendants. They provided no
criteria and no evidence to support that determination. Thus, the
exclusion of the Vohra brothers and Singh is an unexplained,
entirely subjective choice on the part of plaintiffs or their
counsel.

The Plaintiffs assert that excluding individuals from the proposed
class by name is a proper and accepted way to define the class.
They cite us to no California case in which that has been approved
by any court. They cite only one federal district court case in
which the trial court declined to certify a class of Honda dealers,
which excluded Defendants and Co-Conspirators, because the class
definition was too open-ended. The court, however, certified the
class after modifying the definition to exclude defendants, various
dealers (identified by name) who plaintiffs have a good faith basis
for alleging were co-conspirators, and, subject to further
exploration of the issue with counsel, various dealers (again
identified by name) who defendants allege were co-conspirators,
provided that the alleged conspiracy existed at all.

Here, the proposed class definition did not indicate it excluded
anyone on the basis of being a coconspirator or a favored retailer.
It simply excluded named persons without explanation.

The Plaintiffs presented no objective criteria and no evidence
supporting their exclusion of the named persons. They presented no
evidence showing a good faith basis for believing the excluded
persons were coconspirators, or distinguishing their conduct from
the conduct of the named plaintiffs or the proposed class members.
Although the second amended complaint alleged the Vohra brothers
were coconspirators with defendants, it failed to allege any facts
supporting that conclusory allegation. Thus, plaintiffs' counsel's
reasons for excluding the Vohras and Singh are entirely
unexplained.

After considering the claims as alleged in the second amended
complaint and discussed in plaintiffs' experts' reports, the Court
concludes substantial evidence supports the trial court's
conclusion that the class, as defined, was not sufficiently
ascertainable. It was not defined in terms of objective
characteristics and common transactional facts making the ultimate
identification of class members possible when that identification
becomes necessary. As the trial court stated, the class was either
unascertainable or ascertainable only by application of some
unknown criteria. Additionally, the trial court did not rest its
decision on improper criteria or erroneous legal assumptions.
Consequently, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the trial court
abused its discretion in denying class certification.

The order denying class certification is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s January 28, 2018 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y844o4vm from Leagle.com.

Hulett Harper Stewart, Dennis Stewart -- dstewart@hulettharper.com
-- Coleman & Horowitt, Darryl J. Horowitt -- dhorowitt@ch-law.com
-- and Sherrie M. Flynn – sflynn@ch-law.com -- for Plaintiffs and
Appellants.

Wanger Jones Helsley, Oliver W. Wanger -- owanger@wjhattorneys.com
-- Patrick D. Toole  -- ptoole@wjhattorneys.com -- Cadwalader,
Wickersham & Taft, Peter E. Moll -- peter.moll@cwt.com -- and Brian
D. Wallach -- brian.wallach@cwt.com --  for Defendant and
Respondent Anheuser-Bush, LLC.


AT&T: Customers File Class Action Over CCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Bree Gonzales, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that AT&T
customers have filed a class-action lawsuit against a debt
collector, citing an alleged violation of the West Virginia
Consumer Credit and Protection Act.

Leslie Tweedie and Christina Waugh filed a complaint on behalf of
all others similarly situated in Fayette Circuit Court against U.S.
Asset Management Inc. (USAM) alleging that it failed to give them
and the class the notice of time-barred debt required by of West
Virginia Code Section 46A-2-128(f).

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that Tweedie and
Waugh received collection letters on Nov. 26, 2014, and Jan. 30,
2015, respectively. When those letters were sent to the plaintiffs,
their debts to AT&T Mobility were beyond the statute limitations
for filing a legal action for collection, and the letters did not
include the time-barred debt disclosures required by West Virginia
Code Section 46A-2-128(f). The plaintiffs hold U.S. Asset
Management Inc. responsible because its alleged attempt to collect
a time-barred debt was a prohibited unfair or unconscionable means
to collect or attempt to collect a claim in contravention of West
Virginia Code Section 46A-2-128.

The plaintiffs seek that the court enjoin USAM from attempting to
collect time-barred debts in West Virginia without compliance with
the West Virginia Code 46A-2-128(f); an award of a statutory
penalty, adjusted for inflation; USAM to account for all
time-barred debt collected from the class and reimburse each member
with interest; and attorneys' fees and costs. They are represented
by Steven R. Broadwater Jr and Roberto Y. Dumapit of Hamilton,
Burgess, Young & Pollard PLLC in Fayetteville.

Fayette Circuit Court Case number 18C199 [GN]


ATC HEALTHCARE: Torraca-Riano et al. Suit Moved to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Toni.U Torraca-Riano and Michael Olshansky, Individually,
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
vs. ATC Healthcare Services, Inc., a Georgia corporation; ATC
Healthcare, Inc., a Delaware corporation; ATC Healthcare Services,
LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; ATC West Staffing, Inc.,
a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50 Inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 37-02018-00065377-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego)
on Feb. 8, 2019. The Southern District of California Court Clerk
assinged Case No. 3:19-cv-00295-L-BLM to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge M. James Lorenz. The suit alleges
Fair Credit Reporting Act violation.

ATC Healthcare provides healthcare and staffing services to
hospitals, facilities, and healthcare organizations in the United
States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Thomas D Rutledge, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS D RUTLEDGE
          500 West Harbor Drive, Suite 1113
          San Diego, CA 92102
          Telephone: (619) 886-7224
          Facsimile: (619) 259-5455
          E-mail: thomasrutledgelaw@gmail.com

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Mason R. Winters, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 229-9940
          Facsimile: (310) 229-9901
          E-mail: mwinters@seyfarth.com

AXOGEN INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Jan. 9 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, captioned Einhorn v. AxoGen,
Inc. et al., (Case No. 8:19-cv-00069), on behalf of persons and
entities that: a) purchased or otherwise acquired AxoGen, Inc.
(NASDAQ: AXGN) ("AxoGen" or the "Company") securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's false and/or misleading
registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "November
2017 Registration Statement") issued in connection with the
Company's November 2017 secondary public offering ("November SPO");
and/or b) purchased or otherwise acquired AxoGen securities
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's false and/or misleading
registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "May 2018
Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's
May 2018 secondary public offering ("May SPO"); and/or c) purchased
or otherwise acquired AxoGen securities between August 7, 2017 and
December 18, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff
pursues claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") and 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 officers/directors.

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

On December 18, 2018, Seligman Investments issued a report stating,
among other things, that former employees allege channel stuffing
and backdating of revenue, that the number of active accounts may
be overstated by a factor of ten, and that aggressive annual price
increases had driven the Company's revenue growth.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $6.17 per share, or
nearly 22%, to close at $21.36 per share on December 18, 2018, on
unusually high trading volume.

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

If you purchased securities in the November SPO or May SPO or
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60
days from January 9, 2019, the date of this notice to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley
Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased. [GN]


BANK OF AMERICA: Stachon Alleges Price-Fixing of SSA Bonds
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Bank of America and other entities
alleges conspiracy by the Defendants to fix prices and restrain
competition in the market for U.S. dollar-denominated
supranational, sovereign, and agency bonds ("SSA bonds").

The Plaintiff Zach Stachon, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, asserts violations of the Donnelly Act against
Defendants, which are among the largest dealers, or who are among
the most prominent traders, of SSA bonds.  The Plaintiff and
members of the proposed Class own and are indirect purchasers of
USD SSA bonds from Defendants and/or Defendants' co-conspirators.
Simply put, the Plaintiff and members of the Proposed Class
purchased USD SSA bonds from third parties such as re-sellers or
brokers of such bonds, and those third parties purchased the USD
SSA bonds directly from Defendants and/or Defendants'
co-conspirators.

SSA bonds are debt securities issued by governmental and
quasi-governmental entities, such as the World Bank and the
European Investment Bank, for the purpose of funding a range of
economic and public-policy initiatives. SSA bonds are generally
regarded as secure investments by investors around the world
because they often enjoy special legal status and their
credit-worthiness is often pegged to sovereign, regional, or
international entities.

Unlike corporate bonds issued by a company whose financial
well-being is obviously critical to the repayment obligations tied
to those corporate bonds, SSA bonds are backed by the credit
worthiness of the governmental or quasi-governmental entities. In
the case of some issuers of SSA bonds, like the United States,
credit worthiness is substantial and practically unquestioned. USD
SSA bonds, which are the focus of this case, are principally
directed at the U.S. financial markets.

According to the complaint, the Defendants in this case are (i)
several banks that operated as primary dealers in the USD SSA bond
market, and (ii) individuals with responsibility for the USD SSA
trading business at each of their respective banks. As competitors
in the market for USD SSA bonds, the Defendants (and their
employees acting on their behalf) were expected to compete
vigorously for the business of investor clients. Free-market
competition is, of course, the fundamental economic policy of the
United States. This policy is enshrined in the Donnelly Act, which
makes it per se illegal for competitors (like Defendants here, who
competed in the market for customers desiring to engage in USD SSA
bond-related transactions) to conspire and coordinate with each
other to limit competition regarding price and terms of sale,
thereby harming the market in which those customers, including
Plaintiff, participated. In financial markets, competition among
dealers drives better terms and prices for investors, just as
competition among suppliers drives better product quality and
prices. The Supreme Court has described collusion among competitors
of the type that occurred in this case as "the supreme evil of
antitrust", the lawsuit says.

The case is captioned as ZACH STACHON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,
MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH
INC.; BARCLAYS BANK PLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., BARCLAYS SERVCES
LIMITED, BARCLAYS CAPITAL SECURITES LIMITED; BNP PARIBAS S.A., BNP
PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP.; CITIGROUP INC., CITIBANK N.A., CITIGROUP
GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS LIMITED; CREDIT
AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, CREDIT SUISSE AG, CREDIT
SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITES (EUROPE) LTD.,
CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL; DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE BANK
SECURITIES INC.; HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC., HSBC BANK PLC, J.P.
MORGAN CHASE & CO.; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.; J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES INC.; J.P. MORGAN CLEARING; NOMURA SECURITIES
INTERNATIONAL, INC., NOMURA INTERNATIONAL PLC; ROYAL BANK OF
CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, RBC EUROPE LIMITED; THE
TORONTO-DOMINION BANK, TD SECURITIES LIMITED, TD SECURITIES (USA)
LLC; UBS AG; UBS SECURITIES LLC; HIREN GUDKA, BHARDEEP SINGH HEER,
AMANDEEP SINGH MANKU, GARY MCDONALD, SHAILEN PAU, and BHARDEEP
SINGH HEER, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01205 (S.D.N.Y., Feb.
7, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
          John J. Nestico, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
             KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          8501 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 270
          Scottsdale, AZ 85253
          Telephone: (480) 315-3841
          Facsimile: (866) 505-8036
          E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com
                  jnestico@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
          James A. Bloom, 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
                  kbates@schneiderwallace.com
                  jbloom@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Angelovich, Esq.
          Austin Tighe, Esq.
          Chad Ihrig, Esq.
          NIX PATTERSON LLP
          3600 N Capital of Texas Highway, Suite B350
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 328-5333
          E-mail: jangelovich@nixlaw.com
                  atighe@nixlaw.com
                  cihrig@nixlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph C. Peiffer, Esq.
          Tracey B. Cowan, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4314
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 586-5259
          Facsimile: (504) 523-2464
          E-mail: jpeiffer@pwcklegal.com
                  tcowan@pwcklegal.com

BARILLA AMERICA: Counsel to Submit Evidence Supporting Fees Request
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALESSANDRO BERNI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BARILLA G. e
R. FRATELLI, S.p.A., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-4196(ST)
(E.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Steven L. Tiscione of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York directed the
Plaintiffs to submit (1) detailed time records and evidence
supporting the hourly rates charged by their attorneys and
paralegals in support of their proposed award of attorneys' fees,
and (2) evidence in support of the requested costs.

The Judge finds that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs in
support of the proposed award of attorneys' fees and paralegals'
fees is insufficient under the standards set forth in Johnson v.
Ga. Highway Express, Inc.  The Plaintiffs provide only a broad
description of the work performed by the counsel in connection with
the case.  They also provide the total amount of time spent by each
attorney and paralegal on the entire case, along with their hourly
rates.  But the Plaintiffs do not explain what work any attorney
performed on any specific date or how long he or she spent
performing such work.  The Judge is not able to assess whether the
aggregate figure of 994.7 hours spent by the Plaintiffs' attorneys
and paralegals on the wide-ranging and unspecific array of tasks
described in their Joint Declaration is reasonable.  The Plaintiffs
will submit detailed time records that allow the Court to do so.

Additionally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs provide no
meaningful evidence to support their claimed hourly rates, which
range between $700 and $850 per hour for the Plaintiffs' attorneys
and are $275 for the Plaintiffs' paralegals.  Their only citation
to an award of $995 per hour is from the Southern District of New
York, but district courts generally consider the reasonableness of
attorneys' hourly rates based on the district in which the court
sits.  More importantly, the Plaintiffs have simply not explained
why their attorneys' or paralegals' hourly rates should be as high
as those in the cited cases.  The Plaintiffs will submit specific
evidence in support of these proffered rates to allow the Court to
determine whether they are reasonable.

The Judge notes that the Plaintiffs have cited several cases
providing that fee awards in class actions are more likely to be
found reasonable where the parties have negotiated the fee amount
among themselves, and where the fees are to be borne solely by the
defendants rather than taken from the common fund.  The Plaintiffs'
counsel must do the same.  Additionally, the Judge directs the
Plaintiffs to submit available evidence in support of their request
for costs.

The Plaintiffs will submit the billing records and other evidence
described by Feb. 28, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/kDBmfp from Leagle.com.

Alessandro Berni, Giuseppe Santochirico, Massimo Simioli & Domenico
Salvati, Plaintiffs, represented by Benjamin Isaac Sachs-Michaels
-- bsachsmichaels@hfesq.com -- Harwood Feffer LLP, Daniella Quitt
-- dquitt@hfesq.com -- Harwood Feffer LLP, Joseph Gentile --
joseph@sarrafgentile.com -- Sarraf Gentile LLP, Ronen Sarraf --
ronen@sarrafgentile.com -- Sarraf Gentile LLP & Robert Ira Harwood
-- rharwood@glancylaw.com -- Harwood Feffer LLP.

Barilla S.p.A., Barilla America, Inc. & Barilla USA, Defendants,
represented by Michael Tremonte -- mtremonte@shertremonte.com --
Sher Tremonte LLP, Steven Paul Blonder -- sblonder@muchlaw.com --
Much Shelist, P.C., pro hac vice, Jonathan D. Sherman --
jsherman@muchlaw.com -- Much Shelist, P.C., Justin J. Gunnell --
jgunnell@shertremonte.com -- Sher Tremonte LLP & Marissa L. Downs
-- mdowns@muchlaw.com -- Much Shelist, pro hac vice.


BELL BLVD: Carlos Martinez Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------
CARLOS ALFREDO ZAVALATA MARTINEZ, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff vs. BELL BLVD DELIGHTS CORP., dba DAVINCI'S
GEORGE BOUZALAS and JOSE BONILLA, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00776 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 7, 2019), seeks to recover overtime
pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in the
restaurant business. The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
regularly worked more than 40 hours in a work week but were not
paid overtime in violation of the FLSA and NYLL.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          825 Veterans Highway-Ste. B
          Hauppage, NY 11788
          Telephone: promero@romerolawny.com

BIG THINK CAPITAL: Accused by Cunnigham Suit of Violating TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG CUNNIGHAM on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BIG THINK CAPITAL INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00638
(E.D.N.Y., February 1, 2019), accuses the Defendant of violating
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making a call to the
Plaintiff's cell phone without his prior express consent.

Big Think Capital is a New York corporation with its principal
place of business in Melville, New York.

Big Think Capital is a financial services marketplace specializing
in helping businesses find the capital they need with the best
possible terms, according to its Web site.  A financial services
marketplace, Big Think serves as a middle man between
borrower-businesses and lenders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
          E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com


BIOGEN INC: Appeal in Massachusetts Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Biogen Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the plaintiff's appeal in
a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts is still pending.

The company and certain current and former officers are defendants
in an action filed by a shareholder in October 2016 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging
violations of federal securities laws under 15 U.S.C Section 78j(b)
and Section 78t(a) and 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 and seeking a
declaration of the action as a class action and an award of
damages, interest and attorneys' fees.

In March 2018 the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The
plaintiff's appeal is pending.

An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at
this time.

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

Biogen Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers
therapies for treating neurological and neurodegenerative diseases
worldwide. The company was founded in 1978 and is headquartered in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.


BITMAIN: Co-Founders to Step Down as Co-CEOs Amid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen O'Neal, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that on Jan.
10, news emerged that Chinese Bitcoin mining giant Bitmain's
co-founders, Jihan Wu and Micree Zhan Ketuan, will step down as
co-CEOs of the company. The move follows a streak of reports
suggesting that Bitmain has been facing mass layoffs, class action
lawsuits and difficulties related to its initial public offering
(IPO) during the last quarter of 2018. So what exactly is happening
with one of the world's most influential crypto outfits?

Brief introduction to Bitmain, the world's most powerful crypto
mining giant
Bitmain was founded in 2013 by Jihan Wu and Micree Zhan Ketuan.
Prior to that, Wu was a private equity fund manager who studied
economics and psychology at Peking University, while Zhan, a
graduate of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, was trying to raise
funds for a startup that allowed users to stream television shows
to a computer screen via a set-top box.

After discovering Bitcoin (BTC) in early 2011, Wu allegedly spent
all his life savings to buy the cryptocurrency. When the Bitcoin's
price soared in 2013, he decided not only to trade the digital
asset, but to create it as well. Wu asked Zhan to join him, and
together they began developing an ASIC chip that would mine BTC at
maximum efficiency. In November 2013, Zhan, the duo's technical
mastermind, presented their first mining rig, the Antminer S1, and
Bitmain's sales took off.

According to Wu, the company experienced a difficult period close
to the end of 2014, when the infamous Mt.Gox crash happened and the
whole crypto market collapsed. The situation eventually stabilized
when BTC's price began climbing up again the next year.
Consequently, when the 2017 crypto boom kicked in, the business
became extremely lucrative.

Thus, Bitmain booked $2.5 billion of revenue in 2017 alone, as Wu
told Bloomberg, while this year turned out to be even more
profitable: According to the company's prospectus, its revenue was
set at $2.8 billion by the end of June 2018. According to a
different report issued by investment research company Bernstein,
Bitmain made between $3 billion and $4 billion in operating profit
in 2017 and allegedly outraced Nvidia, which made about $3 billion
during the same period.

In May 2018, Bitmain announced its expansion to the area of
artificial intelligence (AI), where it planned to compete against
Nvidia, Intel and AMD using its existing chip designs to power AI
systems and software. The plan was disclosed against the backdrop
of increasing scrutiny regarding crypto mining operations in China.
"As a China company," said Wu, "we have to be prepared." He added
that Bitmain plans to start earning as much as 40 percent of its
revenue from AI chips within five years.

Sales of Bitmain's mining chips and circuits reportedly account for
around 70 to 80 percent of the whole market. As per the company's
LinkedIn page, Bitmain is currently headquartered in Beijing and
employs around 2,500 people across the world. However, it is
unclear whether this information is up to date, considering the
recent reports regarding job cuts.

Current state of affairs: Bear market-induced losses
As of January 2019, the two mining pools operated by Bitmain,
AntPool and BTC.com, contribute to almost 23 percent of the total
hashing power of the entire Bitcoin mining pool. However, just six
months ago, the company's mining pools represented 41 percent of
the market share, meaning that its share has been steadily
declining. Indeed, the bear market has been taking its toll, and
2018 turned out to be a problematic year for the mining giant.

According to a BitMEX Research report released on Aug. 30, Bitmain
sold a lot of its mining units at a loss throughout 2018. The paper
suggested that it was a deliberate strategy "to squeeze out
[Bitmain's] competition by causing them to experience lower sales
and therefore financial difficulties":

"This analysis implies Bitmain are currently loss-making, with a
negative profit margin of 11.6% for the main S9 product and a
margin of over negative 100% on the L3 product. In reality costs
are likely to have declined so the situation may not be as bad,
however we think it is likely Bitmain are currently making
significant losses."

As previously noted by Cointelegraph, at the time the BitMEX
research was published, the price of Bitcoin was hovering around
$7,000, which was still above the breakeven cost of mining.
Therefore, the demand was likely to be there, which would make the
Bitmain's price war justified. However, when the full-blown bear
market hit in November, and the price of Bitcoin fell below the
breakeven cost of mining of $6,900, Bitmain should have started to
experience harsher financial difficulties due to lesser demand for
mining devices.

Bitmain staff cuts: From Israel division to CEO position
One of the most evident signs that Bitmain's business has taken a
hit are the reported layoffs. On Dec. 26, Hong Kong newspaper South
China Morning Post (SCMP) quoted Bitmain's alleged statement
regarding internal job cuts. The announcement reportedly read:

"A part of [building a sustainable business] is having to really
focus on things that are core to that mission and not things that
are auxiliary. As we move into the new year we will continue to
double down on hiring the best talent from a diverse range of
backgrounds."

As SCMP noted, the exact number of layoffs had not been disclosed,
but a spokesperson for the firm reportedly denied that Bitmain
would lay off over half of its employees, a suggestion first
circulated in Chinese social media.

Previously, on Dec. 23, Blockstream's chief security officer,
Samson Mow, stated that Bitmain fired its entire staff of Bitcoin
Cash (BCH) developers, citing Chinese social media. The developers
had formed Bitmain's Copernicus team and were working on the
company's Bitcoin Cash GO client. "Only 1 week notice. Some had
just joined the company," Mow specified.

On Dec. 10, Israeli business news outlet Globes reported that
Bitmain was closing its local development center and firing its
employees. Dubbed Bitmaintech Israel, it was founded in 2016 to
explore the use of blockchain, work on the Connect BTC mining pool,
and develop the infrastructure behind Bitmain's AI project titled
"Sophon." All 23 employees were fired, along with Gadi Glikberg,
head of the Israeli branch as well as Bitmain's vice president of
international sales and marketing. Glikberg linked the layoffs to
the crypto market collapse:

"The crypto market has undergone a shake-up in the past few months,
which has forced Bitmain to examine its various activities around
the globe and to refocus its business in accordance with the
current situation."

January developments
Bitmain's austerity measures continued in 2019, suggesting that the
company is indeed off to a bad start this year. On Jan. 10, Texas
Public Radio announced that the Chinese company had suspended its
operations in Rockdale, Texas. The firm was going to build a $500
million blockchain data center and mining facility in the state as
part of its expansion into the United States market.

Originally, as per the publication, Steve Young, a Milam County
judge, issued a statement reporting that all Bitmain employees but
two engineers and the director of human relations had been fired,
and all operations had been halted.

Young was then allegedly approached by the Chinese company's
representatives, who told him that Bitmain will scale down the
operation rather than shut it down entirely, now working with only
five employees instead of 15. While Bitmain reportedly declined to
comment on the issue for Texas Public Radio, the article cites
their alleged statement shared with Young:

"The right-sized team at Rockdale now has the expertise to re-start
the project at small scale anytime. Bitmain would like to ramp up
the site at a slower pace and scale based on market conditions."

Then, on Jan. 14, Bitmain announced it was closing yet another
office, reducing its overseas operations even further. The mining
giant shared a statement, where it cited its long-term scalable
business strategy as a primary reason to shut down its operation in
the Netherlands.

"As we build a long-term, sustainable and scalable business, we are
making adjustments to our staff and operations. This includes the
decision to close our Amsterdam and Israel offices. [. . .] We are
really focusing on things that are core to our mission and not
things that are auxiliary."

Finally, according to a series of yet-to-be-finally-confirmed
reports, changes occurred even at the senior level of the mining
giant. Thus, on Jan. 10, SCMP wrote that both Bitmain's
co-founders, Jihan Wu and Micree Zhan Ketuan, will quit their posts
as co-CEOs, but still steer the company's important decisions.
Citing "people familiar with the matter," the media outlet said
Bitmain's director of product engineering, Wang Haichao, would
likely take over as CEO at an unspecified future date, while he has
allegedly already taken over some of the duo's former duties.
According to the September IPO filing, Wu and Zhan control 21 and
37 percent of the business respectively.

Bitmain IPO plans become doubtful as well
In June 2018, media started to report that Jihan Wu was planning to
conduct an overseas IPO in a market with United States dollar
denominated shares -- like Hong Kong -- as it would allow early
backers to cash in funds. An IPO is a more traditional and
regulatory-friendly way for a company to seek investments from a
broader audience in the public market, which Cointelegraph has
covered in depth before.

Later in July, a research unit for crypto exchange BitMEX analyzed
alleged leaked data on Bitmain's potential IPO and stated that the
mining giant had conducted a pre-IPO round that reportedly raised
around $14 billion, leading them to believe that it could raise no
less than $20 billion at the IPO stage.

Nevertheless, as Cointelegraph reported earlier, there had been a
lot of rumors and uncertainty around Bitmain's upcoming IPO. In
December, they were reignited by Hong Kong-based newspaper SCMP,
which reported that the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEX) is
reluctant to allow Bitmain to conduct an offering in the city.

According to the publication's anonymous sources, the regulator
thinks it is "premature for any cryptocurrency trading platform --
or business associated with the industry -- to raise funds through
an IPO in Hong Kong before the proper regulatory framework is in
place." As a result, SCMP suggests current conditions "could be an
insurmountable hurdle" for Bitmain and other cryptocurrency
companies planning to launch an IPO. Similarly, in November, HKEX
lapsed the IPO application of Canaan, Bitmain's competition on the
mining market, which also was going to hold an offering there. Now,
the company is looking to move its IPO plans to New York.

Interestingly, just a day prior to the SCMP article, the HKEX told
Cointelegraph that any reports regarding hesitation on the part of
Bitmain were "rumors," suggesting that negotiations between the
regulator and the mining giant were in progress.

The mining giant is facing two class action lawsuits on top of
other problems
In addition to staff cuts and other problems, Bitmain seems to be
facing at least two class action lawsuits. The first one was filed
by Los Angeles County resident Gor Gevorkyan, who allegedly
purchased their devices, including its S9 Antminer machine, in
January 2018. According to the filing submitted to the North
District Court of California in November, the product was
"difficult to configure" and lapsed during a "substantial amount of
time." Gevorkyan claims that before he could fully initialize the
devices, they operated at cost-intensive "full power mode" at his
expense. The plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $5 million
on behalf of all miners "similarly situated" as Bitmain clients.

The more recent lawsuit was initiated by UnitedCorp, a development
and management firm with a focus on telecommunications and
information technologies. On Dec. 6, it reported suing Bitmain
along with Bitcoin.com, Roger Ver and the Kraken exchange, which
reportedly planned a scheme to take control of the Bitcoin Cash
(BCH) network during the November hard fork. [GN]


BLACKROCK INST'L: Discovery Letter on Strofs' Deposition Party OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARLES BAIRD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BLACKROCK
INSTITUTIONAL TRUST COMPANY, N.A., et al., Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-01892-HSG (KAW) (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Kandis A.
Westmore of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California granted in part and denied in part the parties' joint
discovery letter regarding the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Jason
Strofs.

The Plaintiffs filed the instant putative class action against the
Defendants, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act's ("ERISA") fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions
provisions.  On Dec. 20, 2018, the parties filed a joint discovery
letter regarding the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Mr. Strofs.

On Sept. 17, 2018, the Plaintiffs conducted a Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition of Mr. Strofs, using 5.5 hours.  They assert that Mr.
Strofs was not adequately prepared, and therefore request an
additional three hours to depose a fully prepared witness about
Deposition Topics (n), (p), and (q).  The Defendants dispute
whether Mr. Strofs was able to sufficiently testify on the
Deposition Topics at issue.

Magistrate Judge Westmore finds that Plaintiffs are entitled
additional time to conduct a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on these
topics.  First, Deposition Topic (n) concerns the entity, entities,
and/or persons responsible for establishing, monitoring, and/or
amending the CTI Plan Documents under which Defendant BTC manages
and administers the BlackRock CTIs' assets.  While she agrees that
the failure to identify every member of the relevant entity does
not necessarily show inadequate preparation, the Defendants do not
address Mr. Strofs' failure to identify basic information about
that entity, including its other responsibilities.

