CAR_Public/190222.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, February 22, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 39

                            Headlines

3M: Judges Review Firefighting Foam Cases for Consolidation
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Al Labade Hits Share Drop Over Franchise Row
ALLIANZ LIFE: Court Denies Certification in Thompson Suit
ANTHEM INC: Can't Use First Class Mail for Settlement Notices
ATH HOLDING: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Bell ERISA Suit

BAKERY BOYS: Espinal Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
BALTIMORE, MD: Seeks Dismissal of Sexual Assault Class Action
BEYOND BETTER: Sued Over Products' Deceptive, Misleading Labels
BIG HEART HOME: Latysheva Seeks Reimbursements, Overtime Pay
BLUE DIAMOND: Proskauer Rose Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling

BOISE SD 1: Zeyen Suit Stayed Pending Appeal in Idaho Supreme Court
BRAULIO CHIWIANT: Lopez Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
CAREFIRST INC: Court Narrows Claims in Attias Data Breach Suit
CARMENGIO'S LLC: Navarrete Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
CHARLOTTE, NC: Homebuilders File Class Action Over Unlawful Fees

COMMUNITY INSURANCE: Court Narrows Claims in ERISA Suit
DENN-OHIO LLC: Sued by O'Neal for Paying Servers Sub-Minimum Wage
DIRECTSONG: No Update on Guild Wars 2 Consumers' Class Action
DISKOLAB LLC: Faces TCPA Text Messaging Class Action
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Delivery Drivers to Share $1MM Settlement

FINANCIAL CORPORATION: Thomas Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
FLOWERS BAKING: Green, et al. Seek Overtime Wages, Damages
FOREST PHARMA: 1st Cir. Flips Summary Judgment in Celexa Suit
FORSTER & GARBUS: Radie Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
HOME DEPOT: Oral Argument Set in Class Action Over Sales Tactics

HOSPITAL CORP: 5th Circuit Appeal Filed in Maderazo Suit
IPASS INC: Faces 2 Class Actions Over Merger Disclosures
IQVIA INC: Garner Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
JOE'S AUTO WRECKERS: Cabrera Seeks to Recover Min., Overtime Pay
KEURIG DR. PEPPER: Settles Canada Dry False Advertising Lawsuit

KEYTRONICEMS: Vang Settlement Has Preliminary Court Approval
KIIP INC: Farag Brings Data Theft Class Action to Illinois State Ct
KITTRICH CORP: Faces Krumm Suit Over Useless Insect Repellent
KNOXVILLE, TN: Sued Over County Jail Video-Only Visitation Policy
LLOYD'S OF LONDON: Says Committed to Protecting Policyholders

MACQUARIE INFRA: Bernstein Litowitz to Lead in Securities Suit
MARY JANE ELLIOTT: Appeals Ruling in VanderKodde Suit to 6th Cir.
MBT FINANCIAL: Pauli Seeks to Halt Merger With First Merchants
MCDERMOTT INT'