Second, Deposition Topic (p) concerns the terms of the documents
under which Defendant BTC manages and administers the assets of the
BlackRock CTIs.  She agrees with the Plaintiffs that the parties
had agreed to the terms listed in the Sept. 6, 2018 letter.   Thus,
the Plaintiffs were entitled to testimony regarding the broader set
of plan provisions listed in the Sept. 6, 2018 letter.

Finally, Deposition Topic (r) concerns the terms of any agreements
between the Blackrock CTIs and Defendant BTC.  The Magistrate finds
that Mr. Strofs was not adequately prepared to discuss the
Guideline and Fee Agreement ("GLFA"), as when asked about what
information was in the GLFA, Mr. Strofs repeatedly stated that he
did not know.  With respect to the preferred lending splits,
however, she finds that the Plaintiffs fail to explain why Mr.
Strofs' inability to explain the exact mechanics of cash movements
demonstrate a lack of preparation, when Mr. Strofs was able to
testify as to their calculation, offering, and effects.

Magistrate Judge Westmore concludes that Mr. Strofs was not
sufficiently prepared to discuss the three topics at issue.  While
additional time is warranted to conduct the Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition on these Deposition Topics, however, she finds that the
Plaintiffs have failed to explain why three hours are necessary.
Moreover, she disagrees that Mr. Strofs was not prepared on some of
the topics, particularly the mechanisms used to effectuate
preferred splits.  Accordingly, she finds that the Plaintiffs may
have an additional two hours to conduct the Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition.  These two hours are separate from the 90 minutes that
the Plaintiffs reserved for Deposition Topics (v) and (w).

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/avYjVc from Leagle.com.

Charles Baird, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the BlackRock Retirement Savings Plan,
Plaintiff, represented by Nina Rachel Wasow --
nina@feinbergjackson.com -- Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow
LLP, Daniel Ryan Sutter -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll, PLLC,
pro hac vice, Julia Horwitz -- jhorwitz@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers Toll, Julie S Selesnick --
jselesnick@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll,
PLLC, Karen L. Handorf -- khandorf@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Mary Joanne
Bortscheller -- mbortscheller@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein
Sellers Toll PLLC, Michelle C. Yau -- myau@cohenmilstein.com --
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Todd F. Jackson
-- todd@feinbergjackson.com -- Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman and
Wasow LLP.

Lauren Slayton, Plaintiff, represented by Michelle C. Yau, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Nina Rachel Wasow, Feinberg, Jackson,
Worthman & Wasow LLP, Daniel Ryan Sutter, Cohen Milstein Sellers
and Toll, PLLC, pro hac vice, Julia Horwitz, Cohen Milstein Sellers
Toll & Mary Joanne Bortscheller, Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll PLLC.

BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., Blackrock, Inc., The
BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee & The Investment Committee of
the Retirement Committee, Defendants, represented by Brian David
Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com -- O'Melveny Myers LLP, Adam Manes Kaplan
-- akaplan@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow
-- mvergow@omm.com -- OMelveny and Myers LLP, Michael John McCarthy
-- mmccarthy@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Randall W. Edwards
-- redwards@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Catherine Bolz, Chip Castille, Paige Dickow, Daniel A. Dunay,
Jeffrey A. Smith, Anne Ackerley, Nancy Everett, Joseph Feliciani,
Jr., Ann Marie Petach, Michael Fredericks, Corin Frost, Daniel
Gamba, Kevin Holt, Chris Jones, Philippe Matsumoto, John Perlowski,
Andy Phillips, Kurt Schansinger & Tom Skrobe, Defendants,
represented by Brian David Boyle, O'Melveny Myers LLP, Randall W.
Edwards, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow, OMelveny
and Myers LLP & Michael John McCarthy, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Amy Engel, Management Development & Compensation Committee of the
BlackRock, Inc. Board of Directors, Kathleen Nedl, Marc Comerchero,
Joel Davies, John Davis, Milan Lint & Laraine McKinnon, Defendants,
represented by Brian David Boyle, O'Melveny Myers LLP, Meaghan
McLaine VerGow, OMelveny and Myers LLP & Michael John McCarthy,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Mercer Investment Consulting, Defendant, represented by Brian
Thomas Ortelere, Morgan Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew
Allen Russell, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP, pro hac vice &
Spencer H. Wan, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.


CAJUN ENERGY: Does Not Pay Overtime Wage, Baker Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Baker, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Cajun Energy Services and Rentals, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 7:19-cv-00037 (W.D. Tex., February 7, 2019) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Plaintiff Baker, and the other oilfield personnel like him who
worked for, or on behalf of Cajun, regularly worked more than 40
hours a week but were not paid overtime, notes the complaint.

Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Cajun
improperly classified these workers as independent contractors and
paid them a daily rate with no overtime compensation in violation
of the FLSA, the complaint asserts.

Baker worked for Cajun providing flowback and well testing
services.

Cajun Energy Services and Rentals, LLC is limited liability
corporation doing business in Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
     Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: 713-352-1100
     Facsimile: 713-352-3300
     Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
            adunlap@mybackwages.com
            rschreiber@mybackwages.com

          - and -

     Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: 713-877-8788
     Facsimile: 713-877-8065
     Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


CALIFORNIA CLOSET: Dawson Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Closet
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Leshawn Dawson on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. California
Closet Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01198 (S.D. N.Y.,
Feb. 7, 2019).

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

California Closets is a brick and mortar retailer and manufacturer
of storage cabinets and organization products for Home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


CANADA: 60s Scoop Class-Action Information Session Begins
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Gunn, writing for The Chronicle Herald, reports that an
information session in Dartmouth will assist survivors of what has
become known as the Sixties Scoop in applying for compensation as
part of an $800-million settlement reached in 2017.

The Sixties Scoop was the period between the 1960s and 1980s when
Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their homes by child
welfare agencies and placed in the care of non-Indigenous families.
The federal government agreed to pay survivors between $25,000 and
$50,000 per class member, depending on the number of eligible
members, in compensation for loss of culture, resolving several
lawsuits that had been filed across the country.

Collectiva Class Action Services, the claims administrator
appointed by the Federal Court, is holding 21 information sessions
across the country to assist survivors in filing a claim for
compensation. The first in Atlantic Canada was to take place
Thursday, Jan. 17, in Dartmouth at the DoubleTree by Hilton on Wyse
Road from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. A session in St. John's is set for
March 13 at the Delta St. John's.

According to Collectiva, any registered "status Indian," anyone who
is eligible to register for status, or an Inuit person who was
adopted or made a permanent ward and was placed in the care of
non-Indigenous foster or adoptive parents in Canada between Jan. 1,
1951 and Dec. 31, 1991, is eligible for compensation.

Melanie Vincent, who is responsible for organizing the information
sessions, said anyone who fits these criteria can sign up to
receive compensation whether they have been involved in the lawsuit
or not. Survivors have until Aug. 30 to apply.

Ms. Vincent said the information sessions are free to attend and
open to the public, and will have support staff on hand to answer
questions about the settlement and to help survivors fill out forms
that she said are quite simple, and figure out which documents are
needed. There will also be an Indigenous elder and someone
qualified to provide psychological support at each session.

"People do not have to attend a session to file a claim," she
said.

"These sessions are only for information purposes, but if people
can't make it or they are not available to come over they just have
to (contact us) and someone will provide support and technical help
for their claim."

It's not clear how many Sixties Scoop survivors there are across
the country, Ms. Vincent said.

"What we know is the largest numbers are out west, but we don't
know exactly how many."

Anyone who cannot attend the information session or would like more
information about the claim process can get information here, call
1-844-287-4270 or send an email to sixtiesscoop@collectiva.ca.
[GN]


CANADIAN HOCKEY: Former Kelowna Rocket Commences Head Trauma Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Turcato, writing for Global News, reports that Kelowna hockey
fans might remember James McEwan as the Kelowna Rockets' former
captain and assistant captain.

However, more than a decade after his Western Hockey League career
ended with the 2007-08 season, the former WHL player alleges he is
suffering from a host of symptoms connected to hits to the head,
including anxiety, severe mood swings, anger and suicidal
thoughts.

The allegations are contained in a notice of civil claim filed in
B.C. Supreme Court on Jan. 9.

McEwan is the proposed representative plaintiff in a potential
class-action lawsuit by Canadian Hockey League players against the
CHL, the WHL and Hockey Canada.

The suit alleges the hockey organizations didn't do enough to
protect McEwan from head trauma.

The lawsuit said McEwan was involved in more than 70 fights during
his four-season WHL career, including two seasons with the Kelowna
Rockets.

"These fights lead to numerous surgeries and broken bones as well
as severe and escalating trauma to his head," said the notice of
civil claim.

The lawsuit said McEwan continues to suffer from symptoms of
Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) such as suicidal thoughts,
anxiety, anger and severe mood swings.

In the court documents, the plaintiff's lawyer said that "multiple
blows to the head can lead to long-term brain injury" and CTE,
among other problems.

"During practice and games, a CHL player can sustain close to 1,000
or more hits to the head in one season without any documented
incapacitating concussion," the notice of civil claim said.

"Such repeated blows to the head can result in permanently impaired
brain function."

The notice of civil claim also paints a dark picture of McEwan's
off-ice life as a young WHL player, alleging the 25 fights he took
part in during the 2006-07 season with the Kelowna Rockets caused
head trauma.

"The side effects of his continuous head trauma began to have a
noticeable impact in his day-to-day life," said the court
documents.

"He was beginning to experience severe anxiety, mood swings,
personality changes and angry outbursts. Mr. McEwan began to
consume copious amounts of alcohol in an effort to cope with the
physical pain and mental distress."

Following his WHL career, McEwan played in the ECHL.

The case is seeking unspecified damages for McEwan and other CHL
players who never played in the NHL.

To proceed as a class-action lawsuit, the case would need to be
certified as a class-action by the court.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

The notice of civil claim also includes statistics showing that
fighting in the WHL decreased for six seasons in a row starting in
the 2011-12 season.

The legal document also said that in 2011, the WHL came up with a
plan to cut down on hits to the head, and concussion rates dropped
20 per cent between 2012 and 2013.

However, the lawsuit argues the drop off in fights, at least in
later years, can be attributed to "the general public's increasing
concern regarding concussions in junior hockey" rather than steps
taken by the leagues.

The WHL, CHL and Hockey Canada have yet to file a response to the
notice of civil claim with the B.C. Supreme Court.

In response to a request for comment, which included a copy of the
notice of civil claim, the WHL commissioner said the league had not
yet been served with a statement of claim in connection with the
case.

"At such time as we receive one, we will thoroughly review it and,
if appropriate, we will provide further comment," WHL commissioner
Ron Robison said in a written statement.

The Kelowna Rockets said the team would not comment on the case.
[GN]


CHRYSLER: Tire Valve Stem Class Action Partially Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Chrysler tire valve stem class-action lawsuit has been partially
dismissed concerning claims the stems and caps corrode in 2010
Chrysler Town & Country, 2010 Dodge Grand Caravan, 2010 Jeep
Liberty and 2010 Dodge Journey vehicles.

The plaintiffs allege the vehicles, manufactured after June 10,
2009, are equipped with defective copper-bearing aluminum metal
alloy valve stems. The valve stems work with the tire pressure
monitoring systems and are allegedly prone to corrosion from
elements such as road salt.

According to the plaintiffs, the valve stems create safety hazards
because when the stems fail, air can quickly be released from the
tires without warning.

The class-action lawsuit alleges Fiat Chrysler (FCA) allegedly knew
the valve stems were defective because the automaker stopped using
the metal parts and replaced them with rubberized valve stems. In
addition, the lawsuit alleges owners have filed multiple complaints
about corroded valve stems and the high cost to replace them.

According to the plaintiffs, Chrysler doesn't offer to reimburse
owners for out-of-pocket costs associated with replacing the valve
stems. And because the valve stems are part of the computerized
tire pressure monitoring systems, replacing four stems can easily
cost $200.

The judge looked at claims that FCA violated the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act by "knowingly placing into the stream of
commerce Class Vehicles equipped with defective TPMS valve stems
that result in, among other problems, sudden and unexpected tire
air-outs."

In addition, at issue are claims of "concealing the defect in the
Class Vehicles [and] failing to inform Plaintiff Lett and the other
Ohio Class members of this defect."

Chrysler countered the statute of limitations mean the claims "may
not be brought more than two years after the occurrence of the
violation which is the subject of suit." The judge sided with FCA
because more than two years had passed when the plaintiff filed the
lawsuit.

The judge followed similar reasoning when claims of violating the
Michigan Consumer Protection Act were denied because the judge
ruled they were time-barred.

Chrysler also used the time-barred argument concerning alleged
violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, but the
judge denied the automaker's motion to dismiss.

According to the judge, the plaintiff showed enough evidence at
this stage of the proceedings to plead she didn't have reason to
know about the valve stems until her mechanic told her in December
2014.

Overall, the judge granted FCA's motion to dismiss express warranty
claims, Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act claims and Michigan
Consumer Protection Act claims.

Allowed to proceed are Michigan and Massachusetts implied warranty
claims and violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.

The Chrysler tire valve stem lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware - Canfield, et al., v. FCA US
LLC.

The plaintiffs are represented by Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman,
P.C., the Law Offices Of Elmer Robert Keach III, P.C., Migliaccio &
Rathod LLP, Parker Waichman LLP, Rosenthal Monhait & Goddess PA,
and Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP.

CarComplaints.com has owner-reported complaints about the vehicles
named in the valve stem class-action lawsuit.

Chrysler Town & Country - 2010 / All model years
Dodge Grand Caravan - 2010 / All model years
Jeep Liberty - 2010 / All model years
Dodge Journey - 2010 / All model years [GN]


CLOROX CO: Privilege/Work Product Disputes in Gregorio Resolved
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH GREGORIO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CLOROX
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-03824-PJH (LB) (N.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, has issued
an order addressing discovery disputes regarding privilege and work
product.

The putative class action is about the Defendant's allegedly
mislabeling certain products that it sells as "natural" or
"naturally derived" when they actually contain ingredients that are
synthetic and non-natural.  The parties raise four categories of
discovery disputes with respect to a number of documents that
Clorox is withholding on the grounds of attorney-client privilege
and work-product protection.

Magistrate Judge Beeler provided the following guidance to the
parties:

     a. Work Product for Documents Created Before This Litigation
Was Anticipated -- The fact that the use of the term "natural" has
been a flashpoint for litigation generally does not establish that
the documents in question are entitled to work-product protection.
With that guidance, the Magistrate directed the parties to further
meet and confer regarding whether Clorox can assert a claim that
the documents in question were created because of the prospect of
some particular litigation.

     b. Work Product for Non-Attorney Documents -- The fact that
documents may have incorporated legal advice does not entitle them
to work-product protection (as opposed to, e.g., attorney-client
privilege).  Rather, to be entitled to work-product protection, a
document must have been created because of the prospect of
anticipated litigation.  With that guidance, the Magistrate
directed the parties to further meet and confer regarding whether
Clorox can assert a claim that the documents in question were
created because of the prospect of some particular litigation.

     c. Attorney-Client Privilege for Spreadsheets -- The fact that
spreadsheets might include privileged communications does not
necessarily render the entirety of the spreadsheets privileged,
however, given that the spreadsheets themselves were never
communicated to or from an attorney.  With that guidance, the
Magistrate directed the parties to further meet and confer
regarding the basis for Clorox's claim of attorney-client
privilege.

     d. Attorney-Client Privilege for Emails Between Non-Attorneys
-- The Magistrate directed the parties to further meet and confer
regarding the basis for Clorox's claim of attorney-client privilege
regarding the emails between non-attorneys in conjunction with
their meet and confer regarding the underlying spreadsheets.

The Magistrate directed the parties to further meet and confer (in
person if possible, but at least by telephone if not) for no less
than one hour to try to resolve their disputes.  If they're unable
to resolve their disputes, they may submit a further joint letter
brief within one week, i.e., by Feb. 6, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/hWIQ8S from Leagle.com.

Joseph Gregorio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Patrick Quiroz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Lawrence Timothy
Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Bradley F.
Silverman -- bsilverman@fleischmanlawfirm.com -- Fleischman Law
Firm, pro hac vice, Joel Dashiell Smith -- jsmith@bursor.com --
Bursor & Fisher, Scott A. Bursor -- scott@bursor.com -- Bursor &
Fisher, P.A., pro hac vice & Todd S. Garber -- tgarber@fbfglaw.com
--
Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, pro hac
vice.

Adam Cooper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley F. Silverman,
Fleischman Law Firm, pro hac vice, Joel Dashiell Smith, Bursor &
Fisher, P.A., Kim E. Richman, The Richman Law Group, Todd S.
Garber, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, pro
hac vice & Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

The Clorox Company, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kiyul Lee --
klee@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP & Dean N. Panos --
dpanos@jenner.com -- Jenner And Block LLP, pro hac vice.

RYAN MATUSZEWSKI, Miscellaneous, represented by Bradley F.
Silverman, Fleischman Law Firm, pro hac vice, Kim E. Richman, The
Richman Law Group & Todd S. Garber, Finkelstein, Blankinship,
Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, pro hac vice.


COMMERCIAL ACCEPTANCE: Garcia Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMMERCIAL ACCEPTANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-01058-WJM-MF (D.N.J., Jan. 24, 2019) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.
The case is assigned to Judge William J. Martini and referred to
Magistrate Judge Mark Falk.

Commercial Acceptance Company is engaged in the business of
providing intermediate or long-term general and industrial credit.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102b
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507-6300
          E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com


CP OPCO: Court OKs Preliminary Approval of $3MM McDonald Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiff David McDonald's
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class action
settlement in the case captioned DAVID McDONALD, Plaintiff, v. CP
OPCO, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No. 17-cv-04915-HSG. (N.D.
Cal.).

The Plaintiff brings suit on behalf of the following putative
class: All persons who were employed by the Defendants, at any of
the Defendant Classic's California locations and who were
terminated pursuant to a mass layoff or termination (as those terms
are defined in California Labor Code Section 1400), or a mass
layoff or plant closing (as those terms are defined in the Federal
WARN Act) by the Defendants. He alleges three causes of action: (1)
failure to provide timely written notice of a mass layoff or plant
closing, in violation of the Federal WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. Section
2101, et seq. (2) failure to provide timely written notice of mass
layoffs, in violation of California Labor Code Section 1400, et
seq. and (3) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law,
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200.

Settlement Agreement

Settlement Fund: $3 million, non-reversionary, funded by Insperity
and the Apollo Defendants, with $2.055 million available for class
member settlement payments.   

Settlement Process

The first factor the Court considers is the means by which the
parties settled the action. An initial presumption of fairness is
usually involved if the settlement is recommended by class counsel
after arm's-length bargaining.

The Plaintiff represents that informal settlement discussions began
in March 2018, followed by multiple settlement conferences
facilitated by Magistrate Judge Corley in May 2018. The parties
filed joint status reports in June, July, and August stating that
they were actively discussing and finalizing the terms of a
settlement. Class counsel appears to have engaged in many months of
arms-length bargaining, some with the help of a magistrate judge,
and thus the settlement merits an initial presumption of fairness.


Preferential Treatment

The Ninth Circuit has instructed that district courts must be
particularly vigilant for signs that counsel have allowed the
self-interests of certain class members to infect negotiations. For
that reason, courts in this district have consistently stated that
preliminary approval of a class action settlement is inappropriate
where the proposed agreement improperly grants preferential
treatment to class representatives.

Incentive awards are intended to compensate class representatives
for work done on behalf of the class, to make up for financial or
reputational risk undertaken in bringing the action.

The settlement agreement allows the Plaintiff to seek an incentive
award of up to $15,000 for his role as named plaintiff in the
lawsuit. However, the settlement is not contingent upon Plaintiff
receiving this or any reward. Class counsel represents that the
Plaintiff provided valuable services, including initiating the
case, securing counsel, consulting with counsel, responding to
discovery and searching for documents, and participating in a
settlement conference. The Plaintiff will submit a declaration in
the motion for final approval detailing the efforts that entitle
him to an incentive award. The Court finds that at the preliminary
approval stage, the Plaintiff's intent to seek an incentive award
does not improperly grant preferential treatment to any segment of
the class, particularly because the settlement is not contingent
upon such an award being granted.

Settlement Within Range of Possible Approval

The third factor that the Court considers is whether the settlement
is within the range of possible approval. To evaluate whether the
settlement amount is adequate, courts primarily consider
plaintiffs' expected recovery balanced against the value of the
settlement offer.

Damages under the WARN Acts are calculated as back pay for up to 60
working days, using the improperly terminated employees' hourly
wages. The Plaintiff calculates that there were 43 working days
during the notice period. Assuming each employee would have worked
eight hours per day, there are a total of 344 hours of potential
back pay available. The Plaintiff estimates that the 984-member
class could be entitled to up to $8 million in recovery. The $3
million gross settlement fund thus represents 37.5% of the
Defendants' maximum exposure.  

The Plaintiff contends that the settlement is reasonable given the
very significant risks and delays of continued litigation. In
particular, the Plaintiff notes that there would be a dispute over
whether the Apollo Defendants and Insperity could be held liable as
employers, when the direct employer was Classic, which is now
defunct. The Plaintiff argues that this litigation would raise
complex legal and factual issues and that there is no on-point
California appellate authority regarding parent liability under the
state WARN Act. The Plaintiff represents that though the Plaintiff
defeated Apollo's motion to dismiss on the basis of employer
liability, continuing to litigate this question would be costly and
uncertain.  

Given the risks and costs of continued litigation, the Court finds
that the settlement is within the range of possible approval.

Obvious Deficiencies

The fourth and final factor that the Court considers is whether
there are obvious deficiencies in the settlement agreement. The
Court finds no obvious deficiencies.

Having weighed the relevant factors, the Court preliminarily finds
that the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate,
and grants preliminary approval.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 28, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycgahtlo from Leagle.com.

David McDonald, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented byEileen B. Goldsmith --
egoldsmith@altshulerberzon.com -- Alshuler Berzon LLP, James M.
Finberg -- jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP,
John T. Mullan -- jtm@rezlaw.com -- Rudy Exelrod Zieff &  -Lowe,
L.L.P., Chaya M. Mandelbaum -- cmm@rezlaw.com -- Rudy Exelrod Zieff
& Lowe, L.L.P., Meghan F. Loisel -- mfl@rezlaw.com -- Rudy Exelrod
Zieff & Lowe L.L.P., Meredith Anne Johnson --
mjohnson@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP & Michelle G.
Lee -- mgl@rezlaw.com -- Rudy Exelrod Zieff & Lowe, LLP.

Insperity PEO Services, L.P., Defendant, represented by Christopher
M. Ahearn -- cahearn@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips LLP,
Lauren Stockunas -- lstockunas@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher and
Phillips LLP & Mark Jarrod Jacobs -- mjacobs@fisherphillips.com --
Fisher & Phillips LLP.

Apollo Global Management, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew J.
Ehrlich -- aehrlich@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton &
Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory F. Laufer --
glaufer@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP,
pro hac vice, Michelle Carrie Doolin -- mdoolin@cooley.com --
Cooley LLP & Summer Jerre Wynn -- swynn@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.

Apollo Centre Street Partnership, L.P., Apollo Franklin
Partnership, L.P., Apollo Credit Opportunity Fund III AIV I, L.P.,
Apollo SK Strategic Investments, L.P., Apollo Special Opportunities
Managed Account, L.P. & Apollo Zeus Strategic Investments, L.P.,
Defendants, represented by Andrew J. Ehrlich, Paul Weiss Rifkind
Wharton & Garrison LLP, Gregory F. Laufer, Paul Weiss Rifkind
Wharton & Garrison LLP, Michelle Carrie Doolin, Cooley LLP & Summer
Jerre Wynn, Cooley LLP.


CSX CORP: Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a district court has
delayed proceedings on the merits of the the fuel surcharge
antitrust-related suit, pending the outcome of the class
certification proceedings.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSXT and
three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the
defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and
unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws.

In November 2007, the class action lawsuits were consolidated in
federal court in the District of Columbia, where they are now
pending. The suit seeks treble damages allegedly sustained by
purported class members as well as attorneys' fees and other
relief. Plaintiffs are expected to allege damages at least equal to
the fuel surcharges at issue.

In June 2012, the District Court certified the case as a class
action. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of plaintiffs'
claims, but rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to seek to
prove the case as a class. The defendant railroads petitioned the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for permission to appeal
the District Court's class certification decision.

In August 2013, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the
class certification decision and remanded the case to the District
Court to reconsider its class certification decision. On October
10, 2017, the District Court issued an order denying class
certification.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is reviewing the
District Court's denial of class certification and held oral
argument on September 28, 2018, with a decision yet to be issued.

The District Court has delayed proceedings on the merits of the
case pending the outcome of the class certification proceedings.

CSX Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
rail-based freight transportation services. The company offers rail
services, as well as transports intermodal containers and trailers.
CSX Corporation was founded in 1978 and is based in Jacksonville,
Florida.


DAKOTA JEWELERS: Dawson Suit Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dakota Jewelers, Inc.
The case is styled as Leshawn Dawson on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dakota Jewelers, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01204 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 7, 2019).

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

Dakota Jewelers, Inc. is a jewelry store located in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


DANIEL WELLINGTON: Website Not Accessible, Haggar et al. Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELIA HAGGAR, and KYO HAK CHU, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DANIEL WELLINGTON INC.; and
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00556-ODW-MAA
(C.D. Cal., Jan. 24, 2019) alleges violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' website,
https://www.danielwellington.com/us/ is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiffs seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

Daniel Wellington Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its
headquarters in New York. The company's website provides consumers
with access to an array of goods and services including store
locators, information about products, gift cards, and special
events, access to holiday specials and promotions, access to apply
for credit, and other products and services which are available
online and in retail stores for purchase.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CAa 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989


DATREX INC: Web Site Not Blind-accessible, Thorne Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRAULIO THORNE AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. DATREX, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-01045 (S.D.N.Y.,
February 2, 2019), alleges that the Defendant violates the
Americans with Disabilities Act because its Web site --
http://www.datrex.com/-- is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff.

Datrex, Inc., is incorporated pursuant to the Business Corporation
laws of the state of Florida with its principal place of business
located in Kinder, Louisiana.

Datrex operates the Web site, and advertises, markets, distributes,
and/or sells personal boats, watercraft and related boating
accessories and/or services in the state of New York and throughout
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 879-0240
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


DAVIDSTEA USA: Dawson Files ADA Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DavidsTea (USA) Inc.
The case is styled as Leshawn Dawson on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DavidsTea (USA) Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01199-KPF (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 7, 2019).

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

DAVIDsTEA Inc. operates as a retailer of specialty tea in Canada
and the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


DOORDASH INC: Webb et al. Seek Full Payment for Delivery Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JAMIE WEBB and AARON HODGE on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. DOORDASH, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00665-CC (N.D. Ga., Feb. 8, 2019),
alleges that DoorDash, Inc. improperly takes tips that resulted in
Plaintiffs and Class Members not being paid the full amount owed to
Plaintiffs and Class Members.

These tips belong to the Plaintiffs and Class Members on top of the
"Guaranteed Pay" for each delivery.

DoorDash is a national food delivery service.  DoorDash provides a
mobile phone application that provides consumers with a means to
obtain food delivery services.

The Plaintiffs allege that DoorDash advertises and represents on
its website and other marketing materials that a gratuity can be
added for a delivery and that the driver would receive "base pay +
100% of tips" from the customer. DoorDash, however, does not remit
the full amount of gratuity represented to consumers to the driver
(called a "Dasher") providing the delivery service. Instead,
DoorDash keeps a substantial portion of this additional charge for
itself, as its own additional revenue and profit on each delivery
arranged and paid for by consumers, and at the expense of drivers
like Plaintiff. DoorDash's conduct is equally applicable to the
Class Members and constitutes an unfair, unlawful and fraudulent
business practice in violation of the law, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          James F. McDonough, III, Esq.
          Travis E. Lynch, Esq.
          W. Lewis Garrison, Esq.
          Chris B. Hood, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC.
          3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (404) 996-0860
          Facsimile: (205) 380-8076
          E-mail: JMcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com
                  tlynch@hgdlawfirm.com
                  Lewis@hgdlawfirm.com
                  chood@hgdlawfirm.com

DXC TECHNOLOGY: Warren Police Retirement System Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DXC Technology
Company, J. Michael Lawrie and Paul N. Saleh, Case No.
1:18-cv-01599 (E.D. Va., December 27, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Securities Act of 1934.

This is a securities fraud class action on behalf of all persons
who purchased DXC common stock between February 8, 2018 and
November 6, 2018, inclusive. Plaintiff alleges that, during the
Class Period, defendants misrepresented the Company's financial
condition by issuing false and misleading statements regarding the
Company’s current financial performance and outlook for fiscal
year 2019 in press releases, analyst conference calls and quarterly
and fiscal year-end reports filed with the SEC.

The Plaintiff City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System
purchased the common stock of DXC during the Class Period.

The Defendant DXC Technology Company is incorporated in the state
of Nevada and trades on the NYSE under the symbol "DXC."

The Company's principal place of business is located in Tysons,
Virginia.

The Defendant J. Michael Lawrie is, and was at all relevant times
during the Class Period, President, CEO and Chairman of the Board
of the Company.

The Defendant Paul N. Saleh is, and was at all relevant times
during the Class Period, Vice President and CFO of the Company.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig C. Reilly, Esq.
      THE OFFICE OF CRAIG C. REILLY
      111 Oronoco Street
      Alexandria, VA 22314
      Tel: (703) 549-5354
      Fax: (703) 549-2604
      E-mail: craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com


ELASTOS FOUNDATION: Owen Sues Over Unregistered ELA Securities
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARK OWEN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ELASTOS FOUNDATION, FENG HAN "AKA SUNNY FENG HAN," RONG
CHEN, FAY LI, ZACH WARSAVAGE, STEVEN S. NAM, LEE WILSON, BEN LEE,
HBUS HOLDCO INC. and HUOBI GLOBAL LIMITED, Case No. 650628/2019
(N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., January 31, 2019), concerns the
Defendants' alleged solicitation and sale of unregistered
securities -- the Elastos cryptocurrency -- to investors in the
United States throughout 2018 in direct violation of Section 5 of
the Securities Act of 1933.

Specifically, the ELA Defendants targeted U.S. investors with the
ELA Initial Coin Offering (the "ELA ICO") and follow-on offerings
and engaged in various means of media and public engagement to
solicit investments in ELA Securities by U.S. investors, according
to the complaint.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants fail
to register the ELA Securities with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.  He adds that no Defendant in this action was
registered with the SEC as a broker or dealer as required by law to
legally sell securities in the United States.

Elastos Foundation developed an Internet operating system that
focuses on re-decentralizing the Internet with block-chain to
secure identity.  The Company is based in Beijing, China.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Located in San Francisco, California, HBUS operates Huobi
Marketplace, an advanced U.S. digital currency trading platform.
HBUS is a U.S. company and strategic partner of Huobi Group, one of
the world's largest digital asset trading and management service
providers.  The Huobi service offers a wider variety of tokens and
giveaways to U.S. audiences, with 24/7 personal customer support,
and unparalleled security.

Huobi Global Limited operates a global digital asset trading
platform for the transaction of digital assets and the provision of
related services.  Huobi Global was founded in 2013 and is based in
Singapore.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Warren A. Raiti, Esq.
          RAITI PLLC
          80 Broad Street, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 916-1404
          E-mail: wraiti@raitipllc.com


ELITE EYE: Dylan Wood Seeks Overtime Compensation for Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
DYLAN WOOD, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the PLAINTIFF vs. ELITE EYE CARE & OPTICAL, LLC, and DR.
CADE M. WILSON, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 3:19-cv-00026-DPM (E.D.
Ark., Feb. 8, 2019), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of the Defendant's failure
to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation for all hours that the
Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per workweek under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Wood's employment with Defendants began in or around December of
2017 and ended in or around January of 2019. As a Medical
Assistant, Wood's primary duties included completing insurance
forms and depositing receipts. Wood's duties frequently required
him to work more than 40 hours in a workweek. During Wood's tenure,
the Defendants employed more than 20 hourly-paid workers. The
Defendants allegedly did not pay the Plaintiff or other hourly
employees overtime premiums for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant owns and operates eye care clinics in and around
Jonesboro.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plantiff:

          Steve Rauls, Esq.
          Jos Stanford, 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: steve@sanfoawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTING: Sued over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SEEFELDT individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTING
INTERNATIONAL, LLC; and OUTFIELD BREW HOUSE, LLC d/b/a BUDWEISER
BREW HOUSE, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00188 (E.D. Mo., Feb
7, 2019), alleges that the Defendants sent unlawful text messages
to thousands of residents of this district promoting specials and
events at the Brew House and encouraging Plaintiff and the putative
class members to visit Brew House in order to spend money. By
sending the text messages at issue, Defendants have caused
Plaintiff and the putative class members actual harm.

The Defendants are part of a large group of businesses known as The
Cordish Companies, which are commonly owned, controlled, and/or
operated. The Cordish Companies, including the Defendants, work
together toward common business objectives, much like a single
large entity, and many even share the same directors, officers,
employees, equipment, and/or office locations. The Cordish
Companies attempt to separate and insulate various aspects of each
business into separate entities, rather than a single entity,
presumably for desired financial, tax, legal, liability, and other
perceived business advantages.

For example, Defendant Brew House is a bar and restaurant located
within the Ballpark Village entertainment district in St. Louis,
Missouri. Brew House controls the day-to-day management of the
restaurant, such as interacting with the public, serving food and
drinks to customers, cleaning the tables and floors, etc.

Defendant ECI, however, is a bar and restaurant management company
that provides the corporate decision making for Defendant Brew
House, Ballpark Village, as well as multiple other
Cordish-controlled entities. Defendant ECI controls, in whole or in
part, corporate decisions for Defendant Brew House such as hiring
and training, nationwide and local marketing, and creation and/or
selection of hardware, software, web services, and other
third-party services to be used by Brew House and other
Cordish-controlled venues.

In approximately 2014, in order to market products and services, to
increase revenue, to expand the customer base, and to pursue other
marketing objectives, Defendants ECI and Brew House developed,
acquired, licensed, and/or used custom, high-powered text-messaging
programs ("Autodialer") that can select random, sequential, and/or
stored phone numbers, dial such numbers, and send thousands of
unsolicited automated text messages to such numbers. Defendants ECI
and Brew House also designed, developed, implemented, and
supervised a comprehensive marketing scheme ("Text-Blast Scheme")
whereby ECI and Cordish-controlled entities, including Defendant
Brew House, compiled thousands of cell phone numbers and used the
Autodialer to bombard the individuals having such cell phone
numbers with special offers, prizes, events, and happy hours via
unsolicited text message.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated:

          Anthony L. DeWitt, Esq.
          Edward D. Robertson, III, Esq.
          BARTIMUS FRICKLETON
          ROBERTSON RADER, PC
          109 B East High Street
          Jefferson City, MO 65101
          Telephone: 573-659-4454

FARMERS INSURANCE: Williams Suit over Vehicular Accident Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit over a vehicular accident remains pending against the
owners of a vehicle and their insurance company, Farmers
Insurance.

The lawsuit alleges that the owners of a Ford F250 truck hit the
plaintiff's vehicle and fled the accident scene to evade liability
and responsibility.  The collision caused damage to the plaintiff's
car and emotional distress and mental anguish to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff seeks about $900,000 in damages.  The plaintiff said
he has timely filed sufficient claims for damages.  The plaintiff
filed the case on behalf of himself and the general public as well
as on behalf of all other persons and class similarly situated.

The case is captioned as BRIAN WILLIAMS, individually, on behalf of
himself, the general public and on behalf of all other persons and
class similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DELBERT LINDSEY HODGE,
Sr. aka: DELBERT C. HODGE, Sr., individually and in his official
capacity as OWNER OF 15 one 1997 FORD F250 Truck having a License
Plate No. 8X46331 individually; LARRY LEON HORNE, individually and
in his official capacity as OWNER OF one 1997 FORD F250 Truck
having a License Plate No 8X46331 individually; CEDRIC TAVAN HORNE
individually and in his official capacity as OWNER OF a prior state
issued License by the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, individually; JOHN
DOE(S) and/or JANE DOE(S) in his and/or her official capacity as
OWNER(S) OF one unknown year TRAILER  /HITCH having a License Plate
No. 4EN4105 individually; JEFFREY JOHN DAILEY, individually and in
his official capacity as CEO and DIRECTOR of FARMERS INSURANCE, a
public entity Doing business in the County of Los Angeles as a
Public Entity Under Laws of and in the State of California,
individually; FARMERS SERVICES INSURANCE AGENCY, dba: FARMERS
INSURANCE GROUP, INC., a public entity Doing business in the County
of Los Angeles as a Public Entity Under Laws and in the State of
California, individually; KEITH G. DALY, individually and in his
official capacity as CEO of FARMERS SERVICES INSURANCE AGENCY,
individually; FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., aka: FARMERS
INSURANCE GROUP, INC., a public entity Doing Business in the County
of Los Angeles as a Public Entity Under Laws of and in the State of
California, individually; ROB HOWARD, individually and in his
official capacity as CHIEF CLAIMS OFFICER of FARMERS INSURANCE
COMPANY, INC., dba: FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, INC., a public entity
Doing Business in the County of Los Angeles as a Public Entity
Under Laws of and in the State of California, individually; FARMERS
SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, dba: FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
dba: FARMERS SERVICES INSURANCE AGENCY and dba: FARMERS INSURANCE
GROUP, INC., a public entity Doing Business in the County of Los
Angeles as a Public Entity Under Laws of and in the State of
California, individually; RICHARD M. SHRTVER, individually and in
his official capacity as CEO of FARMERS SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, individually; FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, INC., a public
entity Doing Business in the County of Los Angeles as a Public
Entity Under Laws of and in the State of California, individually;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC722729 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 21, 2018).[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


FLEX LTD: Hearing on Motion to Intervene Set for April 4
--------------------------------------------------------
Flex Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2019, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2018, that the hearing on a motion to
intervene in a putative class action pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California is set to be
heard April 4, 2019. Additionally, the court has set a case
management conference for April 24.

On May 8, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain officers
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder,
alleging misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the Company's
financial results, press releases and SEC filings made during the
putative class period of January 26, 2017 through April 26, 2018.

On October 1, 2018, the Court appointed lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel in the case. On November 28, 2018, lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging misstatements and/or
omissions in certain of the Company's SEC filings, press releases,
earnings calls, and analyst and investor conferences and expanding
the putative class period through October 25, 2018.

On January 8, 2019, another shareholder filed a motion to intervene
in the case for the purposes of vacating the Court's October 1,
2018 order and reopening the lead plaintiff process; that motion is
set for hearing on April 4, 2019. On January 15, 2019, the Court
issued an order providing that defendants need not file any motion
to dismiss until after the motion to intervene is decided.

In addition, the Court has set a case management conference for
April 24, 2019.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend this case.

Flex Ltd. provides design, engineering, manufacturing, and supply
chain services and solutions to original equipment manufacturers
worldwide. It operates through Communications & Enterprise Compute,
Consumer Technologies Group, Industrial and Emerging Industries,
and High Reliability Solutions segments. The company was formerly
known as Flextronics International Ltd. and changed its name to
Flex Ltd. in September 2016. Flex Ltd. was founded in 1990 and is
based in Singapore.


GAJS INC: Curko Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Withheld Gratuities
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY CURKO, individually, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. G.A.J.S., INC. d/b/a RIVER PALM TERRACE and
JOHN CAMPBELL, individually, Case No. 2:19-cv-04426 (D.N.J.,
February 1, 2019), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime
compensation, and misappropriated gratuities under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and New Jersey
common law.

The Plaintiff brings the lawsuit on his and his co-workers' behalf
-- servers, bussers, runners, bartenders, and other similarly
situated tipped employees, who work or have worked at the River
Palm Terrace restaurant located at 1416 River Road, in Edgewater,
New Jersey ("RPT").

G.A.J.S., Inc., doing business as River Palm Terrace, is a domestic
business corporation organized and existing under the laws of New
Jersey.  John Campbell has been an owner and operator of RPT.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          Arsenio D. Rodriguez, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375
          E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com
                  arodriguez@fslawfirm.com
                  dcimera@fslawfirm.com


GC SERVICES: Thomas Suit Transferred to Eastern Dist. of Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Brandi Thomas, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GC Services Limited
Partnership, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00908, was transferred
from the United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee) on Feb. 7, 2019. The Eastern
District of Wisconsin Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-00203-DEJ to the proceeding. The suit alleges Fair Debt
Collection Act violation. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Magistrate Judge David E. Jones.

GC Services provides accounts receivable and customer care
solutions to public and private sector organizations.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          John D Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A Eldridge, Esq.
          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY LLP
          3620 E Layton Ave
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 282-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: bslatky@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  sademi@ademilaw.com

Attorneys for GC Services Limited Partnership:

          Douglas S Knott, Esq.
          LEIB KNOTT GAYNOR LLC
          219 N Milwaukee St-Ste 710
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 276-2109
          Facsimile: (414) 276-2140
          E-mail: dknott@lkglaw.net

GDT ENTERPRISES: Jaime Value Seeks Overtime Pay for Kitchen Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAIME DAVID VALUE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GDT ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a
CROWN STEAKHOUSE and GERARD MCCLOREY, as an individual, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00797-SJF-AKT (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 8,
2019), seeks to recover damages including compensatory damages and
liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000.00 for egregious
violations of state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of
Plaintiffs employment at GDT Enterprises, Inc, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's primary duties were as
a food preparer, dishwasher, and kitchen worker, and performing
other miscellaneous duties from in or around October 2016 until in
or around January 2018. The Plaintiff was paid by the Defendants
approximately $450.00 per week from in or around October 2016 until
in or around December 2016, approximately $500.00 per week from in
or around January 2017 until in or around December 2017, and
approximately $650.00 per week in or around January 2018. The
Plaintiff regularly worked approximately 60 or more hours per week
from in or around October 2016 until in or around January 2018.
Although the Plaintiff worked approximately 60 or more hours per
week during his employment by the Defendants, the Defendants did
not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a
blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA
and NYLL, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591

GENERAL MOTORS: Economic Loss-Related Suits Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself from several economic-loss-related class
action suits.

The company is aware of over 100 putative class actions pending
against GM in U.S. and Canadian courts alleging that consumers who
purchased or leased vehicles manufactured by GM or MLC (formerly
known as General Motors Corporation) had been economically harmed
by one or more of the 2014 recalls and/or the underlying vehicle
conditions associated with those recalls (economic-loss cases).

In general, these economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported
compensatory damages, such as alleged benefit-of-the-bargain
damages or damages related to alleged diminution in value of the
vehicles, as well as punitive damages, injunctive relief and other
relief.

Many of the pending U.S. economic-loss claims have been transferred
to, and consolidated in, a single federal court, the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Southern District).
These plaintiffs have asserted economic-loss claims under federal
and state laws, including claims relating to recalled vehicles
manufactured by GM and claims asserting successor liability
relating to certain recalled vehicles manufactured by MLC.

The Southern District has dismissed various of these claims,
including claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act, claims for recovery for alleged reduction in the
value of plaintiffs' vehicles due to damage to GM's reputation and
brand as a result of the ignition switch matter, and claims of
certain plaintiffs who purchased a vehicle before GM came into
existence in July 2009. The Southern District also dismissed
certain state law claims at issue.

In August 2017 the Southern District granted the company's  motion
to dismiss the successor liability claims of plaintiffs in seven of
the sixteen states at issue on the motion and called for additional
briefing to decide whether plaintiffs' claims can proceed in the
other nine states.

In December 2017 the Southern District granted GM's motion and
dismissed successor liability claims of plaintiffs in an additional
state, but found that there are genuine issues of material fact
that prevent summary judgment for GM in eight other states. In
January 2018, GM moved for reconsideration of certain portions of
the Southern District's December 2017 summary judgment ruling.

That motion was granted in April 2018, dismissing plaintiffs'
successor liability claims in any state where New York law
applies.

In September 2018 the Southern District granted the company's
motion to dismiss claims for lost personal time (in 41 out of 47
jurisdictions) and certain unjust enrichment claims, but denied its
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' economic loss claims in 27
jurisdictions under the "manifest defect" rule. Significant summary
judgment, class certification, and expert evidentiary motions
remain at issue.

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

General Motors Company designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks,
crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide. The company operates
through GM North America, GM International, GM Cruise, and GM
Financial. General Motors Company was founded in 1908 and is
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Several Airbag Inflators-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the company has been
named as defendant in several class action suits related to
defective airbag inflators manufactured by Takata.

Through January 25, 2019 the company is aware of three putative
class actions pending against GM in federal court in the U.S., one
putative class action in Mexico and three putative class actions
pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada arising out of
allegations that airbag inflators manufactured by Takata are
defective.

General Motors said, "At this early stage of these proceedings, we
are unable to provide an evaluation of the likelihood that a loss
will be incurred or an estimate of the amounts or range of possible
loss."

General Motors Company designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks,
crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide. The company operates
through GM North America, GM International, GM Cruise, and GM
Financial. General Motors Company was founded in 1908 and is
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.


GLOBAL RADAR: FCRA Class Action Survives Key Hurdle
---------------------------------------------------
Thomas Cull, Esq. -- thomas.cull@wbd-us.com -- writing for Womble
Bond Dickinson's FCRAland, reports that there's another big FCRA
decision in Sanders v. Global Radar Acquisition. In Sanders, the
plaintiffs filed a putative class action claiming that the
Defendants failed "to obtain certification prior to furnishing a
consumer report for employment purposes in violation of 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1681b(b)(1)(A)." The Plaintiffs were employed by Naples Hotel
Group, which was not a party to the action, but were terminated
based on the contents of background checks provided by Global HR, a
consumer reporting agency. The crux of the claim was not that the
Defendant reported false information but rather that the Defendant
lacked certifications from the Naples Hotel Group that were
required by the FCRA before providing reports. The issue before the
district court was whether the plaintiffs had Article III standing
to sue.

By way of some background: When applying for a position at Naples
Hotel Group, Plaintiffs were required to sign documents titled
"Notice and Acknowledgment", which purportedly authorized Naples
Hotel Group to procure their consumer reports for employment
purposes. Global HR supplied the "Notice and Acknowledgement"
forms, which plaintiffs allege did not comply with the FCRA. (If
you're keeping score at home, the relevant statutory provisions are
15 U.S.C. Sections 1681b(b)(1)(A)(i)-(ii), (b)(2), and (b)(3)).

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege they were terminated on
October 5, 2016 based upon the consumer reports Global HR
unlawfully furnished to Naples Hotel Group and were never provided
with pre-adverse action notification required by the FCRA. They
further allege that Global HR invaded their "right of privacy" by
providing their confidential information without proper
authorization. The Defendant moved to dismiss.

Importantly, the question in the Sanders case isn't whether the
Plaintiffs had statutory standing to sue. Instead, the issue was
whether under Spokeo the plaintiffs had Article III standing.
Article III standing is a threshold requirement to bring a claim,
which (like jurisdiction) must be addressed before the merits. To
establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must establish injury
in fact, causation, and redressability. For injury in fact, it's
not enough to allege a procedural violation. The plaintiff must
actually have suffered harm. That harm must be caused by the
Defendant's conduct. It must be "fairly traceable" to the
Defendant. Finally, the harm suffered must be capable of redress by
a favorable decision.

The Sanders court found that the Plaintiffs' harm wasn't a mere
technical violation of the statute but, rather, was precisely the
type of harm the FCRA intends to protect against: the distribution
of consumer reports without authorization. As to causation, the
Court also found that, critically, that harm was "fairly traceable"
to the Defendant's conduct. Specifically, the injury flowed from
the Defendant's conduct. The Court denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss and found that the Plaintiffs had Article III standing to
sue.

Now that the Plaintiffs have survived a key hurdle, stay tuned as
we closely watch the next big challenge for the Sanders Plaintiffs:
class certification. [GN]


GO AU PAIR: Agrees to Settle Au Pair Wage Dispute
-------------------------------------------------
Go Au Pair and 14 other sponsor agencies are defendants in a class
action case in Denver, Colorado related to the au pair stipend. Go
Au Pair has always remained in compliance with State Department
requirements for the program, and is committed to upholding federal
regulations. As the Court recognized in a recent order: "Plaintiffs
do not proffer evidence that defendants actively concealed truthful
wage and hour information from class members on class-wide bases.
More importantly, the express language of the contracts referenced
by plaintiffs disprove the plaintiffs' assertions."

However, to put an end to this lengthy and burdensome litigation
for the benefit of all parties, a settlement has been reached. The
parties have submitted a preliminary agreement to the Court, which
must be approved by the Court before it becomes effective. The
agreement to settle is a very positive and significant step toward
reaching a conclusion. Importantly, the settlement agreement
specifically states that Go Au Pair and the other sponsors continue
to dispute the allegations. And the State Department's formula that
sets the minimum weekly stipend remains unchanged.

Under the settlement, which is subject to Court approval, the
sponsors must pay a total of $65.5 million to resolve the claims.
The au pairs' lawyers are seeking compensation of approximately $25
million. The settlement also requires that the sponsors clarify in
their written materials that the State Department stipend amount is
a minimum. This requirement is consistent with Go Au Pair's
longstanding business practices. Since its inception, Go Au Pair
has included clear statements in its contracts and written
materials specifying that the stipend amount is only a minimum, and
host families and au pairs are free to agree to a higher amount. Go
Au Pair will continue to communicate this message to program
participants.

Go Au Pair is proud of our commitment to helping au pairs and host
families cultivate a rewarding experience.

According to participants and the State Department, the au pair
program is very successful and popular among both au pairs and host
families. Most recently, in 2017 as part of annual audits performed
by all agencies, 93% of 1,000+ au pair respondents and 91% of
1,000+ host family respondents reported they would recommend the
program to a friend.

The graphs below show the high levels of satisfaction reported in
survey responses collected from thousands of au pairs and host
families over a three-year period. Unlike other "studies"
referencing a few au pairs (e.g. 1 -20 au pairs), these surveys
provide a broader and more accurate picture of how participants
feel about the au pair program. The State Department provides this
information by randomly selecting and consolidating survey results
from annual audits conducted by independent auditors for each
sponsor.

Case: Beltran v. Interexchange, Civil Action No.
14-cv-03074-CMA-KMT. United States District Court, D. Colorado.
[GN]


GREATER MIAMI CATERERS: Rodriguez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daymaris Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Greater Miami Caterers, Inc. and Jacqueline
Butler, individually, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-20254, (S.D. Fla.,
January 17, 2019), seeks redress for Defendants' failure to pay
minimum wages to all drivers pursuant to the Florida Minimum Wage
Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a catering and food delivery business based in
Miami Shores where Rodriguez worked as a van delivery driver.
Rodriguez regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week but was
not paid time and one-half wages for all of her actual overtime
hours worked each week, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith M. Stern, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
      One Flagler, 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: (305) 901-1379
      Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
      E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com


HEMANI HOLDINGS: Hollingsworth Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON A. HOLLINGSWORTH, and other similarly-situated individuals
v. HEMANI HOLDINGS LLC a/k/a FLORIDA GLOBAL TRANSPORTATION and
RIYAZ KHALFAN, individually, Case No. 6:19-cv-00199 (M.D. Fla.,
January 31, 2019), seeks to recover money damages for alleged
unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Hemani Holdings LLC, also known as Florida Global Transportation,
is a Florida corporation having its main place of business in
Seminole County, Florida.  Riyaz Khalfan is an owner, partner or
manager of the Defendant Corporation.

Florida Global provides non-emergency transportation services to
Medicare patients.  Florida Global provides non-urgent patient
transportation services in connection with a government entity or
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HERSHEY COMPANY: Tomasella Appeals D. Mass. Ruling to 1st Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Danell Tomasella filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Tomasella v. The Hershey Co., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-10360-ADB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Boston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to enjoin the Defendants from continuing alleged unfair and
deceptive marketing and sale of their Chocolate Products.

According to the complaint, America's largest and most profitable
food companies should not tolerate child labor, much less child
slave labor, anywhere in their supply chains.  These companies
should not turn a blind eye to known human rights abuses or shirk
from investigating and preventing potential human rights abuses by
their suppliers, especially when the companies consistently and
affirmatively represent that they act in a socially and ethically
responsible manner.  When these food companies fail to uphold their
responsibility for ensuring the absence of child and slave labor in
their supply chains, their misconduct has the profound consequence
of supporting and encouraging such labor.  And when these food
companies fail to disclose the use of child and slave labor in
their supply chains to consumers at the point of sale, they are
deceived into buying products they would not have otherwise and
thereby unwittingly supporting child and slave labor themselves
through their product purchases.  Such food companies should be
required to make restitution to the consumers they have deceived
and to ensure the absence of child and slave labor in their supply
chains in the future.

The appellate case is captioned as Tomasella v. The Hershey Co., et
al., Case No. 19-1132, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Docketing
Statement and Appearance form were due on February 19, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant DANELL TOMASELLA, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 2nd Ave., Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Hannah W. Brennan, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Pkwy., Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142-0000
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          E-mail: hannahb@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 N Lake Ave., Suite 920
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com

Defendants-Appellees HERSHEY COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, and
HERSHEY CHOCOLATE & CONFECTIONERY CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, are represented by:

          Daniel A. Friedman, Esq.
          Jonah M. Knobler, Esq.
          Steven A. Zalesin, Esq.
          PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
          1133 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036-6710
          Telephone: (212) 336-2000
          E-mail: dfriedman@pbwt.com
                  jknobler@pbwt.com
                  sazalesin@pbwt.com

               - and -

          Stephen P. Hall, Esq.
          Ralph T. Lepore, Esq.
          Robert Michael Shaw, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          10 St. James Ave., 11th Floor
          Boston, MA 02116-0000
          Telephone: (617) 305-2101
          E-mail: Stephen.Hall@hklaw.com
                  rlepore@hklaw.com
                  robert.shaw@hklaw.com


HORIZONS SATELLITES: Bryant Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bryant, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Horizons Satellites, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-05903 (N.D. Ga.,
December 27, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and declaratory relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has violated and continues
to violate the FLSA by misclassifying their Technicians/Installers
as "independent contractors" and refusing to pay them a livable
wage.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an Installers/Technician
and got paid by a piece-rate production from August 2015 through
April 2018.

The Defendant is in the business of installing, testing and repair
of satellites and related equipment that receive communication
satellite signals for residential customers of the Dish Network in
multiple states throughout the United States, including Georgia.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Hall, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
      P.O. Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Tel: (407) 418 2079
      Fax: (407) 245-3390
      E-mail: ahall@forthepeople.com


HYUNDAI: Court Publishes Procedural Guidance Following Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle C. Worrell, Esq. -- Kyle.Worrell@jacksonlewis.com -- of
Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California has published procedural guidance for parties submitting
class action settlements for preliminary and final approval in the
Northern District. Details of the Northern District's procedural
guidance for Class Action Settlements may be accessed here.

The new guidance may be a response to the Ninth Circuit's ruling in
Espinosa v. Ahearn (In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig.) 2018
U.S. App. LEXIS 1626 (Jan. 23, 2018) regarding the "rigorous
analysis" required by district courts in reviewing class
certification, and the "heightened" attention needed for reviewing
class action settlements in particular.

The Northern District's detailed procedural guidance provides a
roadmap of topics and issues for parties to consider during class
action settlement negotiations, when drafting class notices, and in
preparing and submitting preliminary and final approval documents.
While many of these issues are generally known and discussed
amongst experienced class action counsel, some of the more granular
considerations include requests to provide information about "lead
counsel's firms' history of engagements with the settlement
administrator over the last two years," consulting "relevant prior
orders by the judge" related to incentive awards, and submitting
information about lead counsel's "past comparable class
settlements."

Parties attempting to avoid unnecessary delay or denial of approval
in the Northern District would be well-served by carefully
reviewing and following the Court's new guidelines when
appropriate, in addition to the specific orders of their presiding
judge. [GN]


ILLINOIS: Chester License Dismissed from Champ Suit w/ Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRYON K. CHAMP, Plaintiff, v. CHESTER LICENSE
FACILITY, and their agents and Administrative employee, SHIRLEY
FORCUM, and her agents, WAYNE WOMAC, Forensic Coordinator, CARRIE
MORRIS, Old Therapist, CHERYL SIMMON, Property Coordinator, RHIANNA
DRAPER, New Therapist, NAGESWARARAO VALLABHANNI, M.D., Physician,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-CV-01986-SMY (S.D. Ill.), Judge Staci M.
Yandle of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois (i) dismissed with prejudice Chester License Facility and
their agents, and Administrative Employee Shirley Forcum and her
agents as Defendants; (ii) dismissed without prejudice Womac and
Drapper as Defendants; (iii) allowed Count 1 to proceed against
Forcum, Morris, and Dr. Vallabhanni; and (iv) dismissed without
prejudice Count 2.

Champ brings the pro se action for deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.  The
Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee being held in the Winnebago
County Jail.  During criminal proceedings (which appear to be
ongoing), he Plaintiff presented "exculpatory proof" and legal
issues not produced by his attorney.   Judge Randy Wilt, Attorney
Patrick E. Braun, State's Attorney Joseph Carder, and Robert Meyer,
Ph.D.3 retaliated against the Plaintiff for presenting this
evidence by colluding to find him unfit to stand trial, resulting
in his transfer to Chester.  The Plaintiff was detained at Chester
from April 5, 2018 to Aug. 29, 2018, at which time he was returned
to Winnebago County Jail.

While detained at Chester, unit director Shirley Forcum, therapist
Carrie Morris, and Dr. Vallabhanni denied the Plaintiff access to
legal resources and materials, prohibited him from performing legal
work, and denied him copies of cases he requested.  As a result,
the Plaintiff was unable to file an amended complaint in one of his
lawsuits, resulting in a dismissal with prejudice.  Morris also
failed to make arrangements for the Plaintiff to attend a court
hearing.

Property coordinator Cheryl Simmon interfered with the Plaintiff's
incoming legal mail.  On one occasion, his legal mail appeared to
have been opened and then re-sealed with tape.  The Plaintiff
states that he has the right to have his legal mail opened in front
of him (it is unclear whether he is claiming interference with his
legal mail on other occasions).

The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.  The
case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A.

Judge Yandle finds that the Plaintiff has identified "Chester
License Facility and their agents" and "Administrative Employee
Shirley Forcum and her agents" as Defendants.  However, the
Plaintiff cannot maintain his suit against Chester License Facility
(presumably Chester Mental Health Facility) because it is a
division of a state governmental agency and is not a "person"
subject to suit under section 1983.  Additionally, Chester License
Facility's "agents" and Shirly Forcum's "agents" are not proper
Defendants.  The Plaintiff must identify an individual (not block
groups of individuals) who deprived him of his constitutional
rights.

In the body of the Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts that Judge
Randy Wilt, Attorney Patrick E. Braun, State's Attorney Joseph
Carder, and Dr. Robert Meyer violated his civil rights in
connection with ongoing criminal proceedings.  However, these
individuals are not identified as Defendants in the case caption or
list of the Defendants.  The Judge will not treat parties not
listed in the caption as Defendants, and any claims against them
are considered dismissed without prejudice.

The Plaintiff lists Wayne Womac and Rhianna Draper as Defendants in
the case caption but fails to allege they engaged in any specific
conduct that deprived him of his constitutional rights.  Instead,
he pleads in conclusory fashion that these individuals, among
others, are responsible for violating his constitutional rights.
Such generic allegations are insufficient to state a claim under
Section 1983.  Accordingly, Womac and Draper will be dismissed
without prejudice.

Based on the allegations of the Complaint, the Judge finds it
convenient to designate the following Counts in this pro se action.
The parties and the Court will use these designations in all
future pleadings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a
judicial officer of the Court.  The designation of these Counts
does not constitute an opinion regarding their merit.

     Count 1: Fourteenth Amendment access to the courts claim
against Forcum, Morris, and Vallabhanni based upon a missed court
appearance, the denial of access to legal materials, and
prohibiting legal work resulting in a dismissal with prejudice for
failure to file an amended complaint in one of the Plaintiff's
lawsuits.

     Count 2: Fourteenth Amendment access to the courts claim
against Simmon for interfering with the Plaintiff's legal mail.

As to Count 1, the Plaintiff alleges he missed a court appearance,
was denied access to legal materials, and was prohibited from
"legal work" resulting in a dismissal with prejudice for failure to
file an amended complaint in one of his lawsuits.  These
allegations are sufficient to allow Count 1 to proceed against
Forcum, Morris, and Dr. Vallabhanni.

As to Count 2, the Judge holds that a claim for interference with
court access requires some quantum of detriment caused by the
challenged conduct of state officials resulting in the interruption
and/or delay of plaintiff's pending or contemplated litigation.
While it is unclear whether the Plaintiff is claiming ongoing
interference with his legal mail, the Complaint does not allege any
harm as a result of ongoing interference with his legal mail or
from the opening of his legal mail on one occasion.  Accordingly,
the claim in Count 2 against Simmon will be dismissed without
prejudice.

Finally, the Plaintiff purports to bring the lawsuit as a class
action.  To the extent that the Plaintiff is seeking class
treatment and certification, the request is denied.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Yandle dismissed with prejudice (i)
Chester License Facility and their agents and (ii) Administrative
Employee Shirley Forcum and her agents. The Clerk of the Court is
directed terminate as parties in the Court's Case
Management/Electronic Case Filing ("CM/ECF") system.  Further, the
Clerk of the Court is directed to add Shirley Forcum as a Defendant
in CM/ECF.

The Judge dismissed without prejudice Womac and Draper for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  The Clerk of
the Court is directed to terminate them as Defendants in CM/ECF.

COUNT 1 will receive further review as to Forcum, Morris, and
Vallabhanni.  Count 2 is dismissed without prejudice for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  In connection with
this dismissal, the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate
Simmon as a Defendant in CM/ECF.

The Judge further directed the Clerk of Court to prepare for
Forcum, Morris, and Villabhanni: (1) Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit
and Request to Waive Service of a Summons), and (2) Form 6 (Waiver
of Service of Summons).  The Clerk will mail these forms, a copy of
the Complaint, and the Memorandum and Order to the Defendant's
place of employment as identified by the Plaintiff.  If the
Defendant fails to sign and return the Waiver of Service of Summons
(Form 6) to the Clerk within 30 days from the date the forms were
sent, the Clerk will take appropriate steps to effect formal
service Defendant, and the Court will require him to pay the full
costs of formal service, to the extent authorized by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

If a Defendant cannot be found at the work address provided by the
Plaintiff, the employer will furnish the Clerk with that the
Defendant's current work address, or, if not known, that the
Defendant's last-known address.  This information will be used only
for sending the forms as directed above or for formally effecting
service.  Any documentation of the address will be retained only by
the Clerk. Address information will not be maintained in the court
file or disclosed by the Clerk.

The Judge ordered the Defendants to timely file an appropriate
responsive pleading to the Complaint and will not waive filing a
reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(g).

Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), the action is referred to a
United States Magistrate Judge for further pre-trial proceedings.
Further, the entire matter will be referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge for disposition, pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b)(3)
and 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c), if all parties consent to such a
referral.

If judgment is rendered against the Plaintiff, and the judgment
includes the payment of costs under Section 1915, the Plaintiff
will be required to pay the full amount of the costs, despite the
fact that his application to proceed in forma pauperis has been
granted.

Finally, the Judge advised the Plaintiff that he is under a
continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and each opposing
party informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts.  This will be done in
writing and not later than seven days after a transfer or other
change in address occurs.  Failure to comply with the Order will
cause a delay in the transmission of court documents and may result
in dismissal of the action for want of prosecution.

The Court will take the necessary steps to notify the appropriate
Defendants of the lawsuit and serve them with a copy of the
complaint.  After service has been achieved, the Defendants will
enter their appearance and file an Answer to the Complaint.  It
will likely take at least 60 days from the date of the Order to
receive the Defendants' Answers, but it is entirely possible that
it will take 90 days or more.  When all the Defendants have filed
Answers, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order containing
important information on deadlines, discovery, and procedures.  The
Plaintiff is advised to wait until counsel has appeared for the
Defendants before filing any motions, to give them notice and an
opportunity to respond to those motions.  Motions filed before the
Defendants' counsel has filed an appearance will generally be
denied as premature.  The Plaintiff needs not submit any evidence
to the Court at this time, unless specifically directed to do so.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/zdasxt from Leagle.com.

Bryon K Champ, Plaintiff, pro se.


INDIANA: OOIDA Files Class Action Over Truck Toll Increase
----------------------------------------------------------
CDLLife reports that the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association (OOIDA) filed suit against several groups in Indiana
over a recent toll increase that impacted only truckers.

On Wednesday, January 9, OOIDA filed a class action lawsuit against
Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb, the Indiana Finance Authority, the
Indiana Toll Road Concession Co. and other Indiana state officials
over a recent toll increase, according to a report from the
Tribune-Star.

On October 5, 2018, tolls for Class 3 or higher vehicles on the
Indiana Toll Road went up by 35% while the toll rate for passenger
vehicles stayed the same. For a Class 5 vehicle traveling the
entire length of the Indiana Toll Road, the toll increased from
$44.46 to $60.02.

The toll increase was put in place after Mr. Holcomb came to an
agreement with the Indiana Finance Authority -- if they increased
tolls on trucks, he was to receive $1 billion worth of funding for
an infrastructure improvement program called "Next Level
Connections" that will be used to fund several projects that have
little to do with the Indiana Toll Road.

OOIDA's suit argues that that toll increase violates the U.S.
Constitution's Commerce Clause and the Privileges and Immunities
Clause, which "impose limitations upon the authority of states to
undertake measures that create an undue burden upon, or that
discriminate against, interstate commerce."

The suit argues that it is unconstitutional for Indiana to use
money generated from tolling truckers on the Indiana Toll Road to
pay for non-roadway related projects like new hiking and biking
trails, increasing broadband access to "underserved" areas, and
increasing the number of nonstop flights out of Indiana airports.
Only about $50 million was earmarked for Indiana Toll Road
improvements.

The lawsuits argues that it is unfair that truckers who must bear
the burden of increased tolls do not benefit from many of these
projects. "The $1 billion announced by Gov. Holcomb on Sept. 4,
2018 for inclusion in his Next Level Connections program was
earmarked in its entirety for projects not functionally related to
the Toll Road," the lawsuit states. [GN]


INTEGRATED DEVICE: Merger Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Device Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6,
2019, for the quarterly period ended December 30, 2018, that class
action lawsuits over a merger transaction have been voluntarily
dismissed.

On September 10, 2018, the Company and Renesas announced that they
had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
September 10, 2018.

On November 20, 2018, a purported class action was filed in Santa
Clara County Superior Court (Phalen v. Integrated Device
Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 18CV338946).

On November 26, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court of Delaware (Rosenblatt v. Integrated
Device Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-cv-01860-LPS).

On November 28, 2018, a second purported class action was filed in
the United States District Court of Delaware (Wang v. Integrated
Device Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-cv-01885-LPS).

On November 30, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (Neeld v. Integrated Device Technology, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:18-cv-07217-SI).

The Company was named as a defendant in all four class action
complaints. The Phalen complaint asserted claims for breach of
fiduciary duties, and sought to enjoin the proposed transaction
between the Company and Renesas as well as certain other equitable
relief, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Rosenblatt, Wang, and Neeld complaints asserted claims under
Sections 14 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging
that the Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A filed by the
Company with the SEC contained material omissions and
misstatements, and sought to enjoin the proposed transaction
between the Company and Renesas as well as certain other equitable
relief, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On or around January 23, 2019, Phalen voluntarily dismissed his
complaint with prejudice. On or around January 31, 2019, Rosenblatt
and Wang voluntarily dismissed their complaints with prejudice. On
or around February 1, 2019, Neeld voluntarily dismissed his
complaint with prejudice.

Integrated Device Technology, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures,
and markets a range of semiconductor solutions for the
communications, computing, consumer, automotive, industrial, and
industrial end-markets. It operates in two segments,
Communications; and Computing, Consumer and Industrial. Integrated
Device Technology, Inc. was founded in 1980 and is headquartered in
San Jose, California.


KITEC: Plumbing System Claims Period Ends in January 2020
---------------------------------------------------------
CBC News, with files Arms Bumanlag and Yvonne Colbert, reports that
Heather McAuley always thought the blue and orange pipes in her
south Windsor home looked cool. But then she found out about the
class-action lawsuit brought against Kitec.

The company makes fixtures and pipes, which were found to be prone
to deterioration, leading to leaks and floods.

"We were very lucky we haven't had an issue yet, but I was
surprised to know it had been recalled," she said. "I haven't heard
anything about it."

The way she found out about the recall was through a CBC News
article about how a $125-million settlement for people who bought
the product has gone largely unclaimed since Jan. 10, 2012 -- with
less than $3 million paid out, out of $100 million available after
paying legal fees, notices and other administration costs.

Over the past seven years, there have been 4,412 North Americans
who applied for and received partial compensation after their Kitec
system failed.

On top of that, there are 9,531 people who have the system without
having experienced leaks, but who filed for a claim anyway.

Rob Iseppi, home inspector with AmeriSpec Inspection Services, said
the issue with the pipes is there is metal inside the plastic,
which sometimes would come in contact with a different type of
metal at the joints -- leading to corrosion.

The pipes were used largely in hot water baseboard and in-floor
heating systems. The proximity to hot water would make the
corrosion happen faster, said Mr. Iseppi.

He didn't find anything wrong with McAuley's plumbing when he
inspected the pipes.

Even though she hasn't any leaks in the 17 years of being in her
home, she filed a claim anyway. Mr. Iseppi encouraged her let her
insurance company know about the Kitec plumbing.

"On a home inspection standpoint, it is a concern," said
Mr. Iseppi.

"Some of the insurance companies are now not wanting to insure it,
or wanting another inspection by a plumber typically."

The claims period ends in January 2020. Claims from people like Ms.
McAuley, who have not experienced leaks, will be processed after
the deadline has passed. [GN]


KOHN LAW: $270K Settlement in Rizzo FCRA Suit Denied w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SASHA RIZZO, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KOHN LAW FIRM S.C., Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-408-jdp (W.D. Wis.), Judge James D. Peterson of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denied
without prejudice the parties' motion for preliminary approval of
their class action settlement.

In the class action, Rizzo is proceeding on claim that the
Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, by publishing her and the other class
members' credit scores.  Rizzo applied for and received a credit
card from Discover Bank.  When Rizzo failed to repay the balance on
her card, Discover sued Rizzo in the Circuit Court for Eau Claire
County, Wisconsin.  Kohn was the law firm that represented
Discover. Attached to the state-court complaint was a copy of
Rizzo's monthly billing statement for her Discover account and
included in the statement was Rizzo's credit score, which was not
redacted.

Rizzo sued both Discover and Kohn, contending that publishing her
credit score violated both the FDCPA and the FCRA.  Rizzo later
dismissed her claims against Discover.  The Court then denied
Kohn's motion to compel arbitration because Rizzo did not have an
arbitration agreement with Kohn.

The Court certified the following classes:

     a. FCRA class: All current and former customers of Discover
Bank in the state of Wisconsin who have had their FICO credit
scores published by Kohn Law Firm, S.C. in circuit court collection
actions within two years of the date of the filing of the lawsuit
-- May 26, 2017.

     b. FDCPA class: All current and former customers of Discover
Bank in the state of Wisconsin who have had their FICO credit
scores published by Kohn Law Firm, S.C. in circuit court collection
actions within one year of the date of the filing of the lawsuit --
May 26, 2017.

Following class certification, the parties engaged in settlement
negotiations, resulting in the proposed settlement.  Under the
terms of the proposed settlement agreement, Kohn agrees to pay a
total of $270,000, which includes: (1) $89,100 in attorneys' fees;
(2) $10,004.89 for costs, including administration costs; (3)
$166,895.11 for the class ($194.29 for each of the 859 class
members); and (4) an additional $4,000 incentive award for Rizzo.
The class members will receive notice through direct mail and
through the settlement website.  Legal Action of Wisconsin will
receive any unclaimed amounts.

Judge Peterson opines that before the Court will give preliminary
approval of the settlement, the parties will need to explain how
they determined a fair settlement amount.  They provide almost no
information in their motion about the process they used to
calculate the class' potential damages.  Without that basic
information, the Court cannot determine whether the settlement
falls within the range of possible approval.

Based on this, the Judge denied without prejudice the parties'
motion for preliminary approval.  The parties may have until Feb.
14, 2019, to file a revised motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/HlIwGM from Leagle.com.

Sasha Rizzo, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua D. Christianson --
lawfirm@cf.legal -- Christianson & Freund, LLC, Thomas John Lyons,
Jr. -- tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com -- Consumer Justice Center,
P.A. & Thomas John Lyons, Sr. -- tlyons@lyonslawfirm.com -- Lyons
Law Firm PA.

Wisconsin Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company, Intervenor Plaintiff,
represented by Sheila M. Sullivan -- ssullivan@bmrlawyers.com --
Bell, Moore & Richter, S.C.

Kohn Law Firm S.C., Defendant, represented by Terry E. Johnson --
tjohnson@pjmlaw.com -- Peterson, Johnson & Murray, S.C.


KULICKE AND SOFFA: Kumar Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MANINDRA KUMAR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KULICKE AND
SOFFA INDUSTRIES, INC.; FUSEN CHEN; and JONATHAN CHOU, Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00362, was removed from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on January 22, 2019.
The Central District Court of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:19-cv-00362-CDJ to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
Judge Manuel L. Real and referred to Judge Frederick F. Mumm.

Kulicke and Soffa Industries, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells
capital equipment and tools to assemble semiconductor devices. The
company serves semiconductor device manufacturers, integrated
device manufacturers, outsourced semiconductor assembly and test
providers, other electronics manufacturers, industrial
manufacturers, and automotive electronics suppliers primarily in
the United States and the Asia/Pacific region. Kulicke and Soffa
Industries, Inc. was founded in 1951 and is headquartered in
Singapore. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


MARS INC: 1st Cir. Appeal Filed in Tomasella "Child Labor" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Danell Tomasella filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Tomasella v. Mars, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-10359-ADB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Boston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to enjoin the Defendants from continuing alleged unfair and
deceptive marketing and sale of their Chocolate Products.

According to the complaint, America's largest and most profitable
food companies should not tolerate child labor, much less child
slave labor, anywhere in their supply chains.  These companies
should not turn a blind eye to known human rights abuses or shirk
from investigating and preventing potential human rights abuses by
their suppliers, especially when the companies consistently and
affirmatively represent that they act in a socially and ethically
responsible manner.  When these food companies fail to uphold their
responsibility for ensuring the absence of child and slave labor in
their supply chains, their misconduct has the profound consequence
of supporting and encouraging such labor.  And when these food
companies fail to disclose the use of child and slave labor in
their supply chains to consumers at the point of sale, they are
deceived into buying products they would not have otherwise and
thereby unwittingly supporting child and slave labor themselves
through their product purchases.  Such food companies should be
required to make restitution to the consumers they have deceived
and to ensure the absence of child and slave labor in their supply
chains in the future.

The appellate case is captioned as Tomasella v. Mars, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 19-1131, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Docketing
Statement and Appearance form were due February 19, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant DANELL TOMASELLA, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 2nd Ave., Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Hannah W. Brennan, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Pkwy., Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142-0000
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          E-mail: hannahb@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 N Lake Ave., Suite 920
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com

Defendants-Appellees MARS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and MARS
CHOCOLATE NORTH AMERICA LLC, a Delaware company, are represented
by:

          David Horniak, Esq.
          Alison M. Newman, Esq.
          Stephen D. Raber, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 12th St. NW
          Washington, DC 20005-0000
          Telephone: (202) 434-5000
          E-mail: dhorniak@wc.com
                  anewman@wc.com
                  sraber@wc.com


MATCH GROUP: Deal Reached in Suit over Tinder's Age-Tiered Pricing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Match Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on February 6, 2019, that
the company has entered into a settlement of a class action
involving Tinder's age-tiered pricing.

In December 2018, Match Group entered into a settlement of a class
action lawsuit alleging that Tinder's age-tiered pricing violates
California law. If the settlement is approved by the court, members
of the class who have a current Tinder account will receive 50
Super Likes.

Additionally, class members submitting claims may obtain $25 in
cash, an additional 25 Super Likes, or a one-month subscription to
Tinder Gold or Plus. Tinder will also change its pricing practices.
As part of the settlement, Match Group also agreed to pay up to
$1.2 million in plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

Match Group, Inc. provides dating products. It operates a portfolio
of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic, OkCupid,
OurTime, and Pairs. Match Group, Inc. offers its dating products
through its Websites and applications in 42 languages approximately
in 190 countries. The company was incorporated in 2009 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match Group, Inc. is a subsidiary
of IAC/InterActiveCorp.


MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Bennett Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kendrick Bennett and Courtlande Collins individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. McDermott
International, Inc., Chicago Bridgr & Iron, Co., Chiyoda
International, Corporation, and Cameron Lng, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00158 (W.D. La., February 7, 2019) seeks to obtain
injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of individual employees,
to whom Defendants have failed to pay regular and overtime wages
for hours worked at Defendants' Cameron LNG Liquefaction Project in
Hackberry, Louisiana.

This Action challenges Defendants' denial, through a willful
practice and policy, to Plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated of rights, obligations, privileges, and benefits owed to
them as employees under the FLSA, including minimum wage and
overtime pay. Plaintiffs also assert that Defendants violated the
Louisiana Wage Payment Act ('LWPA'), by failing to pay regular and
overtime premium wages to all laborers upon termination of
employment, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Kendrick Bennett is a resident of Calcasieu Parish,
Louisiana who works for the Defendants.

Plaintiff Courtlande Collins is a resident of Lake Charles,
Louisiana who worked for the Defendants.

Defendants are in the business of providing engineering,
procurement, construction and installation services for
petrochemical, refining, gasification and gas processing
technologies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James E. Sudduth, III, Esq.
     Erin N. Abrams, Esq.
     Kourtney L. Kech, Esq.
     SUDDUTH AND ASSOCIATES, LLC
     1109 Pithon St.
     Lake Charles, LA 70601
     Phone: (337) 480-0101
     Fax: (337) 419-0507
     Email: James@saa.legal
            Erin@saa.legal
            Kourtney@saa.legal


MDL 2804: A.M.H. Suit v. Purdue over Opiates Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, A.M.H., Individually and in her capacity as legal
custodian of baby C.E., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Purdue Pharma LP., Purdue
Pharma Inc.; Cephalic Inc.; Neva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.;
Neva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Johnson & Johnson; Aramco Inc.; Or tho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Jansen Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Jansen Pharmaceutical Inc., now known as Jansen Pharmaceuticals
Inc.; Undo Health Solutions Inc.; Undo Pharmaceuticals Inc.;
Allergen PL, formerly known as: Activist PL; Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Activist Inc.; Watson
Laboratories Inc.; Activist Dharma, Inc., formerly known as: Watson
Dharma, Inc.; Activist LLC; Maeterlinck PL; Maeterlinck LLC;
McPherson Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.; Counterinsurgency Drug
Corporation; and Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-01018, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of New York, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on Feb. 8,
2019. The Northern District of Ohio Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-op-45052 to the proceeding.

The A.M.H. case is being consolidated with MDL 2804 in re: NATIONAL
PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. The ML was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multi district Litigation on
December 5, 2017. These cases concern the alleged improper
marketing of and inappropriate distribution of various prescription
opiate medications into cities, states and towns across the
country. Responding plaintiffs' positions on centralization vary
considerably. Plaintiffs in over 40 actions or potential tag-along
actions support centralization. Plaintiffs in 15 actions or
potential tag-along actions oppose centralization altogether or
oppose transfer of their action. In addition to opposing transfer,
the State of West Virginia suggests that the ML Panel delay
transferring its case until the Southern District of West Virginia
court decides its motion to remand to state court. Third party
payer plaintiffs in an Eastern District of Pennsylvania potential
tag-along action (Philadelphia Teachers Health and Welfare Fund)
oppose centralization of third participatory actions. Western
District of Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposes
centralization and, alternatively, requests exclusion of its case.
Northern District of Illinois tag-along Plaintiff City of Chicago
asks the Panel to defer transfer of its action until document
discovery is completed. The Presiding Judge in the MDL is Sarah S.
Vance, United States District Judge. The lead case is
1:17-MD-02804-PAD.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Donald E. Creadore, Esq.
          THE CREADORE LAW FIRM P.C.
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 355-7200
          Facsimile: (212) 583-0412
          E-mail: donald@creadorelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Barry J. Cooper, Jr., Esq.
          Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
          Stephen Wussow, Esq.
          Victor T. Cobb, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BARRY J. COOPER, JR.
          1525 Religious Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 309-0009
          Facsimile: (504) 309-6989
          E-mail: bcooper@sch-llc.com
                  cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com
                  swussow@sch-llc.com
                  vcobb@sch-llc.com

               - and -

          David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
          Kevin W. Thompson, Esq.
          THOMPSON BARNEY
          2030 Kanawha Boulevard E.
          Charleston, WV 25311
          Telephone: (304) 343-4401
          Facsimile: (304) 343-4405

               - and -

          Lawrence J. Centola, Esq.
          Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
          MARTZELL & BICKFORD
          338 Lafayette Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 581-9065
          Facsimile: (504) 581-7635
          E-mail: lcentola@mbfirm.com
                  srb@mbfirm.com

Attorneys for AmerisourceBergen Corporation:

          Paul Edward Asfendis, Esq.
          GIBBONS P.C.
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 37th Floor
          New York, NY 10119-3701
          Telephone: (212) 613-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 333-5980
          E-mail: pasfendis@gibbonslaw.com

Attorneys for Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Cephalon Inc.; Watson
Laboratories Inc.; Actavis LLC; and Actavis Pharma, Inc., formerly
known as: Watson Pharma, Inc.:

          Nicholas Robert Tambone, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          405 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 885-5120
          Facsimile: (917) 332-3023
          E-mail: ntambone@blankrome.com

               - and -

          Terry M. Henry, Esq.
          COZEN & O'CONNOR
          1900 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 665-4653
          Facsimile: (215) 701-2453
          E-mail: thenry@cozen.com

Attorneys for Endo Health Solutions Inc. and Endo Pharmaceuticals
Inc.:

          Alan E. Rothman, Esq.
          Angela R. Vicari, Esq.
          KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          425 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 836-8000
          Facsimile: (212) 836-8689
          E-mail: angela.vicari@arnoldporter.com

               - and -

          Sean O. Morris, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER - LOS ANGELES
          777 South Figueroa Street, Ste. 4400
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 243-4000
          Facsimile: (213) 243-4199
          E-mail: sean.morris@apks.com

MDL 2879: Fox Suit v Marriott over Data Breach Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MICHAEL J. FOX, ANTHONY MARTIN,
MONICA OGAWA, NORBERT HENNRICH, and SAMUEL MANGANO, the Plaintiffs,
vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. and STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS
WORLDWIDE, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07936 (Filed Dec.
1, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for Northern
District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland (Greenbelt) on Feb. 8, 2019. The District of Maryland
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00359-PWG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated persons, bring this class action to secure redress of
Defendants negligent and reckless violation of its customers'
privacy rights.

The Fox case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2879 in re:
Marriott International, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Feb. 6, 2019. These
actions -- which are putative nationwide and/or statewide consumer
class actions -- share factual issues concerning a
recently-disclosed breach of Marriott's Starwood guest reservation
database from 2014 to 2018.  In its Feb. 6, 2019 Order, the MDL
Panel found that the factual overlap among these actions is
substantial, as they all arise from the same data breach, and they
all allege that Marriott failed to put in to place reasonable data
protections. Many also allege that Marriott did not timely notify
the public of the data breach. Centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on
class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of
the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in
the MDL is Hon. Judge. Paul W. Grimm. The lead case is
8:19-md-02879-PWG.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
          2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone (630) 581-5456
          E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com

MDL 2879: Perkins Suit vs Marriott over Data Breach Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit titled DALLAS PERKINS, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC. and STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-12477 (Filed Nov. 30, 2018), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for District of
Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland (Greenbelt) on Feb. 8, 2019. The District of Maryland
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-00367-PWG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges violation of customers' privacy rights.

The Perkins case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2879 in re:
Marriott International, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Feb. 6, 2019. These
actions -- which are putative nationwide and/or statewide consumer
class actions -- share factual issues concerning a
recently-disclosed breach of Marriott's Starwood guest reservation
database from 2014 to 2018.  In its Feb. 6, 2019 Order, the MDL
Panel found that the factual overlap among these actions is
substantial, as they all arise from the same data breach, and they
all allege that Marriott failed to put in to place reasonable data
protections. Many also allege that Marriott did not timely notify
the public of the data breach. Centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on
class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of
the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in
the MDL is Hon. Judge. Paul W. Grimm. The lead case is
8:19-md-02879-PWG.[BN]

MERCHANT GROUP: Abante Rooter Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE MERCHANT GROUP USA, LLC d/b/a 1800
MONEY MERCHANT; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00591 (N.D. Cal., February 1, 2019), arises from
the Defendants' alleged illegal actions in contacting the Plaintiff
on its cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby, invading its privacy.

The Merchant Group USA, LLC, doing business as 1800 Money Merchant,
is a small business financing company.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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


MERCHANTS BANK: Abante Rooter Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter and Plumbing, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Merchants Bank, Inc. and Does 1
through 10, Case No. 4:18-cv-07750 (N.D. Calif., December 27,
2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants negligently, knowingly
and willfully contacted the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in
violation of the TCPA and related regulations, specifically the
National Do-Not-Call provisions.

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

The Defendant Merchants Bank, Inc. is a business loan company.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MERSCORP HOLDINGS: Faces Zugay Suit in Pennsylvania State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MERSCORP Holdings
Inc. The case is captioned as JAMES ZUGAY; DAUPHIN COUNTY RECORDER
OF DEEDS; and COUNTY OF DAUPHIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERSCORP HOLDINGS INC.;
BANK OF AMERICA; BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON; BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
TRUST COMPANY; CITIBANK; and CITIMORTGAGE INC., Defendants, Case
No. 2019-CV-00502-CV (Pa. Com. Pleas, Dauphin Cty., Jan. 23,
2019).

MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. provides eCommerce mortgage solutions. The
company owns and operates Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems
(MERS), a national electronic registry system that tracks the
changes in servicing rights and beneficial ownership interests in
residential mortgage loans; and MERS eRegistry, a system of record
that identifies the owner (controller) and custodian (location) for
registered eNotes providing liquidity, transferability, and
security for lenders. Its MERS system streamlines the mortgage
process by using electronic commerce for mortgage originators,
servicers, warehouse lenders, wholesale lenders, retail lenders,
document custodians, settlement agents, title companies, insurers,
investors, county recorders, and consumers. MERSCORP Holdings, Inc.
was formerly known as MERSCORP, Inc. The company was incorporated
in 1995 and is based in Reston, Virginia. As of June 30, 2016,
MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C Curtis Norcini, Esq.
          21 W. 3rd St.
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-8806


MICROCHIP TECH: Continues to Defend Jackson Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Microchip Technology Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a class action entitled, Jackson v. Microchip
Technology Inc., et al.

Beginning on September 14, 2018, the Company and certain of its
officers were named in two putative shareholder class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Arizona, captioned Jackson v. Microchip Technology Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-02914-JJT and Maknissian v. Microchip Technology
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02924-JJT.

On November 13, 2018, the Maknissian complaint was voluntarily
dismissed.

The Jackson complaint is allegedly brought on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of Microchip common stock between March 2, 2018
and August 9, 2018.

The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws and generally alleges that the defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects during the putative class period.  

The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and
attorneys’ fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. On
December 11, 2018, the Court issued an order appointing the lead
plaintiff. An amended complaint is due to be filed on February 8,
2019.

Microchip Technology Inc. develops and manufactures semiconductor
products for various embedded control applications worldwide. The
company, which was incorporated in 1989, is based in Chandler,
Arizona.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Artis Cash Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
ARTIS CASH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC.; MIDLAND
FUNDING LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-00081-DEW-MLH (W.D. La., Jan. 23, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The
case is assigned to Judge Donald E. Walter and referred to
Magistrate Judge Mark L. Hornsby.

Midland Credit Management, Inc., a licensed debt collector, assists
customers in resolving past-due financial obligations through
various education and payment plans. The company was founded in
1953 and is based in San Diego, California. Midland Credit
Management, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group,
Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel John Ford, Esq.
          VARADI HAIR & CHECKI
          909 Poydras St Ste 1100
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 684-5200
          Facsimile: (504) 613-6351
          E-mail: ford@svhclaw.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Claytons Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH CLAYTON and CANDACE CLAYTON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50., the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00196
(E.D. Mo., Feb. 8, 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 Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

Roundup refers to all formulations of 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:

          Eric D. Holland, esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314 241-8111
          Facsimile: 314 241-5554
          E-mail: eholland@allfela.com

               - and -

          Jessica L. Richman, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone (516) 723-4627
          Facsimile (516) 723-4727
          E-mail: jrichman@yourlawyer.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Florquist Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACK FLORQUIST, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00030-SWS (D. Wyo., Feb. 8, 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's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

Roundup refers to all formulations of 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:

          Jason Edward Ochs, Esq.
          OCHS LAW FIRM, PC
          690 US 89, Ste. 206
          PO Box 10944
          Jackson, WY 83001
          Telephone: (307) 739-3959
          Facsimile:(307)235-6910
          E-mail: Jason@ochslawllrm.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Ludovicys Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
PETER LUDOVICY and MARY J. LUDOVICY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No.
4:19-cv-00195-AGF (E.D. Mo., Feb. 8, 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 Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The
Plaintiffs' injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly
situated victims across the country, were avoidable.

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

Roundup refers to all formulations of 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:

          Eric D. Holland, esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314 241-8111
          Facsimile: 314 241-5554
          E-mail: eholland@allfela.com

               - and -

          Jessica L. Richman, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone (516) 723-4627
          Facsimile (516) 723-4727
          E-mail: jrichman@yourlawyer.com

MYRIAD GENETICS: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Kessman Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Myriad Genetics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the court has yet to
rule on a motion to dismiss the purported class action by Matthew
Kessman.

On April 20, 2018, Matthew Kessman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court, District of Utah,
No. 2:18-cv-0336-DAK-EJF, against the company, its President and
Chief Executive Officer, Mark C. Capone, its former President and
Chief Executive Officer, Peter D. Meldrum, its Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, R. Bryan Riggsbee, and its
former Chief Financial Officer, James S. Evans (collectively the
"Defendants").  

This action is premised upon allegations that the Defendants
allegedly made false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business, operational and compliance policies,
specifically by allegedly failing to disclose that the Company was
allegedly submitting false or otherwise improper claims for payment
under Medicare and Medicaid for our hereditary cancer testing. The
plaintiff seeks certification as the purported class representative
and the payment of damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff and the
purported class by reason of the allegations set forth in the
complaint, plus interest, and legal and other costs and fees.  

The District Court has designated Lead Plaintiffs for this matter,
and on August 31, 2018, Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class
Action Complaint to seek recovery for compensable damages, as set
forth in the amended complaint, caused by the Defendants' alleged
violations of the federal securities laws, and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

On October 30, 2018, the company filed its Motion to Dismiss
Amended Class Action Complaint requesting that the amended
complaint be dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, for failure
to state a claim.  

Myriad Genetics said, "We intend to continue vigorously defending
against this action."

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

Myriad Genetics, Inc., a molecular diagnostic company, focuses on
developing and marketing novel predictive medicine, personalized
medicine, and prognostic medicine tests worldwide. Myriad Genetics,
Inc. was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City,
Utah.


NEW DAY: Katzakian Sues over Unwanted Cellular Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN KATZAKIAN individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NEW DAY FINANCIAL, LLC D/B/A NEWDAY
USA and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00173-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal., Feb. 7,
2019), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from illegal actions of Defendant, in
negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on
the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff' privacy.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around August of 2018,
the Defendant contacted Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, number
ending in -9649, in an effort to sell or solicit its services. Such
calls constitute solicitation calls pursuant to 47 C.F.R. section
64.1200(c)(2) as they were attempts to promote or sell Defendant's
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 the Plaintiff incur 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 numbers, to Defendant for any purpose whatsoever. In
addition, Plaintiff told Defendant at least once to stop contacting
them. Accordingly, the Defendant never received Plaintiff' "prior
express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone
dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on their
cellular telephone. The Plaintiff received numerous solicitation
calls from Defendant within a 12-month period, the lawsuit says.

NewDay Financial, LLC, doing business as NewDay USA, is a mortgage
lender that provides financial solutions to U.S. veteran homeowners
and their families. It offers mortgage loans for refinancing, debt
consolidating, and home improvement applications. It also provides
VA home loans.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

NEW ORLEANS, LA: Dismissal of Taxi Cab Drivers' Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NIRAN GUNASEKARA AND SUZANNE O'NEILL, v. CITY OF NEW
ORLEANS, THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR OF SAFETY AND PERMITS, DR. JARED E.
MUNSTER, Case No. 2018-CA-0639 (La. App.), Judge Rosemary Ledet
affirmed the trial court's order (i) sustaining a peremptory
exception of no right of action filed by the Defendant, and (ii)
dismissing the suit.

Taxi Cab Drivers Gunasekara and O'Neill filed a petition for writ
of mandamus directed to the Department of Safety and Permits of the
City of New Orleans, seeking to have transportation network company
("TNC") vehicles regulated in the same manner as taxi cabs.  The
Taxi Cab Drivers alleged that the Department requires taxi cab
drivers and owners to submit their vehicles for inspection pursuant
to certain New Orleans Code of Ordinances and that such inspection
requires an application and a payment of a fee.  They further
alleged that the Department did not enforce these requirements for
TNC vehicles.  The Taxi Cab Drivers contended that this failure of
the Department to enforce this ministerial duty puts the public at
risk, causes extra time constraints and expense to taxicab drivers
and creates an un-level playing field as to competition, as well as
denying taxidrivers equal protection under the law.

In response, the City filed an exception of no right of action.
Granting the City's exception of no right of action, the trial
court found that the Taxi Cab Drivers lacked a special interest in
requiring such enforcement.  The Taxi Cab Drivers appealed.

The Court converted the appeal to a writ (due to the lack of
decretal language), granted the writ, denied relief, and remanded
to allow the Taxi Cab Drivers leave to amend their petition
pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 934.  On remand, the Taxi Cab Drivers
amended their petition primarily to add class action allegations;
otherwise, the allegations of their petition remained essentially
unchanged.
  
In response, the City renewed its exception of no right of action.
Granting the City's renewed exception, the trial court orally
reasoned that "economic disadvantage" was insufficient to confer
standing.  In so finding, the trial court cited to its reasons for
judgment in granting the prior exception.  The appeal followed.

The sole issue on appeal is the correctness of the trial court's
ruling, granting the exception of no right of action.  The standard
of review of a ruling on an exception of no right of action, which
presents a question of law, is de novo.

Judge Ledet finds that neither of the interests cited by the Taxi
Cab Drivers -- public safety and competitive disadvantage -- is
sufficient to confer standing.  The interest of public safety is a
risk shared by the public at large; it is not unique to the Taxi
Cab Drivers.  Mere competitive disadvantage does not confer the
requisite standing, as this disadvantage is shared by all other
taxi cab drivers in the City of New Orleans.

Finally, the Judge finds that although the Taxi Cab Drivers, on
remand, added class action allegations, it is well settled that a
class action is simply a procedural device; it confers no
substantive rights.  The addition of class action allegations to
the petition, thus, could not confer standing on the Taxi Cab
Drivers.  Accordingly, the trial court correctly sustained the
City's peremptory exception of no right of action and dismissing
the Taxi Cab Drivers' suit.

For these reasons, Judge Ledet affirmed the judgment of the trial
court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/FKI2xw from Leagle.com.

Madro Bandaries -- madro@bandarieslaw.com -- MADRO BANDARIES,
P.L.C., 938 Lafayette Street, Suite 204, Post Office Box 56458, New
Orleans, LA 70113, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT.

Mark D. MacNamara, Sunni J. LeBeouf, Cherrell S. Taplin, CITY OF
NEW ORLEANS, 1300 Perdido Street, Suite 5E03, New Orleans, LA
70112, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE.


NEWFIELD EXPLORATION: Booth Files Suit Over Sale to Encana Corp.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Booth Family Trust, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Newfield Exploration Company et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-02056 (D. Del., December 27, 2018), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a stockholder class action brought by the Plaintiff to
enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which
Newfield will be acquired by Encana Corporation through its
wholly-owned subsidiary Neapolitan Merger Corp.

On December 4, 2018, Encana and Newfield filed a joint proxy
statement/prospectus on Form S-4 with the SEC in connection with
the Proposed Transaction. The Registration Statement, which
recommends that Newfield stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) the Company's and Encana's
financial projections, relied upon by Newfield's financial advisor,
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC in its financial analyses; (ii) the
valuation analyses prepared by J.P. Morgan in connection with the
rendering of its fairness opinion; and (iii) Company insiders'
potential conflicts of interest. The failure to adequately disclose
such material information constitutes a violation of the Exchange
Act, as Newfield stockholders need such information to cast a
fully-informed vote in connection with the Proposed Transaction,
asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiff is, and has been at all times relevant hereto, a
continuous stockholder of Newfield.

The Defendant Newfield is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located at 4 Waterway Square Place, Suite 100,
The Woodlands, Texas 77380. Newfield is an independent energy
company, engaged in the exploration, development and production of
crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids. The Company's
common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker
symbol "NFX."

The Individual Defendants are members of Newfield's Board of
Directors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George Pazuniak, Esq.
      PAZUNIAK LAW OFFICE LLC
      1201 Orange Street
      7th Floor, Suite 7114
      Wilmington, DE 19801-1186
      Tel: (302) 478-4230
      E-mail: gp@del-iplaw.com


NORTH CAROLINA: High Court to Hold Conference Friday in "Bullock"
-----------------------------------------------------------------

A conference is scheduled for Feb. 22, 2019, in an appeal filed
before the U.S. Supreme Court captioned as, MICHAEL ANTONIO
BULLOCK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Petitioner, vs. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, the Respondent, Case
No. 18-924 (U.S.).

The matter is an appeal filed Jan. 16, 2019, from a judgment dated
Feb. 20, 2018, in Case No. COA15-731-2, by the Supreme Court of
North Carolina.

Bullock filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on Jan. 11, 2019.
North Carolina filed a waiver of right to response on Jan. 31.
The petition is distributed for conference of Feb. 22, 2019,
according to the case docket.

A police officer stopped Bullock after observing him commit traffic
violations.  During this stop, the officer asked about Mr.
Bullock's travel itinerary, searched for information about his
criminal history, and interacted with Mr. Bullock in a manner
intended to develop reasonable suspicion of additional crimes. This
stop culminated in the discovery of narcotics in Mr. Bullock's
vehicle. The North Carolina Court of Appeals concluded that the
officer unlawfully prolonged the stop and that the narcotics should
therefore be suppressed. The Supreme Court of North Carolina,
however, held that the officer did not prolong the stop until, as a
result of his various inquires, he had developed reasonable
suspicion.

Since the decision in Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609
(2015), courts have devised different interpretations of its
holding. Some courts view any actions not related to the mission of
the stop as inherently prolonging the stop, while others allow for
some conduct unrelated to the mission as long as it does not add
time to the stop. Further, there is disagreement as to what actions
are related to the mission of a traffic stop. Some courts consider
checking databases for a subject's criminal history and asking
about a subject's travel itinerary to be part of the mission of a
stop.  Other courts reject this view and regard those actions as
prolonging traffic stops.

According to Bullock, granting certiorari in this case would allow
the Supreme Court to resolve the differences in how courts
interpret Rodriguez and analyze traffic stops. This would, in turn,
help to standardize the ways in which law enforcement officers
across the country treat the motoring public. Under some
interpretations of Rodriguez, police can use certain activities to
gain the time they need to develop reasonable suspicion,
effectively making Rodriguez a nullity.  The Supreme Court should
grant review to more specifically define the contours of acceptable
conduct during a traffic stop and ensure equitable treatment of
motorists throughout the country.[BN]

Attorneys for Petitioner:

          Sarah M. Shalf, Esq.
          EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
          Gambrell Hall 1301
          Clifton Road NE
          Atlanta, GA 30322-2770
          E-mail: sarah.shalf@emory.edu


OPA-LOCKA, FL: Owes City Attorney $188K for Class Action Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Blaskey, writing for Miami Herald, reports that Opa-locka's
city attorney is claiming his position for life.

At least, "that's what it looks like," said city manager Newall
Daughtrey, after reading a memo written by city attorney Vincent
Brown.

The memo appears to advise members of the City Commission that
Brown cannot be replaced -- ever -- unless he gets a lump sum
severance payment of $99,000, is fired with cause or decides to
leave of his own volition.

That's bad advice, said Mr. Daughtrey. Mr. Brown's claim to
perpetual employment is based on an amended contract approved by
the former commission in 2018, but never executed -- Mr. Daughtrey
never signed it, per a recommendation from the state government, so
it's not yet legally binding.

The memo's not the only way Mr. Brown has led the city astray,
according to Mr. Daughtrey.

In recent years, Mr. Brown negotiated several contracts to bring in
outside law firms to defend the city against an onslaught of
lawsuits. Mr. Daughtrey said none of the contracts included caps on
expenditures and ended up costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands
of dollars.

Mr. Brown did not respond to the Herald's request for comment.

Most recently Mr. Daughtrey said he was surprised to discover the
near-bankrupt city is on the hook for hundreds of thousands in
outstanding legal bills to a Brickell law firm, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton -- bills that include breakfast at Dunkin' Donuts,
sandwiches at Sacha's, and $400 per hour labor costs.

The contract never went to bid, according to Mr. Daughtrey. It was
simply approved by the commission in May 2018 after Mr. Brown
recommended it. The city put down a $15,000 retainer, but the
contract negotiated by Mr. Brown on behalf of the city included no
price cap, so six-figure bills rolled in. The contract language
also allows the firm to bill the city for expenses including travel
and food.

According to several invoices dated between July and November,
Opa-locka owed Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton $188,785.08 for its
work defending the city against a class action suit filed in 2018.
It's unclear if the invoices have been paid.

The invoices and original contract with Kozyak, Tropin &
Throckmorton were all approved by the state Financial Oversight
Board appointed by Gov. Rick Scott after he declared a state of
financial emergency in Opa-locka in 2015. The board oversees and
signs off on every city action with financial implications to
prevent corruption or financial irresponsibility.

Board member Frank Rollason said it's unclear why the board
approved a contract without limits on expenditures.

"There needs to be a cap in terms of how much it's going to cost,
and if it exceeds that amount, it needs to come back to the
commission," Mr. Daughtrey said. He said he won't sign checks to
pay the bills without express permission of the commission.

Brown himself has been paid more than $1 million to represent the
city for the last four years. His contract is set to expire on Feb.
5, prompting Mr. Daughtrey to sponsor a resolution on the Jan. 9
commission agenda, asking for permission to solicit applications
for the city attorney position.

"That resolution does not terminate him [Brown]," Mr. Daughtrey
said. "If that contract ends at that point, it's in order to make
sure that the commission has the option of extending the contract
and/or looking for someone new."

Although Mr. Brown signed to approve the agenda item, the words
"and legal sufficiency" -- standard language featured above the
city attorney's signature on agenda items -- had been crossed out.

Mr. Brown's memo made it clear he does not think his contract is
expiring on Feb. 5. He warned that putting out a request for bids
for the city attorney position would be considered an "anticipatory
breach" of an amended contract which Brown considers valid.

Last year, the City Commission approved an amended contract to keep
Brown as city attorney through 2020 at a flat rate of $19,800 per
month plus fees for copies and other incidentals. The amended
contract would renew automatically, and promised him a lump sum fee
of five months' pay if ever terminated.

However, the amended contract was never approved by the state
oversight board.

In a letter to the city dated Dec. 12, 2018, Eric Miller, the
state's chief inspector general, stated Mr. Brown's new contract
was not approved by the oversight board. "Approval would bind the
newly elected and installed City Commission with a significant
monthly financial obligation and potential severance burden
equaling almost 40 percent of the contracting period ending on
February 5, 2020," Mr. Miller wrote. The city has a contract with
the state of Florida, in which it agrees to comply with the
oversight board's recommendations.

In his January memo, Mr. Brown argues the board overstepped its
authority, resulting in "tortious interference with a contractual
relationship." [GN]


OYSTER BAY: Vargas Seek Premium Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------
OSCAR VARGAS, an individual, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. OYSTER BAY RESTAURANT INC., a domestic
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00233-GMN-CWH (D. Nev., Feb. 7, 2019), seeks to recover
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members were
subjected to Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay
premium overtime wages at a rate of 1.5 times the regular, hourly
rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

The Plaintiff and Class Members were employed to cook, prepare and
serve food, and perform other general labor at Defendant's
restaurant, but the Defendant failed and/or refused to pay premium
overtime wages, the lawsuit.

The Defendant doing business as Oyster Bay Seafood Restaurant and
Wine Bar.[BN]

Attorneys for Mr. Oscar Vargas:

          Don Springmeyer, Esq.
          Bradley Schrager, Esq.
          Daniel Bravo, Esq.
          WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
          3556 E. Russell Road, 2nd Floor
          Las Vegas, NE 89120-2234
          Telephone: (702) 341-5200
          Facsimile: (702) 341-5300
          E-mail: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com
                  bschrager@wrslawyers.com
                  dbravo@wrslawyers.com

PAGEUP: Centennial Lawyers Mull Class Action After Malware Attack
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Asha McLean, writing for ZDNet, reports that Australian real estate
network First National released a statement following reports that
information it held on job applicants had been leaked online.

In the statement, First National explained that a recruitment
agency it uses, Sales Inventory Profile, was responsible for the
breach.

"First National immediately responded through every appropriate
channel to ensure that its network had not breached or participated
in any notifiable data breach," the organisation wrote, noting this
included completing its due diligence, such as reaching out to the
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC).

Sales Inventory Profile, founded by Maya Saric in 1995,  describes
its product as the "world's first sales staff pre-selection
software that allows you to identify which candidates can sell
before the interview with 90 percent accuracy".

First National is not the only customer of the recruitment software
firm, with its website showing Starr Partners, Sophos, and
Professionals Real Estate Group are also on its books.

"As this breach is not within First National's responsibility, we,
like all networks with the real estate industry are dependent upon
the Sales Inventory Profile organisation complying with the
necessary security arrangements," First National network chief
executive Ray Ellis said.

"We are working with our affected offices, and more importantly,
any applicants that have been affected".

The information leak was first highlighted by Gareth Llewellyn, who
works in information security for Brass Horn Communications, after
he tweeted about what he found online.

Initially, Mr. Llewellyn found an indexed S3 bucket that contained
over 6,000 CVs and cover letters of individuals applying for a job
within the real estate industry.

The leaked information included the full names, addresses, phone
numbers, dates of birth, and other personal information -- as many
applicants list their education and previous employment information
on resumes.

Updating his findings, Llewellyn explained that
salesinventoryprofile.com requires individuals to answer over 300
psychometric questions and then upload a CV.

It is the second data breach from an Australian recruitment company
since the country's Notafiable Data Breaches (NDB) scheme came into
effect in February last year.

HR firm PageUp confirmed in June that some data held on its clients
may be at risk after falling victim to a malware attack.

The potentially accessed information included employee contact
details, such as names, email addresses, street addresses, and
telephone numbers, as well as employment information, such as
employment status, company, and job title.

PageUp said if the application was submitted for a reference check,
additional details may have also been breached, such as the
applicant's technical skills, special skills, team size, length of
tenure with company, reason for leaving that position, and the
length of relationship between the applicant and reference.

According to Sydney-based law firm Centennial Lawyers, which
announced it was considering launching a class action law suit
against PageUp, companies that may have suffered at the hands of
the malware attack include Wesfarmers-owned Coles, Target, Kmart,
and Officeworks; the National Australia Bank (NAB); Telstra; the
Reserve Bank of Australia; Australia Post; Medibank; the ABC; the
Australian Red Cross; and the University of Tasmania. [GN]


PEPSI BEVERAGES: $262K Attorneys' Fees in Grice Approved
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in
part Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees in the captioned
ALTAREEK GRICE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PEPSI BEVERAGES COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants. No. 17-CV-8853 (JPO). (S.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiff separately moved for an award of attorney's fees and
costs, to be paid out of the settlement fund to Class Counsel.

Plaintiff Altareek Grice, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, brought this action against Defendant Bottling Group, LLC
s/h/a Pepsi Beverages Company (PBC) on the basis of PBC's alleged
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Plaintiff filed
this action in the California Superior Court for the County of San
Diego, alleging that PBC has violated the FCRA by procuring
consumer reports of Plaintiff and class members for employment
purposes without making the required disclosure in a stand-alone
document.  

Attorneys' Fees

Following the approach set forth by Judge Schofield in McGreevy v.
Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc., 258 F.Supp.3d 380 (S.D.N.Y.
2017), this Court applies the percentage of the fund method and
considers the Goldberger factors in three steps.

First, the Court determines a reasonable baseline fee by comparing
the requested rate to that awarded in other common fund settlements
of similar size and complexity, taking into account the requested
fee in relation to the settlement, the magnitude and complexity of
the instant case and the policy consideration of using a sliding
scale based on the amount of the settlement to avoid a windfall to
class counsel.

Next, the Court considers some of the remaining Goldberger factors,
such as the risk Class Counsel faced in litigating this case, the
quality of representation provided by Class Counsel, and any
remaining public policy concerns that render further adjustments to
the baseline fee necessary. Id. Finally, the Court will apply the
lodestar method as a cross-check, in order to compare the resulting
awarded percentage with the time and labor actually expended by
Class Counsel.

Comparison to Court-Approved Fees in Other Common Fund Settlements

The first step in the Court's analysis is to determine a baseline
for a reasonable fee by looking to other common fund settlements of
similar size and complexity.

Courts often look to empirical evidence of attorney's fees awarded
in similar cases as a starting point for the baseline reasonable
fee inquiry. Recent studies of attorney's fees awards in common
fund settlements of a size similar to this one have found that the
median percentage for such awards ranged from 26.4% to 30%.  

In support of the proposed one-third fee, Plaintiff relies on three
cases from this District. However, each of these three cases
differs materially from the instant case both in their common fund
sizes and in their causes of action. Moreover, these cases are an
extremely limited sample of the totality of cases in which fees
were awarded from common fund settlements. The empirical studies
cited above, which together survey hundreds of cases, paint a far
more comprehensive picture of the average percentage awarded to
counsel in common fund settlements, thereby minimizing any
potential sampling biases.

Mindful that in the Rule 23 context the Court acts as a fiduciary
that must "serve as a guardian of the rights of absent class
members, the Court concludes that a reasonable baseline for this
case is 27%. Applying that baseline here renders the baseline
attorney's fees award for this case as $321,914.25.

Consideration of Risk, Result and Policy Considerations

The Court now examines the three remaining Goldberger factors the
risk of the litigation, the quality of representation and any
remaining policy considerations—in order to consider whether
there is any basis for further adjusting the reasonable baseline
fee in this case.

Risk of Litigation

Class Counsel took considerable, but not extraordinary, risk in
prosecuting this case. Class Counsel represent that they took this
case on a contingency basis and have invested over 450 hours of
work and advanced around $16,537.57 of costs. Class Counsel also
assert that this case was a risky undertaking due to the factual
and legal hurdles of proving the willfulness of PBC's conduct. For
example, Class Counsel note that absent a showing of willfulness,
Plaintiff and Class Counsel would not have recovered anything under
the FCRA, because Plaintiff sought only statutory damages which are
available only for willful violations.

However, very little discovery had taken place in this case before
the parties settled, and PBC never filed any dispositive motions
throughout the proceedings. As this case was resolved rather
swiftly, Class Counsel's investments of time and money were never
made in the face of a particular hurdle to their clients' recovery.
The Court is also mindful that contingency risk does not always
compel enhanced fees, especially where such an enhanced fee would
result in overcompensation.
Goldberger.

Accordingly, as in other cases involving similarly few risks beyond
the risks generally inherent to litigation, the risk in this case
was not so unusual as to merit a change in the reasonable baseline
fee for this case.

Quality of Representation

The Court next considers whether the quality of counsel's
representation warrants adjusting the reasonable baseline fee. The
quality of representation is best measured by results, and that
such results may be calculated by comparing 'the extent of possible
recovery with the amount of actual verdict or settlement.'

The result obtained by Class Counsel in this settlement is good.
The terms of the parties' settlement allow for each class member to
obtain a gross recovery of $51.54. This payout is generally in line
with other FCRA class action settlement recoveries across the
country. Because the class members could have obtained statutory
damages ranging from $100 to $1000 if they had prevailed in trial,
the class members are receiving only approximately 5% of their
maximum potential recovery. But considering the factual and legal
hurdles that the class would have had to overcome before securing a
favorable judgment, the current settlement represents a good result
for the class members. Such a good result, however, is not so
exceptional as to merit an increase in the baseline percentage,
especially where the Court does not have the benefits of an
adversarial examination of the issues.  

Policy Considerations

The last Goldberger factor calls for this Court to evaluate whether
public policy considerations counsel in favor of adjusting the
reasonable baseline fee. Plaintiff's FCRA claim implicates the
genuine public interest in the protection of consumer privacy.
Private litigation is a particularly important mechanism by which
this public interest is vindicated in the employment context, given
the power asymmetry between employers and job applicants and the
lack of other remedies for job applicants whose private information
is shared with employers without required disclosures.

Since recoveries under the FCRA for such violations are generally
low and individuals may not have enough incentives to bring claims
to vindicate their rights, ensuring appropriate incentives for
attorneys to bring such claims as class actions is crucial to
attaining the goals of consumer privacy protection embodied in the
FCRA. That said, the public policy concerns implicated by the FCRA
do not differentiate this case from other types of common fund
cases also reflecting important policy goals for example,
wage-and-hour or securities fraud cases that provide protections to
workers or investors. Therefore, while public policy weighs in
favor of incentivizing class actions such as Plaintiff's FCRA
lawsuit, that incentive argument is not unique to this case and
thus does not warrant increasing the baseline percentage here.

Weighing the significant policy considerations against such
reversionary settlements and the low participation rate of class
members alongside the important goals of encouraging lawyers to
bring common fund cases to vindicate consumers' rights under the
FCRA, the Court concludes that a decrease of 5% of the baseline fee
percentage is appropriate in this case. Applying the resulting 22%
rate to the common fund figure of $1,192,275 results in an
attorney's fees award of $262,300.50.

Lodestar Cross-Check

The third step this Court takes is to use the lodestar as a
cross-check on the reasonableness of the percentage awarded. A
reasonable fee award under the lodestar approach is generally
calculated as the product of a reasonable hourly rate and the
reasonable number of hours required by the case.

A reasonable hourly rate is determined by the prevailing market
rate, that is, the rate prevailing in the community for similar
services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and
reputation. The relevant community, in turn, is the district in
which the court sits.

Class Counsel represent that Mr. Dion-Kindem and Mr. Blanchard each
charge an hourly rate of $875, while Mr. Edelman and Mr. Hill each
charge an hourly rate of $500. To support their claimed hourly
rates, Mr. Dion-Kindem and Mr. Blanchard rely on the Laffey Matrix
for attorney billing rates, which purportedly represents reasonable
rates in the Washington D.C.-Baltimore area. Mr. Dion-Kindem and
Mr. Blanchard also rely on salary tables for the
Washington-Baltimore-Arlington and Los Angeles-Long Beach
areas.Whatever the reasonable rates may be in those areas, they are
not prevailing market rates in the Southern District of New York.
As for Mr. Edelman and Mr. Hill, neither provides any documentation
to substantiate the reasonableness of their proposed rates.

The Court now considers the reasonableness of the number of hours
worked by Class Counsel, which Class Counsel represent to have been
450.4 hours, none of Class Counsel have submitted any timesheets to
substantiate their representation of the time spent in this case.
Despite this shortcoming, the Court will take their representations
as true, given that where [the lodestar is] used as a mere
cross-check, the hours documented by counsel need not be
exhaustively scrutinized by the district court. Multiplying the
450.4-hour total by the adjusted $300 hourly rates yields a
recalculated lodestar of $135,120.

Having conducted this cross-check, the Court concludes that the
$262,300.50 fee award calculated under the percentage method is
reasonable. That percentage fee results in a lodestar multiplier of
1.94, which closely aligns with the median multiplier in consumer
cases of 1.82.
  
Based on this, the Court concludes that Class Counsel is entitled
to a fee award of $262,300.50.

The Court certifies the proposed class and determines the
settlement to be fair, reasonable and adequate under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(e). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to
certify the proposed class and approve the settlement are granted.
And for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motion for attorney's
fees, costs, and a service award for Plaintiff Grice is granted in
part and denied in part.

Class Counsel is awarded attorney's fees of $262,300.50 and
reimbursement of expenses of $16,537.57. American Legal Claims
Services is awarded reimbursement of administrative costs of
$57,970.22. Plaintiff Grice is awarded a service award of $5,000.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 28, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybzkkk35 from Leagle.com.

Altareek Grice, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented byLonnie C. Blanchard, III, The
Blanchard Law Group, Apc, Peter R. Dion-Kindem, The Dion-Kindem Law
Firm, pro hac vice & Marc Reed Edelman, Morgan & Morgan P.A.

Pepsi Beverages Company, Defendant, represented by Aaron Warshaw ,
Ogletree Deakins, Jonathan Hisataka Liu, Ogletree Deakins Nash
Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Timothy L. Johnson, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Christina Marie Schmid, Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., James R. Silvers, Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Stephen R. Woods, Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.


PIPERIN CORPORATION: Zamorano Sues over Wage & Hour Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS ZAMORANO, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees, the Plaintiff, vs. PIPERIN CORPORATION; and
DOES 1 THROUGH 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
37-2019-00007406-CU-0E-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 7, 2019), alleges
that the Defendant engaged in a pattern of wage-and-hour violations
under the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide meal
periods; failed to provide rest periods; failed to pay minimum and
regular wages; failed to pay all overtime wages; failed to provide
recovery periods; failed to indemnify necessary business expenses;
failed to maintain accurate records; failed to provide required
sick leave; failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements and
written notice of sick leave; and failed to timely pay all wages
due upon separation of employment. The Plaintiff brings this action
on behalf of all current and former employees who were employed by
the Defendants in the State of California and who worked in any
non-exempt position during the applicable relevant time period, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Graham S.P. Hollis, Esq.
          Vilmarie Cordero, Esq.
          Laura M. Supanich, Esq.
          GRAHAM HOLLIS APC
          3555 Fifth Avenue Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: 619 692 0800
          Facsimile: 619 692 0822
          E-mail: ghollis@grahamhollis.com
                  vcordero@grahamhollis.com
                  lsupanich@grahamhollis.com

PLANTRONICS INC: Continues to Defend Shin Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Plantronics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 29, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself against a purported class action suit
filed by Phil Shin.

On September 13, 2018, Mr. Phil Shin filed on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, a purported Class Action Complaint in
the United States District Court of the Northern District of
California alleging violations of various federal and state
consumer protection laws in addition to unfair competition and
fraud claims in connection with the Company's BackBeat FIT
headphones.

The Company disputes the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss
the Complaint in November 2018. Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint on December 14, 2018.

Plantronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets lightweight
communications headsets, telephone headset systems, other
communication endpoints, and accessories for the business and
consumer markets under the Plantronics brand worldwide.


POLLACK & ROSEN: Bello Files FDCPA Suit in Georgia
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pollack & Rosen, P.C.
et al. The case is styled as Tomekia Bello also known as: Tomekia
Mcrae, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Pollack & Rosen, P.C., John Does 1-25, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00661-CC-AJB (N.D. Ga., Feb. 7, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Pollack & Rosen, P.C. is a firm serving Coral Gables, FL in
Consumer & Commercial Collections, Family Law and Healthcare
cases.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Braxton Mason, Esq.
     Mason Law Group, LLC – GA, Suite 200
     1100 Peachtree Street, NE
     Atlanta, GA 30309
     Phone: (404) 920-8040
     Fax: (404) 920-8039
     Email: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Sued Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
DARREL HAWES, and all others similarly situated v. PORTFOLIO
RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC a Virginia Corporation doing business in
Washington, Case No. 2:19-cv-00147 (W.D. Wash., January 31, 2019),
is brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act arising
from the Defendant's use of unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, is a foreign corporation
engaged in the business of collecting debts in the state of
Washington.  The Company is headquartered in Norfolk,
Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk D. Miller, Esq.
          KIRK D. MILLER, P.S.
          421 W. Riverside Ave., Suite 660
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Telephone: (509) 413-1494
          Facsimile: (509) 413-1724
          E-mail: kmiller@millerlawspokane.com


POWER HOME: Brooks Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------
Donald Brooks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Power Home Remodeling Group, LLC and Power
Home Remodeling Group, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00547-JP
(E.D. Penn., February 7, 2019) is a collective action on behalf of
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated against the Defendants
to recover overtime Compensation and other relief relating to
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Plaintiff and Putative Class Plaintiffs routinely worked more than
40 hours in a workweek but were not paid an overtime premium for
hours worked over 40 because the Defendants misclassified them as
exempt employees, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Donald Brooks is an adult resident of Houston, Texas.

Defendants operate in interstate commerce by, among other things,
providing services predominantly related to energy and alleged
cost-saving exterior remodeling products, such as replacement
windows, roofing and vinyl siding.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Court Denies Bid for Bench Trial in Racies Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHILLIP RACIES, Plaintiff, v. QUINCY BIOSCIENCE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-00292-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California denied the Plaintiff's motion for a bench trial.

Racies filed a class action complaint on Jan. 21, 2015, bringing
claims under California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA").  He alleges that the
Defendant made false, misleading, and deceptive statements about
its brain health supplement, Prevagen.  Specifically, the Plaintiff
alleges that, contrary to the product's labeling, Prevagen does not
improve memory or brain function because its only active ingredient
is digested and transformed into amino acids before it can
measurably affect the brain.

On Dec. 15, 2017, the Court certified the following class for both
the Plaintiff's UCL and CLRA claims: All California consumers who,
within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased
Prevagen Regular Strength, Prevagen Extra Strength, or Prevagen
Mixed Berry Chewable.

On March 1, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the currently-pending motion
for a bench trial.  In the FAC, the Plaintiff made a demand for a
jury trial.  On June 16, 2015, the Defendant's answer to the FAC
also demanded a jury trial.  It reasserts its demand in its
opposition to the current motion.

The Plaintiff, despite demanding restitution and injunctive relief
under the UCL as well as damages under the CLRA, now seeks to
proceed only on the UCL restitution claims.  He asserts that the
Defendant's jury demand is of no effect because there is no right
to a jury trial if he seeks only equitable remedies.  He does not
seek to amend or dismiss any portion of the FAC in order to drop
the CLRA damages claims.  Rather, the Plaintiff seeks to proceed
separately to trial on equitable claims under the UCL without
1claims.

So long as the Plaintiff continues to assert claims for damages
under the CLRA, Judge Gilliam finds no justification for the
Plaintiff to proceed in a bench trial on some purported equitable
subset of his.  Given the Defendant's valid and unrevoked demand
for a jury trial, the Judge will deny the Plaintiff's motion for a
bench trial.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Gilliam denied the Plaintiff's
motion for a bench trial.  He set a case management conference for
Feb. 19, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. to set the case schedule through trial.
He directed the parties to file a joint case management statement
including a proposed schedule by Feb. 12, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/qpngEo from Leagle.com.

Phillip Racies, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia Nicole Syverson --
psyverson@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn, Daniel R. Lapinski --
dlapinski@wilentz.com -- Wilentz, Goldman Spitzer PA, Elaine A.
Ryan -- eryan@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, P.C,
pro hac vice, Manfred Patrick Muecke -- mmuecke@bffb.com --
Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman, & Balint, P.C., Max A. Stein --
mstein@boodlaw.com -- Boodell and Domanskis, LLC, pro hac vice,
Michael Matthew Chang -- mchang@siprut.com -- Siprut PC, Nada
Djordjevic -- ndjordjevic@boodlaw.com -- Boodell and Domanskis, LLC
& Stewart M. Weltman -- sweltman@siprut.com -- Siprut PC.

Quincy Bioscience, LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Joshua G. Simon -- jsimon@calljensen.com
-- Call & Jensen, Matthew Ryan Orr -- morr@calljensen.com -- Call &
Jensen A Professional Corporation, William Paul Cole --
wcole@calljensen.com -- Call and Jensen & Yixin H. Tang --
yixin@amintalati.com -- Amin Talati Upadhye, LLC, pro hac vice.


QUINTA HOLDINGS: Sued over Defective & Unsafe Property
------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH GULLY, the Plaintiff, vs. QUINTA HOLDINGS INC. d/b/a LA
QUINTA INN & SUITES, LA QUINTA INNS, INC. d/b/a LA QUINTA INN &
SUITES, LQ GARDEN CITY L.L.C. d/b/a LA QUINTA INN & SUITES and LQ
MANAGEMENT L.L.C., the Defendants, Case No. 606471/2018 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Feb. 8, 2019), alleges that the Defendants breached their duty
to provide a safe place to traverse and were negligent in their
ownership, operation, maintenance, management, control and
supervision of a property located at 821 Stewart Avenue, Garden
City, County of Nassau, State of New York.  Owing to the
carelessness, negligence, recklessness, improper and unlawful
conduct of the Defendants, the Plaintiff sustained injuries.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          SILER & INGBER, LLP
          301 Mineola Blvd.
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 294-2666

RAPID TRANSIT: Court OKs Final Approval of Moreno Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned PAMELA
MORENO, Plaintiff, v. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT
DISTRICT, Defendant. Case No. 17-cv-02911-JSC. (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Pamela Moreno alleges that Defendant the San Francisco
Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) violated California's
Cellular Communications Interception Act, Cal. Gov't Code Section
53166, through its clandestine collection of cell phone identifiers
and location data via the BART Watch mobile application.

THE SETTLEMENT

Settlement Class: The Settlement Agreement provides for an
injunctive relief settlement class of all persons in the United
States who between January 1, 2016 and October 4, 2018 had their
mobile device's International Mobile Equipment Identity Number
and/or geolocation collected by the BART Watch App.

Injunctive Relief: Under the Settlement Agreement, BART has agreed
that when a BART Watch App user submits a report BART will not
obtain or collect any International Mobile Equipment Identity
numbers, and will only obtain or collect a limited set of
information as laid out in the Settlement Agreement.

Attorneys' Fees and Incentive Award: The parties agreed that BART
would not oppose a request for attorneys' fees of up to $57,500.
BART also agreed not to oppose a request for an incentive award for
Plaintiff of up to $2,500.

Final approval of a class action settlement requires, as a
threshold, an assessment of whether the class satisfies the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b).
Because no facts that would affect these requirements have changed
since the Court preliminarily approved the class on October 4,
2018, this order incorporates by reference its prior analysis and
certifies the settlement class.

Notice was Not Required

Unlike a Rule 23(b)(3) class where notice is mandatory, Rule
23(c)(2) states that, for any class certified under Rule 23(b)(1)
or (b)(2), the court may direct appropriate notice to the class.

Here, the terms of the Settlement Agreement provide for injunctive
relief only and class members do not release any claims regarding
monetary relief. The Court therefore found that no notice was
required. However, because this action was brought under the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

The Defendant was required to provide notice to the relevant state
and federal officials under 28 U.S.C. Section 1715(b). The
Defendant did so on October 11, 2018 and more than 90 days have
passed with no objections filed.

Accordingly, because the Defendant complied with the statutory
notice requirements under CAFA, its obligations for adequate notice
have been met.

Approval of the Settlement

Having determined that class treatment is warranted, the Court now
addresses whether the terms of the parties' settlement appear fair,
adequate, and reasonable under Rule 23(e). In making this
determination, a court typically considers the following factors:
(1) the strength of the plaintiffs case (2) the risk, expense,
complexity, and likely duration of further litigation (3) the risk
of maintaining class action status throughout the trial (4) the
amount offered in settlement (5) the extent of discovery completed
and the stage of the proceedings (6) the experience and views of
counsel (7) the presence of a governmental participant; and (8) the
reaction of the class members of the proposed settlement. Churchill
Village, L.L.C. v. General Electric, 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir.
2004).  

Strength of Plaintiff's Case and the Risk, Expense, Complexity, and
Likely Duration of Further Litigation and Class Certification

The first relevant factor is the risk of continuing litigation,
including the strengths and weaknesses of Plaintiffs case on the
merits, balanced against the certainty and immediacy of recovery
from the Settlement Agreement.  

Here, as the Plaintiff acknowledges, the case faced significant
challenges. The Court had previously dismissed many of the
Plaintiffs claims and a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs remaining
claim was pending at the time of settlement. As the Court advised
the Plaintiff at the hearing on the pending motion to dismiss, her
case faced significant obstacles including a novel legal theory
testing a newly adopted California statute. Given the uncertainty
regarding the Plaintiffs' ability to prevail on this theory and the
expense of prolonged litigation even should Plaintiff prevail at
trial, these factors weigh in favor of approval.  

The Settlement Amount

The fourth fairness factor, the amount of recovery offered, also
favors final approval of the Settlement Agreement. This factor is
generally considered the most important, because the critical
component of any settlement is the amount of relief obtained by the
class.

Here, the Defendant agreed to significant injunctive relief
including a prohibition on collecting geolocation and other
identifying data in the future and the Defendant's commitment to do
so is subject to ongoing judicial oversight. While BART disputes
that it as opposed to the previously named Defendant Elerts
maintained this identifying data, BART has conceded that this
information is no longer collected or maintained. There can be no
question that the decision to stop collecting this data came as a
result of Class Counsel's efforts in this action.
    
Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of approving the
settlement.

Extent of Discovery Completed & the Stage of the Proceedings

In the context of class action settlements, as long as the parties
have sufficient information to make an informed decision about
settlement, formal discovery is not a necessary ticket to the
bargaining table.

Here, the stage of the proceedings also supports the Settlement
Agreement. The parties have engaged in substantial motion practice
and thus have had an opportunity to evaluate the strength and
weaknesses of the relative claims and defenses. This factor
therefore weighs in favor of approval.

Experience and Views of Counsel

The recommendations of plaintiffs' counsel should be given a
presumption of reasonableness.
Here, Class Counsel have demonstrated their experience in
litigating similar privacy class actions. They have also
demonstrated that they are well informed of the facts, claims, and
defenses in this action, as well as the risks of proceeding with
their novel legal theory.
Accordingly, Class Counsel's endorsement weighs in favor of
approving the settlement.

Government Participant

The participation of a government agency serves to protect the
interests of the class members, particularly absentees, and
approval by the agency is an important factor for the court's
consideration.

Here, BART is a governmental agency, and as such, its participation
and consent to the injunctive relief weighs in favor of approving
the settlement. Further, no governmental entity has objected to the
settlement after having been given notice in accordance with 28
U.S.C. Section 1715. This factor thus weighs in favor of
settlement.

Reaction of the Class

Because notice was not necessary here, the reaction of the class is
not considered in weighing the fairness factors.  

In sum, a balancing of the Churchill factors leads the Court to
conclude that this Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 28, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yb9ezq2h from Leagle.com.

Pamela Moreno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Rafey Sarkis Balabanian --
rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Eve-Lynn J. Rapp  --
erapp@edelson.com -- Edelson LLC, pro hac vice, John Aaron Lawson
-- alawson@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, pro hac vice & Todd M. Logan
-- tlogan@edelson.com -- Edelson PC.

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, a public entity,
Defendant, represented by Gordon James Calhoun --
calhoun@lbbslaw.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard Smith LLP & Rene I.
Gamboa -- Rene.Gamboa@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard
& Smith.


RED RAVEN: Wagoner Seeks Minimum Wages for Entertainers
-------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA WAGONER, on behalf of herself and all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RED RAVEN PUB 246-266, Lincoln Highway
Fairless Hills, PA 19030 And JOHN DOES 1-10 c/o RED RAVEN PUB
246-266 Lincoln Highway Fairless Hills, PA 19030, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00570 (E.D. Pa., Feb. 8, 2019), alleges violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Wage Act, and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment Collection Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully refused to pay
a minimum wage, unlawfully requested, demanded and/or received
wages from employees, unlawfully demanded, accepted and/or retained
a part of gratuities or charges purported to be gratuities, and
unlawfully deducted employee wages through fines and penalties for
lateness and misconduct. The Defendants have willfully engaged in a
pattern, policy, and practice of unlawful conduct for the actions
alleged in this Complaint, in violation of the federal and state
rights of the Named Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals.
As a result of Defendants' unlawful actions, the Plaintiffs have
been harmed.

The Plaintiff and the Class refer to current and/or former
"Entertainers" or similar positions with the Defendants, who
performed work for Defendants and for whom the  Defendants
classified as "Independent Contractors" within the last three
years, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Hwy N., Suite 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: jboyette@swartz-legal.co

RELISH LABS: Faces Suit over Violation of Biometric Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANNETTE WELLS, and JOHNNIE TYLER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RELISH LABS LLC d/b/a HOME
CHEF, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH00987 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Jan.
24, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's capture, collection, use
and storage of individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric
information in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act, and obtain redress for all persons injured by the
Defendant's conduct.

Relish Labs LLC, doing business as Home Chef, provides a fresh
ingredient and recipe delivery service. It offers a meal delivery
service that includes fresh ingredients and instructions needed to
cook restaurant quality meals for two, four, or six people in the
home kitchen. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois. As of June
22, 2018, Relish Labs LLC operates as a subsidiary of The Kroger
Co. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and –

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


ROME: Codacons to Launch Class Action Over Poor State of Roads
--------------------------------------------------------------
Josephine McKenna, writing for Telegraph, reports that Rome's city
council is under growing pressure to clean up mounting piles of
rubbish and to fix thousands of potholes in the roads and pavements
of the city.

According to the latest statistics, the city has received 4,500
requests for compensation from drivers who claim to have suffered
injuries on the streets of Rome.

The council set aside EUR13 million (GBP11.6 million) for disputes
in 2018, nearly double the EUR7 million (GBP6.3 million) allocated
the previous year.

Codacons, the national consumer organization, says the poor state
of the city's roads claimed 153 lives in accidents in 2018 and is
launching a class action against the city on behalf of injured
drivers and pedestrians. [GN]


SAL-MARK RESTAURANT: Court OKs $265K Settlement in Cruz Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval
of Class Settlement in the case captioned  VICENTE CRUZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. SAL-MARK RESTAURANT CORP., d/b/a/ MARINER'S HARBOR
RESTAURANT, MATTEO-BELLA, LLC d/b/a/FRANK GUIDO'S LITTLE ITALY,
FRANK GUIDO, SALVATORE GUIDO III, and MARK GUIDO, Jointly and
Severally, Defendants. No. 1:17-CV-0815 (DJS). (N.D.N.Y.).

The Named Plaintiff in this action alleges, among other wage and
hour issues, that Defendants failed to pay non-management employees
minimum wage and overtime premiums in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Plaintiff
further alleges that Defendants failed to pay spread-of-hours
premiums for days in which employees worked over ten (10) hours in
a day and failed to provide wage notices and wage statements, in
violation of the NYLL.

SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS

The parties agreed to settle this case for a total Settlement
Amount of $265,000.00. After deduction of attorneys' fees and costs
and a service award for the Named Plaintiff, the remaining funds
will be allocated among Participating Class Members.  

All current and former restaurant employees who worked at Mariner's
Harbor and/or Frank Guido's Little Italy at any point from July 24,
2011 to the date that the Court issued Preliminary Approval of the
settlement, October 10, 2018 who have not opted out of the Action
(Class or Class Members) are eligible to participate in the
Settlement.  

All Class Members who do not opt-out of the settlement and who
submit a valid Claim Form during the Claim Period will be eligible
to participate in and receive a payment from the settlement
(Participating Class Members). Settlement checks will be mailed by
Defendants within fifteen (15) days after Defendants' funding of
the settlement account with the full Settlement Amount.  

FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS SETTLEMENT

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), to grant final approval of a
Settlement, the Court must determine whether the Proposed
Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. Fairness is determined
upon review of both the terms of the settlement agreement and the
negotiating process that led to such agreement. Courts examine
procedural and substantive fairness in light of the strong judicial
policy favoring settlements of class action suits. A presumption of
fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness may attach to a class
settlement reached in arm's length negotiations between
experienced, capable counsel after meaningful discovery.

If the settlement was achieved through experienced counsels'
arm's-length negotiations, absent fraud or collusion, courts should
be hesitant to substitute [their] judgment for that of the parties
who negotiated the settlement. In evaluating the settlement, the
Court should keep in mind the unique ability of class and defense
counsel to assess the potential risks and rewards of litigation.The
Court gives weight to the parties' judgment that the settlement is
fair and reasonable.

PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS

It is clear from the history of the case that the parties reached
this settlement only after engaging in thorough investigation and
discovery which allowed each side to assess the potential risks of
continued litigation, and robust settlement discussions, including
several discussions via telephone, email and in-person. The
settlement was reached as a result of arm's length negotiations
between experienced, capable counsel after meaningful exchange of
information and discovery, and with the critical assistance of
Mediator Michael Murphy.

SUBSTANTIVE FAIRNESS

In evaluating a class action settlement, courts in the Second
Circuit generally consider the nine factors set forth in City of
Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974). The
Grinnell factors are: (1) the complexity, expense and likely
duration of the litigation (2) the reaction of the class to the
settlement (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of
discovery completed (4) the risks of establishing liability (5) the
risks of establishing damages (6) the risks of maintaining the
class action through the trial (7) the ability of the defendant to
withstand a greater judgment (8) the range of reasonableness of the
settlement fund in light of the best possible recovery and (9) the
range of reasonableness of the settlement fund to a possible
recovery in light of all the attendant risks of litigation.

Because the standard for approval of an FLSA settlement is lower
than for a Rule 23 settlement, satisfaction of the Grinnell factor
analysis will, necessarily, satisfy the standards of approval of
the FLSA settlement. All of the Grinnell factors weigh in favor of
granting final approval of the Settlement Agreement.

Litigation through trial would be complex, expensive, and long.
Therefore, the first Grinnellfactor weighs in favor of final
approval.

The response to the settlement has been positive. There have been
two (2) requests for exclusion and zero (0) objections to the
Settlement. The fact that the vast majority of class members
neither objected nor opted out is a strong indication of fairness.
Thus, this factor weighs strongly in favor of approval.

The parties have completed enough discovery to recommend
settlement. The proper question is whether counsel had an adequate
appreciation of the merits of the case before negotiating. The
parties' discovery here meets this standard. Class Counsel has
interviewed several current and former employees of Defendants
including the Named Plaintiff, Opt-in Plaintiffs and Class Members
to gather information relevant to the claims in the litigation;
obtained, reviewed, and analyzed documents provided by the Named
Plaintiff and Defendants; negotiated a Section 216(b) FLSA
collective with Defendants and mailed opt-in notices to members of
the collective action; provided 26(a) disclosures; fielded
questions from Class Members; performed extensive legal research;
and compiled and negotiated a damages analysis and discussed the
same on the telephone and in person, including at a mediation.  

The risk of establishing liability and damages further weighs in
favor of final approval. A trial on the merits would involve risks
because Plaintiff and the Class Members would have to prove that
they were not receiving the legally-required minimum wage, overtime
and spread-of-hours pay, which would require proving that
Defendants' time records are inaccurate.  

The risk of maintaining the class status through trial is also
present. Although Plaintiff has not yet moved for Rule 23 class
certification, any such motions would be highly contested.
Specifically, Defendants would argue that there are individualized
questions as to the job duties, hours worked, and payment structure
for the Named Plaintiff and the Class Members that make
certification and ultimately trial on a class-wide basis
impractical. Settlement eliminates the risk, expense, and delay
inherent in this process.  

The Defendants' ability to pay was a substantial factor in the
parties' decision to settle this matter. In addition, even if the
Defendants can withstand a greater judgment than the amount of the
settlement, a defendant's ability to withstand a greater judgment,
standing alone, does not suggest that the settlement is unfair.
This factor does not hinder granting final approval.

The substantial amount of the settlement weighs strongly in favor
of final approval. The determination whether a settlement is
reasonable does not involve the use of a `mathematical equation
yielding a particularized sum. Instead, there is a range of
reasonableness with respect to a settlement, a range which
recognizes the uncertainties of law and fact in any particular case
and the concomitant risks and costs necessarily inherent in taking
any litigation to completion.

Therefore, the eighth and ninth Grinnell factors favor final
approval.

The Court approves the terms and conditions of the Settlement
Agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 28, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycjh3wug from Leagle.com.

Vicente Cruz, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Taylor B. Graham, Pelton Graham
LLC & Brent E. Pelton, Pelton Graham LLC.

Sal-Mark Restauarant Corp., Jointly and Severally, doing business
as Mariner's Harbor Restaurant, Matteo-Bella, LLC, Jointly and
Severally, doing business as Frank Guido's Little Italy, Frank
Guido, Jointly and Severally, Salvatore Guido, III, Jointly and
Severally & Mark Guido, Jointly and Severally, Defendants,
represented by Benjamin W. Hill, Law Office of Benjamin W. Hill
PLLC.


SB SOUTHERN: Fails to Pay Welders' OT Under FLSA, Franklin Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID FRANKLIN, individually and for all others similarly situated
v. SB SOUTHERN WELDING, LLC and SHANE BOSTON, Case No.
7:19-cv-00033 (W.D. Tex., February 1, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants do not pay their welders overtime as required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

SB Southern Welding LLC is a company which resides in and does
business in the state of Texas.  Southern Welding is an enterprise
engaged in commerce.  Shane Boston is the owner of Southern
Welding.

Southern Welding is in the business of providing welding services.
To provide these services, Southern Welding hires welders, such as
the Plaintiff and the Class Members.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: EZ Seed Litig. Resolved, Final Payment Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended December 29, 2018, that the case
entitled, In re Scotts EZ Seed, is now resolved, pending the final
payment of the claims made by class members which is currently
underway and should conclude by February 28, 2019.

The Company was named as a defendant in In re Scotts EZ Seed
Litigation, Case No. 12-cv-4727 (VB), a New York and California
class action lawsuit filed August 9, 2012 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York that asserted
claims under false advertising and other legal theories based on a
marketing statement on the Company's EZ Seed grass seed product
from 2009 to 2012.

The plaintiffs sought, on behalf of themselves and purported class
members, various forms of monetary and non-monetary relief,
including statutory damages that they contend could amount to
hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Company defended the action vigorously, and disputed the
plaintiffs' claims and theories, including the recoverability of
statutory damages. In 2017, the Court eliminated certain claims,
narrowed the case in certain respects, and permitted the case to
continue proceeding as a class action. On August 7, 2017, the Court
requested briefs on the Company's request for interlocutory review
of issues relating to the recoverability of statutory damages in a
class action by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit and, on August 31, 2017, approved that request.

On January 8, 2018, however, the Second Circuit denied the
interlocutory appeal request. The parties engaged in mediation on
April 9, 2018 and agreed in principle to a preliminary settlement
of the outstanding claims on April 10, 2018. The preliminary
settlement required the Company to pay certain attorneys' and
administrative fees and provide certain payments to the class
members.

The preliminary settlement was approved by the court on December
19, 2018, and this case is now resolved, pending the final payment
of the claims made by class members (which is currently underway
and should conclude by February 28, 2019).

The Scotts Miracle-Gro said, "At December 29, 2018, $12.2 million
was accrued for a probable loss related to this matter in the
"Other current liabilities" line in the Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheet. During the three months ended December 29, 2018, the
Company recognized a charge of $0.5 million for a probable loss
related to this matter in the "Impairment, restructuring and other"
line in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. The
resolution of the claims process may result in additional losses in
excess of the amount accrued, however, the Company does not believe
a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued would be
material to, nor have a material adverse effect on, the Company's
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows."

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company manufactures, markets, and sells
consumer lawn and garden products in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through three segments: U.S.
Consumer, Hawthorne, and Other. The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company was
founded in 1868 and is headquartered in Marysville, Ohio.


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: June Final Fairness Hearing on Song Bird Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended December 29, 2018, that the court in
the case, re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case No.
3:12-cv-01592-JAH-AGS, has scheduled a final fairness hearing for
June 3, 2019.

In connection with the sale of wild bird food products that were
the subject of a voluntary recall in 2008, the Company, along with
its Chief Executive Officer, have been named as defendants in four
actions filed on and after June 27, 2012, which have been
consolidated, and, on March 31, 2017, certified as a class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California as In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case
No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-AGS.

The plaintiffs allege various statutory and common law claims
associated with the Company's sale of wild bird food products and a
plea agreement entered into in previously pending government
proceedings associated with such sales.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, a class action on behalf
of all persons and entities in the United States who purchased
certain bird food products. The plaintiffs assert: (i) hundreds of
millions of dollars in monetary damages (actual, compensatory,
consequential, and restitution); (ii) punitive and treble damages;
(iii) injunctive and declaratory relief; (iv) pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest; and (v) costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company and its Chief Executive Officer dispute the plaintiffs'
assertions and have vigorously defended the consolidated action.
The parties reached an agreement to settle this matter, which the
parties memorialized in a settlement agreement submitted to the
Court for approval on December 7, 2018.

On January 31, 2019, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement, and scheduled a final fairness hearing for June 3,
2019.

At December 29, 2018, $85.0 million was accrued for a probable loss
related to this matter in the "Other current liabilities" line in
the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. During the three months
ended December 29, 2018, the Company recognized insurance
recoveries of $5.0 million related to this matter in the "Income
(loss) from discontinued operations, net of tax" line in the
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

The Scotts Miracle-Gro said, "There can be no assurance that future
developments with respect to this action, whether as a result of an
adverse outcome or as a result of significant defense costs, will
not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows."

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company manufactures, markets, and sells
consumer lawn and garden products in the United States and
internationally. The company operates through three segments: U.S.
Consumer, Hawthorne, and Other. The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company was
founded in 1868 and is headquartered in Marysville, Ohio.


SEQUEL MEDIA: Barton Seeks Damages for Copyright Infringement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gabrielle Barton, d/b/a Bree Wright, as an individual, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sequel Media
International, LLC, Answer Media LLC, Bloomjoy, Inc., and Jason
Miletsky, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01213 (S.D. N.Y., February
7, 2019) is a civil action seeking damages for copyright
infringement under the copyright laws of the United States.

Defendants own and operate the PuckerMob website,
www.puckermob.com, by employing free-lance contributors who are
compensated by Defendants according to the rates based on the
number of 'views,' 'likes,' 'comments,' and 'shares' by online
viewers of the contributors' work displayed on Website.

Barton is a free-lance writer specializing in subject matters
relevant to young women.

On February 8, 2018, Defendants explicitly refused to compensate
Barton for the display of her Articles, nor remove Barton's
copyrighted Articles from its Website. Defendants have likewise
refused to compensate other class members for their Articles.

Despite numerous demands from Barton for the removal of her
Articles from Website, Defendants have refused. As of the date of
this filing, all Articles authored by Barton remain online and
viewable to the public, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     David C. Deal, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF DAVID C. DEAL, P.L.C.
     P.O. Box 1042
     Crozet, VA 22932
     Phone: (434) 233-2727


SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Home Caregivers' Rehearing Request Rejected
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal appeals panel in Chicago has rejected the request by a
group of home caregivers for a new hearing to reconsider the
courts' prior decisions denying them the opportunity to bring a
class action to recover nearly $32 million they accuse a union of
unconstitutionally taking from them under a state law invalidated
by a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

On Jan. 4, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied the
caregivers' request for a new hearing before the full appellate
court to again make their case the federal courts, to date, have
erred in declaring they have no basis for a class action against
the Service Employees International Union, despite recent Supreme
Court rulings demolishing the legal foundation the state of
Illinois had relied upon to force the caregivers to pay fees to the
unions.

The rehearing denial came about two weeks after the caregivers,
through their attorneys with the National Right to Work Legal
Foundation, had filed their petition with the Seventh Circuit.

Earlier in December, a three-judge panel from the Seventh Circuit
declared it did not believe the Supreme Court's decision in the
case of Janus v American Federation of State County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME) did not change anything in its prior decisions.
The appeals court against upheld the ruling of a federal district
judge who shot down the class action against the SEIU.

In the Dec. 6 ruling, the judges, including Seventh Circuit Chief
Judge Diane P. Wood, emphasized the caregivers can only sue the
union for the return of the illegal fees individually, and not as a
class.

"Nothing in Janus speaks to the suitability of class treatment of
these issues under the unusual circumstances of this case. . . .,"
Wood wrote in the Dec. 6 opinion.

The caregivers' lawsuit had centered on approximately $32 million
the plaintiffs, who are not state employees, said the state had
improperly seized from the money they received from the state as
subsidies for the care they provide to individuals with
disabilities in their homes.

From 2008-2014, the state, under former Gov. Pat Quinn, a Democrat
backed by SEIU, had used a law to declare all in-home personal care
assistants paid through state subsidies to be state employees,
subject to representation by the SEIU.

While caregivers could decide whether to formally join the union
and pay dues, the state subtracted so-called "fair share fees" or
agency fees, from the checks sent to non-union caregivers,
ostensibly to offset the union's bargaining costs.

However, in 2014, the Supreme Court struck that arrangement down,
declaring in Harris v Quinn such compulsory fees to be an
unconstitutional infringement on the rights of personal assistants
and child care providers who were not on the state payroll and
never had asked to be represented by the SEIU or any other union.

The Harris decision then sparked the caregivers' class action, as
they seek to recover the hundreds and thousands of dollars the
state had diverted from their pay to the union coffers.

Judges, however, have so far said the case can't be brought as a
class action, primarily because they believe it would be too
difficult for the courts to be able to say the 80,000 affected
caregivers actually didn't want the union to take their money.

The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing
the decision would incentivize unions to "keep seizing fees from
nonmembers until a court forces them to stop, because the unions
will be able to retain most of the illegally seized monies."

In the meantime, the Supreme Court decided in Janus that states
trample the rights of non-union employees when they are forced pay
"fair share" fees. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito particularly
noted such fee payments had resulted in "billions of dollars …
taken from nonmembers and transferred to public-sector unions in
violation of the First Amendment."

The Supreme Court then granted the caregivers' petition to vacate
the prior rulings denying them their class action attempt. The
Supreme Court directed the Seventh Circuit to reevaluate its prior
ruling in light of Janus.

After the Seventh Circuit said the Janus ruling changed nothing
concerning the caregivers' class action, the caregivers petitioned
for a rehearing before all of the judges on the appeals court. They
argued the courts have been mistaken in asserting workers must
prove they didn't want the union to take their money, if they want
a refund.

They assert the courts have overlooked Janus' finding unions must
secure "clear affirmative consent" from workers before taking any
fees from their pay.

"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that SEIU had illegally confiscated
union dues from thousands of Illinois homecare providers, but the
ruling challenged by this petition denies those same caregivers the
opportunity to reclaim the money that never should have been taken
from them by SEIU in the first place," said National Right to Work
Foundation President Mark Mix, in a prepared statement issued when
the caregivers filed their petition on Dec. 20.

In the order denying the rehearing petition, however, the Seventh
Circuit said no judge on the circuit supported the rehearing
request.

The plaintiffs could yet appeal the decision again to the Supreme
Court. However, the National to Right Work Legal Foundation has yet
to publicly state what it intends to do in light of the Seventh
Circuit's latest decisions on the matter.

A spokesman for the National Right to Work Foundation did not
immediately reply to questions from the Cook County Record on Dec.
8. [GN]


SNAP INC: Continues to Defend Suits over Initial Public Offering
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against Snap Inc. over its initial public offering is
underway, the company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018.

Beginning in May 2017, the company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the underwriters for its initial public offering
(IPO) were named as defendants in securities class actions
purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our Class A common
stock, alleging violation of securities laws in connection with its
IPO.

Snap Inc., "Management believes these lawsuits are without merit
and intend to vigorously defend them. Based on the preliminary
nature of the proceedings in this case, the outcome of this matter
remains uncertain."

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

Snap Inc. operates as a camera company in the United States and
internationally. The company offers Snapchat, a camera application
that helps people to communicate through short videos and images.
The company was formerly known as Snapchat, Inc. and changed its
name to Snap Inc. in September 2016. Snap Inc. was founded in 2010
and is headquartered in Santa Monica, California.



SOUTH AFRICA: High Court Certifies Teachers' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Adrienne Carlisle, writing for DispatchLIVE, reports that the
Grahamstown High Court on Jan. 8 certified a class action which, if
it succeeds, could see the department paying out some R500m to
hundreds of teachers who believe they were short-changed in the
salaries they received since 2010.[GN]


STATE FARM: Baker Suit Moved to Middle District of Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
A case, RASHAD BAKER on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. SU-18-CV-3026, was removed from
the Superior Court of Muscogee County, to the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia (Columbus) on Feb. 7, 2019. The
Middle District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-00014-CDL  tp the proceeding. The suit demanded $5,000,000
and alleges insurance-related violation. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Clay D. Land.

State Farm is a large group of insurance and financial services
companies throughout the United States with corporate headquarters
in Bloomington, Illinois. The group's main business is State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, a mutual insurance firm that
also owns the other State Farm companies.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          D. Grant Coyle, Esq.
          Edward A. Webb, Esq.
          Matthew C. Klase, Esq.
          WEBB KLASE & LEMOND LLC
          1900 The Exchange S.E. Ste 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444-9325
          E-mail: grant@webbllc.com
                  eadamwebb@hotmail.com
                  matt@webbllc.com

               - and -

          Jerry A. Buchanan, Esq.
          BUCHANAN LAW FIRM
          PO Box 2848
          Columbus, GA 31902
          Telephone: (706) 323-2848
          E-mail: jab@thebuchananlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Valerie S. Sanders, Esq.
          Thomas W. Curvin, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
          999 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2300
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3996
          Telephone: (404) 853-8168
          Facsimile: (404) 853-8806
          E-mail: valeriesanders@eversheds-sutherland.com
                  tomcurvin@eversheds-sutherland.com

SUBURBAN PROPANE: Continues to Defend NY & Pennsylvania Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended December 29, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself from two class lawsuits, one in
Pennsylvania and the other from New York.

The Partnership's natural gas and electricity business is currently
a defendant in two putative class action suits in the federal
district courts of New York and Pennsylvania.

The complaints allege a number of claims regarding pricing to its
electricity customers in those states under various consumer
statutes and common law. The complaint in the Pennsylvania action
was dismissed in its entirety by the district court, which
dismissal is being appealed by plaintiff.

Plaintiff also filed a motion to amend its complaint and reverse
the dismissal order, which motion was also denied by the court.

The complaint in the New York action was dismissed in part by the
district court, but causes of action based on the NY consumer
statute and breach of contract were allowed to proceed.

The Partnership has filed a motion for reconsideration seeking the
dismissal of the entire New York complaint.

Based on the nature of the allegations under these suits, the
Partnership believes that the suits are without merit and is
defending each of these suits vigorously.  

With respect to these pending suits, the Partnership has
determined, based on the allegations and discovery to date, that no
reserve for a loss contingency is required.  

Suburban Propane said, "The Partnership is unable to reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, arising from
either of these two actions. Although any litigation is inherently
uncertain, based on past experience, the information currently
available to the Partnership, and the amount of its accrued
insurance liabilities, the Partnership does not believe that
currently pending or threatened litigation matters, or known claims
or known contingent claims, will have a material adverse effect on
its results of operations, financial condition or cash flow."

Suburban Propane Partners, L.P., through its subsidiaries, engages
in the retail marketing and distribution of propane, fuel oil, and
refined fuels. The company operates in four segments: Propane, Fuel
Oil and Refined Fuels, Natural Gas and Electricity, and All Other.
The company was founded in 1945 and is headquartered in Whippany,
New Jersey.


T-MOBILE US: Court Dismisses UCL Claim in 2nd Amended Ames Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICK AMES, Plaintiff, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01666-L-AGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge M. James
Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's
motion to dismiss Ames' Second Amended Complaint.

The case arises out of the Defendant's alleged practice of
soliciting personal information from potential customers and using
it to open unauthorized cell phone service accounts.  The alleged
purpose of this practice is to generate revenue by billing the
unauthorized accounts.

The Plaintiff claims to have fallen victim to this scheme in August
of 2016.  At that time, he entered one of the Defendant's stores to
obtain a price quote for its telephone services.  One of the
Defendant's sales representative told him it was necessary to fill
out a credit report application in order to receive a price quote.
The sales representative also told him that the Defendant would not
charge him any payments or fees for the application and that the
Defendant would use the information only to produce the price
quote.  In reliance on this representation, the Plaintiff provided
his social security number, address, and telephone number.

After receiving the Defendant's price quote, the Plaintiff elected
not to purchase the Defendant's services.  The Plaintiff did not
sign any agreement to purchase goods or services.  Instead, he left
the store with no plans to purchase anything from the Defendant.
Nevertheless, the Plaintiff subsequently received letters from the
Defendant and a third-party debt collector attempting to collect
payment for the Defendant's telephone services.  The letter from
the third-party debt collector stated the Plaintiff had an
outstanding debt of $46.66 due to the Defendant.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint
in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, alleging
(1) violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act;
(2) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (3) violation of
Cal. Bus. Code Section 17200, ("UCL"); (4) common law fraud; and
(5) invasion of privacy.

The Defendant subsequently removed and moved to dismiss.  Instead
of opposing Defendant's first motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff
filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC").  The Defendant moved to
dismiss the Plaintiff's FAC.  The Court granted in part and denied
in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff then filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"),
pursuing only claims for (1) violation of Cal. Bus. Code Section
17200; and (2) common law fraud.  The Defendant moved to dismiss
the Plaintiff's SAC as to the UCL claim.  It also moved to dismiss
the Plaintiff Michelle Herbert's claims.  The Plaintiff opposes the
Defendant's motion to dismiss.

The Defendant asserts that Plaintiff Herbert's claims should be
dismissed because the Plaintiffs did not seek or obtain leave of
the Court to add this Plaintiff to the SAC.  On Nov. 9, 2018,
Plaintiff Herbert voluntarily dismissed her claims.  As such, Judge
Lorenz will not address the Defendant's motion and will deny as
moot as to this issue.

Judge Lorenz denied the Defendant's request to reconsider its
earlier UCL statutory standing ruling.  The issue the Defendant
raises is whether or not the Plaintiff has statutory standing to
sue under the UCL, and this issue was explicitly adjudicated by
this Court in its prior order.  Both parties had a prior chance to
brief this issue.  The Defendant does not cite any authority for
the proposition that when a Court relies on a case, sua sponte,
within the context of an existing issue, doing so creates a new,
justiciable issue.  As indicated, the central issue was whether the
Plaintiff had statutory standing to sue under the UCL, and this
issue was previously adjudicated.

The Judge granted the Defendant's motion with respect to the
Plaintiff's entitlement to injunctive relief under the UCL.  He
finds that the Plaintiff does not explain in his SAC how he,
personally, is likely to be injured again by the actions of the
Defendant.  He only pleads that the Defendant's conduct continues
to cause substantial injury to him and the Members of the Class,
but he cannot stand in the shoes of the potential class members
when pleading standing as the named Plaintiff.  It is just as
likely that the debt levied against the Plaintiff was simply a
clerical error or one bad-acting customer service representative,
rather than an intentional, system-wide policy.  As such, the Judge
agrees with the Defendant that such a conclusory accusation is
insufficient to state a claim for injunctive relief.

Given the liberal amendment policy enshrined in Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), the Plaintiff is permitted the
opportunity to cure these defects.  Therefore, the Judge granted
leave to amend the operative complaint.  If the Plaintiff chooses
to file a third amended complaint, he must do so within 21 days of
the entry of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/AAREkO from Leagle.com.

Patrick Ames, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Todd M. Friedman --
tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman, P.C.

T-Mobile USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Baird Carpenter
-- david.carpenter@alston.com -- Alston & Bird, LLP, pro hac vice,
Elizabeth Anne Sperling -- elizabeth.sperling@alston.com -- Alston
& Bird LLP & Kristine M. Brown -- kristy.brown@alston.com -- Alston
& Bird, LLP, pro hac vice.


TRANSDIGM GROUP: Consolidated Class Suit in Ohio Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
TransDigm Group Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended December 29, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself from a consolidated class action lawsuit
entitled, In re TransDigm Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

The company and certain of its current or former officers and
directors are defendants in a consolidated securities class action
captioned In re TransDigm Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01677-DCN (N.D. Ohio).  

The cases were originally filed on August 10, 2017, and September
18, 2017 and were consolidated on December 5, 2017. A consolidated
amended complaint was filed on February 16, 2018.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false or misleading
statements with respect to, or failed to disclose, the impact of
certain alleged business practices in connection with sales to the
U.S. government on the Company's growth and profitability.  

The plaintiffs assert claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

In addition, the company, as nominal defendant, and certain of our
current or former officers and directors are defendants in a
shareholder derivative action captioned Sciabacucchi v. Howley et
al., No. 1:17-cv-1971-DCN (N.D. Ohio).

The case was filed on September 19, 2017. The plaintiffs allege
breach of fiduciary duty and other claims arising out of
substantially the same actions or inactions alleged in the
securities class actions described above.

This action has been stayed pending the outcome of a motion to
dismiss on the securities class action.  

TransDigm Group said, "Although we are only a nominal defendant in
the derivative action, we could have indemnification obligations
and/or be required to advance the costs and expenses of the officer
and director defendants in the action. We intend to vigorously
defend these matters and believe they are without merit. We also
believe we have sufficient insurance coverage available for these
matters. Therefore, we do not expect these matters to have a
material adverse impact on our financial condition or results of
operations. However, given the preliminary status of the
litigation, it is difficult to predict the likelihood of an adverse
outcome or estimate a range of any potential loss."

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

TransDigm Group Incorporated designs, produces, and supplies
aircraft components in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in three segments: Power & Control, Airframe, and
Non-aviation. TransDigm Group Incorporated was founded in 1993 and
is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.


TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Duryea Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself against a putative class action
initiated by Wanda Duryea.

On June 18, 2018, Wanda Duryea, Matthew Hosking, John McKee, Lisa
Melegari, Michael Reilly, Sandra Steffan, Paul Glantz, Edwin
Blakey, Jennifer Sullivan, Lisa Axelrod, Anbessa Tufa and Christina
Hall, acting on behalf of themselves individually and on behalf of
a putative plaintiff class consisting of all persons and entities
who indirectly purchased pork, filed a class action complaint
against the company and certain of its pork subsidiaries, as well
as several other pork processing companies, in the federal district
court for the District of Minnesota.

Subsequent to the filing of the initial complaint, additional
lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers were also filed in the same court.

The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in
January 2009 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of pork and pork products in
violation of United States antitrust laws. The complaints on behalf
of the putative classes of indirect purchasers also include causes
of action under various state unfair competition laws, consumer
protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws.

The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief, pre-
and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of
the putative classes. The direct purchaser actions and indirect
purchaser actions have been consolidated for pretrial purposes.

On October 23, 2018, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaints. A hearing on the motions was held on January 28, 2019.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. The company was founded in 1935
and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Discovery Ongoing in Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that discovery is
underway in the Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation.

On September 2, 2016, Maplevale Farms, Inc., acting on behalf of
itself and a putative class of direct purchasers of poultry
products, filed a class action complaint against the company and
certain of its poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other
poultry processing companies, in the Northern District of Illinois.


Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional
lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into
actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct
purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and
commercial/institutional indirect purchasers. These three actions
are styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation. Several
amended and consolidated complaints have been filed on behalf of
each putative class.

The currently operative complaints allege, among other things, that
beginning in January 2008 the defendants conspired and combined to
fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens
in violation of United States antitrust laws. The complaints on
behalf of the putative classes of indirect purchasers also include
causes of action under various state unfair competition laws,
consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws.

The complaints also allege that defendants "manipulated and
artificially inflated a widely used Broiler price index, the
Georgia Dock." It is further alleged that the defendants concealed
this conduct from the plaintiffs and the members of the putative
classes.

The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief, pre-
and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of
the putative classes. The court issued a ruling on November 20,
2017 denying all defendants’ motions to dismiss.

The litigation is currently in a discovery phase. Decisions on
class certification and summary judgment motions likely to be filed
by defendants are not expected before the latter part of calendar
year 2020 under the scheduling order currently governing the case.


Scheduling for trial, if necessary, will occur after rulings on
class certification and any summary judgment motions. Certain
putative class members have opted out of this matter and are
proceeding separately, and others may do so in the future.

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

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
food company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,
Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. The company was founded in 1935
and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.


UNITED MAINTENANCE: Underpays Janitors, Seidler & Binns Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SEIDLER and WILL BINNS, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED MAINTENANCE
COMPANY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00813 (N.D. Ill.,
Feb. 7, 2019), alleges that the Defendant's practice of rounding
off janitors' punched-in times deprived the janitors of their
earned wages and overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant purposefully originated,
implemented and controlled the wage and hour policies and practices
that gave rise to the asserted FLSA claims, and the Defendant
purposefully directed their improper wage and hour policies and
practices at residents of the State of Illinois and janitors who
reside in this District, among other people. Michael Seidler and
Will Binns, are residents of Chicago, Illinois and have worked from
December, 2012 through the present as hourly paid, non-exempt
janitors for Defendant in this District during the applicable FLSA
statute of limitations period.

While working as janitors at O'Hare Airport during the last three
years, the Plaintiffs were instructed by supervisory employees of
the Defendant, acting under the direction and control of the
Defendant, to arrive early, before their scheduled shift time, in
order to collect their supplies, meet with supervisors and get to
their designated areas so that they would be at their designated
areas, ready to begin cleaning, at the start time of their
regularly scheduled shifts.  The Plaintiffs would regularly arrive
and punch-in for work before the start time of their scheduled
shift. During the FLSA statutory recovery period, the Defendant
adjusted actual punch times to conform with even hours and/or
scheduled shift times, which typically resulted in the Plaintiffs
and putative class members being paid 40 hours per workweek, or 8
hours per shift, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiffs' Attorneys:

          Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq.
          JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C.
          221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 789 9700

               - and -

          Glen J. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
          GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          121 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1414
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: 312 881 1010

UNITED STATES: Ramah Navajo Interpleader Suit vs. Miwok Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
An interpleader class action lawsuit captioned as, In Re
$323,647.60 in Funds Belonging to the California Valley Miwok
Tribe, Case No. 18-cv-01194 (D. N.M., Dec. 17, 2018), is underway.

The case, filed by Ramah Navajo Chapter, Oglala Sioux Tribe and
Pueblo of Zuni, for themselves and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated, asks the District Court to:

     -- interplead the California Valley Miwok Tribe, Yakima Dixie,
Velma White Bear, Antonia Lopez, Gilbert Ramirez, Jr., Antoinette
Lopez, Michael Mendibles, Iva Carsoner, Teresa Gonzalez and Silvia
Burley as Defendants-in-Interpleader, and

     -- enter an order determining who is entitled to execute a
claim form for Defendant-in-interpleader California Valley Miwok
Tribe, and receive its share of the Net Settlement Amount related
to the settlement of a 1990s lawsuit.

In 1990, the Ramah Navajo Chapter commenced a class action against
the United States of America, the Secretary of the Department of
the Interior, and the Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs, alleging
"system-wide underpayment of indirect costs to members of the
class" resulting from a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) policy "not
to reimburse indirect costs it attributes to programs of other
federal agencies outside of the U.S. Department of the Interior."
Ramah argued that the BIA policy resulted in "reimbursement smaller
than the amount . . . needed to operate the BIA's own programs."
Ramah also alleged that the "policy not to reimburse indirect cost
shortfalls of other agencies [was] applied unevenly and . . . th[e]
lack of uniformity violate[d] equal protection and due process
guarantees of the Fifth Amendment of the United States
Constitution."  That case was captioned, Ramah Navajo Chapter,
Oglala Sioux Tribe, and Pueblo of Zuni, for themselves and on
behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Sally Jewell, Secretary of Interior, in her official capacity,
Lawrence S. Roberts, Acting Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs, in
his official capacity, and United States of America, Defendants,
No. 90 CV 957 JAP/KBM (D. N.M.).

The parties eventually reached a settlement and the district court
granted final approval of the deal in 2016.  The California Valley
Miwok Tribe is entitled to $322,259 of the Net Settlement Amount.
However, there exists an intra-tribal dispute in CVMT: Yakima
Dixie, Velma White Bear, Antonia Lopez, Gilbert Ramirez, Jr.,
Antoinette Lopez, Michael Mendibles, Iva Carsoner and Teresa
Gonzalez comprise one faction that claims leadership of the tribe;
and Silvia Burley represents the other faction that claims to be
the trible's rightful leader.  Both factions have been litigating
the tribe leadership since 2005.

                           *     *     *

In her response to the lawsuit, Silvia Burley asks the District
Court to:

     a. lift the Court's stay order dated February 13, 2017, to
allow a prior interpleader action between the Burley Faction and
the Dixie faction to proceed to judgment;

     b. enter an order to show cause why the Interpleader funds
should not be distributed to either the Burley Faction, or,
alternatively, to the Burley family as enrolled members of the
Miwok Tribe, to the exclusion of the "potential" members mentioned
in a 2015 decision by the Assistant Secretary of Interior, Indian
Affairs ("ASI-IA"), which decision has been upheld by the U.S.
Court Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; or, in the alternative, set a
briefing schedule on the issue on cross-motions for
summary judgment; and

     c. deny any request to transfer of this action to another
District Court.

According to Burley, Yakima Dixie has died and the death leaves the
leadership dispute between Burley and Dixie unresolved.  She says
the ASI-IA's 2015 Decision left intact Dixie's actions of enrolling
the Burley family in 1998 as tribal members.  Burley contends that
the Burley Faction alone are entitled to the funds in interpleader
in equal shares to the exclusion of the members of the Dixie
Faction whom the BIA has never recognized as actual, enrolled
members of the Tribe.  Burley explains that the ASI-IA's 2015
Decision describes these individuals as merely "potential" members
who have a right to participate in the reorganization of the Tribe
under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934.  She asserts that the
Dixie Faction's attempt to reorganize the Tribe pursuant to the
ASI-IA's 2015 Decision was conditioned upon Dixie, and Dixie alone,
submitting a proposed governing document for the BIA's
consideration.  However, Dixie died before he was able to do so.

"Members of Dixie's Faction have no standing or right to reorganize
the Tribe on their own, either under the IRA or otherwise. The BIA
initially sought to force the Tribe to reorganize in an effort to
resolve the Tribal leadership dispute between Burley and Dixie. Now
that Dixie has died, there is no longer any need to reorganize,
because there is no longer any leadership dispute," Burley
contends.

She adds: "Thus, membership of the Miwok Tribe consists of those
members Dixie enrolled before the leadership dispute commenced, now
that Dixie has died."[BN]

Counsels for Ramah Navajo Chapter and Oglala Sioux Tribe:

          Michael P. Gross, Esq.
          M.P. GROSS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          460 St., Michaels Drive, Suite 401
          Santa Fe., NM 87505
          E-mail: mike@mpgrosslaw.com

               - and -

          Bryant Rogers, Esq.
          VANAMBERG, ROGERS, YEPA, ABEITA, GOMEZ &
          WORK, LLP
          PO Box 1447
          Santa Fe, NM 87504-1447
          E-mail: cbrogers@nmlawgroup.com

Counsel for Pueblo of Zuni:

          Lloyd B. Miller, Esq.
          SONOSKY, CHAMBERS, SACHSE, MILLER & MUNSON
          900 West Fifth Ave., No. 700
          Anchorage, AK 99501
          E-mail: llyod@sonosky.net

Counsel to Burley:

          Manuel Corrales, Jr., Esq.
          17140 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 358
          San Diego, CA 92128
          Tel: (858) 521-0634
          Fax: (858) 521-0633

Counsel for Defendants-in-Interpleader California Valley Miwok
Tribe, Yakima Dixie, Velma WhiteBear, Antonia Lopez, Gilbert
Ramirez, Jr. Antoinette Lopez, Michael Mendibles, and Iva
Carsoner:

          James F. Rusk, Esq.
          Robert J. Uram, Esq.
          Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          E-mail: jrusk@sheppardmullin.com
                  ruram@sheppardmullin.com

UNITED STATES: Underpays Fire Fighters, Anello et al. Allege
------------------------------------------------------------
LORI ANELLO; KARL BLACK; GEORGE CLARY; WILLIAM DENELL; JUSTIN
GROSSNICKLE; ERIC INKROTE; TIMOTHY MCGREW; MARK MILLER; DAVID
NALBORCZYK; MARTIN NEAL; JR.; LUKE PALMER; THOMAS RHINEHART, JR.;
and IVAN TODD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00118-PEC (Fed. Cl., Jan. 23, 2019) seeks to recover from
the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as fire fighters by
the Department of Commerce at the headquarters of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United
States or America, is a country composed of 50 states, a federal
district, five major self-governing territories, and various
possessions.  Beginning Dec. 21, 2018, the U.S. government shut
down certain agencies for more than a month after the Trump
administration failed to reach a compromise with Congress over the
proposed budget for the walls President Donald Trump wanted built
on the U.S.-Mexico border.  The shutdown ended Jan. 25, 2019, at 35
days, when President Trump and Congressional leaders agreed to a
stop-gap spending bill.  President Trump signed a bill that funds
the government at current levels for three weeks, until Feb. 15,
while they negotiate plans for increased border security.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas A. Woodley, Esq.
          WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP
          1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 833-8855
          E-mail: taw@wmlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          T. Reid Coploff, Esq.
          William W. Li, Esq.
          WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP
          1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 833-8855
          E-mail: taw@wmlaborlaw.com
                  wwl@wmlaborlaw.com


VISA: Settles Retailers' Class Action Over Swipe Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
Maria Peroni, writing for American Booksellers Association, reports
that bookstores that accept Visa- and MasterCard-branded cards are
potentially included in a recent settlement of a class-action
lawsuit. Visa and MasterCard have agreed to pay between $5.54
billion and $6.24 billion to a class of more than 12 million
retailers as part of a settlement involving swipe fees. Booksellers
and other retailers that accepted Visa- and MasterCard-branded
cards at any time from January 1, 2004, until the court approves
the settlement will be included in the class.

"Some booksellers may have received e-mails from law firms
volunteering to handle the class action for them," said David
Grogan, director of ABFE, Advocacy and Public Policy for the
American Booksellers Association. "It is important to read the fine
print on any solicitation like that. These companies offer to
handle the filing for a percentage of the claim." Grogan stressed
that booksellers should bookmark the court-authorized settlement
website and contact him if they have any questions or concerns
regarding the settlement.

The most recent settlement, announced in September 2018, could
bring a conclusion to a legal challenge that began in 2005. That
year, a lawsuit was brought by 19 retailers and trade associations,
but 10 of the plaintiffs, including all of the associations,
rejected in 2012 a $7.25 billion settlement. Additionally, at the
time, almost 8,000 merchants, representing at least 25 percent of
Visa and MasterCard volume, had opted out of the antitrust lawsuit
settlement, including 10 of the original 19 named class
plaintiffs.

Several national retail associations, including the National Retail
Federation (NRF), the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA),
and the American Booksellers Association recommended that their
members opt out and object to the settlement due to key provisions,
including the stipulation that retailers that opted in to the
settlement waived their right to bring future antitrust lawsuits
against the companies in perpetuity.

At that time, the groups also argued that the settlement amounted
to less than two months' worth of swipe fees, based on the swipe
fees collected by the credit card companies on an annual basis. The
groups successfully asked the court to overturn the settlement.

One improvement to the latest settlement is that merchants that opt
in to the new settlement will face only a five-year ban on suits
against Visa and Mastercard, as opposed to the permanent ban on
future swipe fee lawsuits mandated in the earlier settlement.

NRF, however, has publicly stated that it remains unhappy with this
settlement. Under the new plan, merchants would now be paid $6.2
billion, a reduction from the $7.25 billion originally offered and
still only a fraction of the nearly $250 billion in fees charged
during the period covered by the suit, the retail association noted
in a press statement when the settlement was announced. And
negotiations are continuing on possible changes regarding how Visa
and MasterCard set the complex matrix of swipe fees followed by
virtually all banks that issue their cards, a practice NRF contends
violates federal antitrust law.

NRF has said it is watching the process closely but cautioned that
"significant changes" in the way swipe fees are set are "integral
to helping merchants."

Though the settlement has been filed, the court must still approve
the agreement before class members can file a form for restitution.
According to the court-authorized settlement website, known class
members will be mailed a notice about their legal rights and the
release of their claims following preliminary approval. If the
court grants final approval and any appeals are resolved, a claim
form and deadline will be established. Updates on the settlement
will be posted on the court-authorized site.

The settlement website provides an FAQ for any merchant with
questions about the settlement. ABA members with further questions
can contact dave@bookweb.org. [GN]


WAL-MART STORES: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Pitre Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Randy Pitre, et al. v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-01281-DOC-DFM, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 31, 2019, the Hon.
David O. Carter entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
      Specifically, the Court certified:

      a Class defined as:

      "All of DEFENDANTS' current, former and prospective
      applicants for employment in the United States who applied
      for a job with DEFENDANTS at any time during the period for
      which a background check was performed beginning five years
      prior to the filing of this action and ending on the date
      that final judgment is entered in this action"; and

      Two Subclasses defined as:

      "Sub-Class 1: all members of the Class who applied for
      employment prior to November 5, 2015"; and

      "Sub-Class 2: all members of the Class who applied for
       employment on or after November 5, 2015"; and

   2. granting Plaintiff's motion for leave to add additional
      class representatives Cassandra Walters and Desirae Wilson.

The appellate case is captioned as Randy Pitre, et al. v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-80014, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent RANDY PITRE, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Howard Scott Leviant, Esq.
          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: scott@setarehlaw.com
                  shaun@setarehlaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation,
is represented by:

          Robert James Herrington, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586-7700
          Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
          E-mail: herringtonr@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          James N. Boudreau, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          2700 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988-7833
          Facsimile: (215) 988-7801
          E-mail: boudreauj@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Theane Evangelis, Esq.
          Bradley Joseph Hamburger, Esq.
          Jeremy Sokol Smith, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7658
          E-mail: TEvangelis@gibsondunn.com
                  bhamburger@gibsondunn.com
                  jssmith@gibsondunn.com


WILSON SPORTING: Settlement in Oda Suit Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Hiroyuki Oda, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Wilson Sporting
Goods Co., Defendants, Case No. 8:15-cv-02131-JLS-JCG (C.D. Cal.),
Judge Josephine L. Staton of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Southern Division, (i) granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement;
and granted in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Costs, Class Representative Awards, and Administrator Costs.

The matter came before the Court pursuant to the Court's Order of
Preliminary Class Settlement Approval filed June 6, 2018 to
determine whether the Revised Settlement Agreement and Release
dated April 12, 2018 is fair and reasonable and should be approved
as being in the best interest of the Settlement Class.  

Judge Staton granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement.  She certified the Class consisting of all
individual consumers, exclusive of Wilson, its employees, judges
presiding over the case and Plaintiffs' counsel, who purchased from
Wilson or an authorized retailer of Wilson in the United States,
one or more new 13/14 White Steels within the four years of the
filing of the original Complaint (i.e. after Dec. 23, 2011) to the
date the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.

Plaintiffs Hiroyuki Oda and Corey Roth are confirmed as the Class
Representatives; abd Bisnar|Chase LLP and Dickson Kohan & Bablove
LLP as the sole Class Counsel.

In addition, having fully reviewed the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Costs, Class Representative Awards, and
Administrator Costs, the Judge approved the Class Counsel's
application for attorneys' fees in the amount of $234,534.45; their
request for $112,625.02 in litigation costs; and $60,120.30 in
third-party administration costs for settlement notice provided by
KCC.

The Judge also approved a Class Representative Award to Hiroyuki
Oda in the amount of $5,000, and to Corey Roth in the amount of
$5,000.

The Parties will bear their own costs and attorneys' fees, except
as otherwise provided by the Agreement and the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/hwyZ6u from Leagle.com.

Hiroyaki Oda, a California resident, individually, and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated & Corey Roth, a
California resident, individually, and on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Brian D.
Chase -- bchase@bisnarchase.com -- Bisnar Chase LLP, Jesse Monroe
Bablove -- jbablove@dkblawyers.com -- Dickson Kohan and Bablove
LLP, Daniel J. Hyun, Bisnar Chase LLP & Jerusalem F. Beligan --
jbeligan@bisnarchase.com -- Bisnar Chase LLP.

DeMarini Sports Inc, Defendant, represented by Jeffery A. Key --
bkey@bkeycpa.com -- Key and Associates, pro hac vice, Michael C.
Keefe, Law Offices of Michael Keefe, pro hac vice & Eric R.
McDonough -- emcdonough@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

DeMarini Sports Group Limited Partnership, Defendant, represented
by Jeffery A. Key, Key and Associates, pro hac vice & Eric R.
McDonough, Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

Wilson Sporting Goods Co, Defendant, represented by Jeffery A. Key,
Key and Associates, pro hac vice, Louis S. Chronowski, Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, pro hac vice, Michael C. Keefe, Law Offices of Michael
Keefe, pro hac vice & Eric R. McDonough, Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


WONOLO INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cooper Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
CHERYL T. COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WONOLO INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH
50, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-573042 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco Cty., Jan. 23, 2019) is an action against the Defendants
for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt, hourly
paid employee.

Wonolo Inc. provides an application for on-demand staffing needs of
businesses. It offers Wonolo, an application that connects the job
seekers with immediate hourly or daily jobs, and allows them to
work at the desired place, time, and company/business. The company
offers general labor, warehouse operations, delivery drivers,
merchandising, event staff, and administrative tasks. The company's
application is also used for businesses to post jobs to find talent
for their immediate work needs. Wonolo Inc. was founded in 2013 and
is based in San Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          William M. Pao, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  scott@setarehlaw.com
                  william@setarehlaw.com


YOGAWORKS INC: Faces Cohen Securities Class Action Over 2017 IPO
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Cohen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. YogaWorks, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-10696 (C.D.
Calif., December 27, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons
and entities, other than the Defendants, who purchased YogaWorks
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial
public offering commenced on or about August 10, 2017 and closed on
August 16, 2017.

In violation of the Securities Act, the Defendants negligently
issued untrue statements of material facts, and omitted to state
material facts required to be stated, from the Offering Materials
presented to the public in support of the IPO, asserts the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities at artificially
inflated prices pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO.

The Defendant YogaWorks is a Delaware corporation with principal
executive offices located at 5780 Uplander Way, Culver City,
California 90230. YogaWorks' securities trade on NASDAQ under the
ticker symbol "YOGA." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 785-2610
      Fax: (213) 226-4684
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


[*] Aussie Banks Face Litigious Year After Hayne Royal Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Misa Han, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that big
banks and financial services firms face a litigious 12 months as
last year's Hayne royal commission hearings embolden regulators,
consumers and shareholders to take them to court.

Banks already face some major court actions, with more expected to
be filed this year. In the first half of the year, Westpac will
defend its home-lending practices against the corporate regulator
in a two-week hearing and AMP will defend a civil penalty case for
its alleged involvement in the insurance rewriting scandal.

In July, there will be a three-week Federal Court hearing to decide
whether IOOF's chief executive Chris Kelaher, chairman George
Venardos and three members of the executive team should be
disqualified.

AMP will continue to fight a shareholder class action once the NSW
Supreme Court picks which law firm gets to run the case, while a
number of law firms are investigating a potential class action
against IOOF. Banks also face class actions from consumers.

Slater and Gordon launched a class action against National
Australia Bank for selling junk credit card insurance last year and
said it would go after Commonwealth Bank and AMP for charging
excessive fees and paying below market rates on cash holdings.

Home lending ripe for litigation
One area considered ripe for further litigation is irresponsible
home lending.

Maurice Blackburn partner Josh Mennen says many issues raised in
the royal commission already have been through the court system.
"In a way, the blood has already been split," he said.

However, an area that had been overlooked was home loans because
the property market had been soaring, interest rates were at record
lows and many mortgages were written as interest-only loans.

"It's been a sleeping issue until now, but we are seeing the
maturation of interest-only loans on a very large-scale and there
will be a high-volume of cases, particularly as banks seek to
repossess properties from them," Mr Mennen said. The firm received
about a dozen inquiries a week about the issue, up from about one a
week a year ago.

Mr Mennen said the big banks and their subsidiaries appeared to
have engaged in potentially irresponsible lending practices, by
approving so-called "liar loans" received through mortgage brokers
and relying on conservative benchmarking tools such as the
household expenditure measure.

'Big pipeline'
Herbert Smith Freehills partner Jason Betts, who is defending AMP
in the shareholder class action, said there would be a "big
pipeline" of class actions this year following the royal
commission.

"The entrepreneurial nature of our class-action market means that
we can expect a two-, three-year pipeline of litigation flowing
from the subject matter covered at the commission, predominantly
class actions but also regulatory prosecutions," he said.

Exacerbating this could be a court decision on the so-called common
fund order. In February, the Federal Court and the NSW Supreme
Court will jointly decide whether class-action law firms and
litigation funders are allowed to charge all members of a class,
not just those they sign up.

Gilbert + Tobin partner Richard Harris said if common fund orders
were allowed, this would likely lead to more class actions being
filed because lawyers and funders did not need to sign up large
institutions at the start of the process.

"The beauty for litigation funders of a common fund order is they
only need to find seven affected plaintiffs of any size rather than
claimants of sufficient magnitude to make running the claim
financially rewarding," he said.

"This means a whole raft of cases that were uneconomic before would
become much more economic."

'Not enough money'
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission will come
under renewed pressure this year to take more cases against major
banks.

New commissioner Sean Hughes said "why not litigate" would be the
new mantra at the regulator. Meanwhile, deputy chairman Daniel
Crennan declared banks had entered a "new world" where they would
be "lucky" to get an enforcement undertaking instead of being taken
to court.

However, Swinburne University corporate governance expert Helen
Bird questioned whether ASIC could bring significantly more court
cases against major banks without additional government funding.

Only $26 million of the extra $70 million funding announced by the
Turnbull government in August last year is set aside for running
actions for "serious misconduct against well-funded litigants".

Ms Bird estimated that "conservatively", $26 million would fund
only five or six contested court cases.

"It is not hard to incur legal costs of $5 million in complex court
cases, particularly where the alleged misconduct extends back over
several years," she said. [GN]


[*] Homeowners Sue Insurers for Denying Pyrrhotite Concrete Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hartford Courant reports that in the early 2000s, when the
concrete-crumbling pyrrhotite plague first showed up in homes in
Trois-Riveres, Canada, there were already a number of safeguards in
place that contributed to the relatively quick response to the
problem.

Since then, about 2,000 homes have had their foundations replaced
in the city, six hours north of Hartford. Here, the process is just
getting underway, and it's still not clear who or what is going to
bear the costs of replacing potentially thousands of crumbling
concrete foundations in northeastern Connecticut.

The factors that combined to move things along in Canada are
largely missing here.

Trois-Rivieres had a sympathetic judge.

In 2014, more than 800 Canadian homeowners won a huge lawsuit. The
judge found that a testing laboratory had ignored Canadian building
guidelines when it allowed pyrrhotite in concrete.

The judge ordered the lab to pay the lion's share of the $196
million penalty ($146 million in U.S. dollars). The big companies
involved -- the quarry, concrete makers and other contractors --
are paying the rest. They have appealed the decision.

Connecticut homeowners are having a tougher time in court.

The two companies linked to crumbling foundations have "no
substantial assets," former Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said. They are
the Becker quarry in Willington and the now-dissolved Joseph J.
Mottes concrete company of Stafford, owned by the same family. A
family member blames installers. The two companies have
nevertheless agreed to stop selling aggregate for home construction
within Connecticut.

Homeowners have turned to suing insurance companies for denying
their claims.

For years, however, the state's Insurance Department has been
approving changes in homeowner policies. Those changes limit
insurers' coverage for foundations. One case did make it to a jury
trial. In 2011, Joseph and Janice Bacewicz of Tolland won $175,000,
plus $41,000 in interest, from NGM Insurance Co.

A class-action suit is winding its way through federal court in
Bridgeport. Some 30 homeowners are suing a dozen insurers. So far,
the lawsuit has survived motions to dismiss it.

Quarry testing found pyrrhotite in Canada.

The state of Connecticut doesn't require quarry testing for
pyrrhotite or other damaging iron sulfides. That has to change. The
Becker quarry isn't the only one sitting in a rock formation that
might contain iron sulfides, according to a map published by James
Mahoney, an engineer whose own home is affected.

Also, Connecticut leaves quarry permitting largely up to strapped
towns — unlike, say, Pennsylvania, whose Department of
Environmental Protection issues permits and regulates all mining in
the state. That state requires chemical analyses of minerals to
detect dangerous sulfides.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is recommending that Connecticut
adopt the toughest quarry standards in the U.S. What is Connecticut
waiting for?

It's waiting for a quarry plan. It's waited more than a year for
legislators to finish appointing members of a group to come up with
that plan. It's now waiting for the group to meet. Their report was
due, by law, in 2018. What's the holdup?

Trois-Rivieres had records.

Once basement walls began to crack, homeowners in Trois-Riveres
could see where their concrete came from and what it contained,
because many companies retained those records.

Connecticut homeowners have had a harder time finding that
information. Home building permits didn't have to list concrete
suppliers or installers until recently. Many Mottes company records
were lost in a fire, according to a lawsuit.

Now state law makes it easier to find this information. It requires
town officials to collect the names of concrete suppliers and
installers for new buildings and hold them for 50 years.

Canadian companies were held to standards.

The judge in the 2014 mega-lawsuit in Trois-Riveres pointed to a
Canadian building standard that had warned against iron sulfides in
concrete. That standard, the judge said, "is at the heart of the
debate."

The judge also quoted the standard from ASTM International —
formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials.
That standard says iron sulfides can "create distress in
concrete."

Connecticut doesn't require home construction companies to abide by
this international standard.

Trois-Rivieres homeowners banded together earlier.

In 2009, residents formed what would become the Coalition d'Aide
aux Victimes de la Pyrrhotite. It's a formidable group that has
advocated, successfully, for homeowners and that gets government
funds for a full-time staffer to guide them through the remediation
process.

The Connecticut Coalition Against Crumbling Basements began seven
years later, when the pyrrhotite story broke. This coalition is run
by two volunteers, Tim Heim and Cheryl Cranick, with no government
funding. It attracts large crowds to meetings, but its leaders have
other jobs, and Mr. Heim has added a second one to pay for his own
crumbling foundation: He's taking core samples from homes to test
for pyrrhotite at Trinity College.

There is federal help for Trois-Rivieres.

The Trudeau administration has pledged $30 million to help with
foundations, and the government of Quebec, $52 million.

By contrast, the Trump administration has yet to pledge any money
to Connecticut's problem. It's giving tax breaks to homeowners.
They can deduct the cost of repairs. And the state can divert money
it already gets in federal block grants to this problem. But
there's no new money.

There's no Federal Emergency Management Agency to the rescue with
grants. The state has twice asked and twice gotten shot down.

Connecticut is on its own.

But, having failed homeowners for too long, Connecticut is on the
case.

The state promises to be generous with stricken homeowners. It
plans to bond $100 million over five years to fix foundations. It
is also raising $9 million a year from a $12 annual surcharge on
homeowner insurance policies.

Connecticut's grants will be more generous than Canada's, where
remediation aid is capped at $75,000 per home.

The Connecticut aid could stop, however, if the state doesn't bond
for it every year.

The final lesson: Don't lose hope.

The good news from Canada is that homes regain their worth once the
pyrrhotite is gone.

"Once they have been repaired, they recover their value," Sonya
Auclair, Trois-Rivieres' assessor, recently told the Trois-Riviere
newspaper Le Nouvelliste.

Connecticut begins that long path to recovery in January, when
homeowners can start filing claims at crumblingfoundations.org.

This state must, meanwhile, make sure that pyrrhotite never gets
into another new house.

This tragedy can't happen again. Connecticut must do far more to
protect its residents from this concrete cancer. [GN]


[*] Website-Related ADA Class Actions Expected to Rise in 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------
Craig T. Papka, Esq. -- cpapka@vonbriesen.com -- and Robert J.
Simandl, Esq. -- rsimandl@vonbriesen.com -- of von Briesen & Roper,
s.c., in an article for The National Law Review, reports that
business owners beware: 2019 promises an increased number of
federal class action lawsuits alleging that company websites and
point-of-sale terminals ("POS") violate Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). A business owner can end up paying
substantial monetary damages and attorneys' fees, in addition to
the expense of redesigning and modifying their business platform to
accommodate the plaintiffs.

Title III of the ADA requires businesses to remove obstacles that
interfere with the ability of disabled persons to access their
products or services. These class action lawsuits target businesses
that have not provided accessible websites and POS terminals. The
claims typically have been brought by groups of visually impaired
consumers alleging that the business failed to allow for internet
access which accommodates their disability.

If it is determined that a business' website or POS terminal
violates Title III of the ADA, the business could be required to
redesign its website to ensure it no longer violates the ADA.

The prevailing party, while not entitled to a monetary recovery,
would be entitled to attorneys' fees. Nonetheless, the lack of
money damages has not deterred individuals from aggressively filing
claims against businesses requesting an economic recovery. These
claims often settle prior to trial because businesses are often
willing to pay a nominal amount to the aggrieved parties, as a cost
of doing business, to resolve the dispute rather than getting tied
up in costly litigation and negative media attention.

Because it is fairly easy for individuals to initiate lawsuits for
violations of Title III, we encourage businesses to take a few
basic steps to reduce their exposure to these types of claims.
First, businesses should review their website and determine whether
it complies with the ADA, state laws, and local ordinances. One of
the most common accepted industry standards for websites is the
World Wide Web Consortium's ("W3C") Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines ("WCAG"). The WCAG has been widely accepted as providing
for full and equal access in accordance with federal law. In fact,
a long list of countries, state and local governments, and
businesses have adopted the WCAG standards to ensure websites are
more accessible to people with disabilities. To ensure compliance
with WCAG standards, businesses should work with their IT
department or an external consulting firm. Ensuring compliance with
the WCAG standards, while not necessarily the ultimate defense,
will limit exposure to class action lawsuits alleging violations of
Title III of the ADA.

ADA issues also arise when applicants apply through company
websites. To minimize liability, according to the EEOC, employers
should:

Ensure that job announcements posted on job boards and
social/professional networking sites are in formats that are
accessible to jobseekers with disabilities.

Indicate on job announcements that qualified individuals with
disabilities are encouraged to apply and that reasonable
accommodations will be provided.

Ensure online application systems, including online pre-employment
tests, are accessible to candidates with disabilities. Visit the
Partnership on Employment and Accessible Technology interactive web
portal athttps://www.peatworks.org/ for employer tips on ensuring
accessible online job application systems.

Confirm that interview locations are physically accessible. Visit
www.ADA.gov for information on building accessibility.

Inform all applicants ahead of time what the interview process may
include and provide them with the opportunity to request a
reasonable accommodation, if needed.

Be prepared to provide reasonable accommodations for applications,
interviews, preemployment tests, and other aspects of the hiring
process when needed, including assigning staff to arrange and
approve requested accommodations in a timely fashion. For
information on web content accessibility, please see the WCAG
standards and www.Section508.gov for accessibility guidelines under
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***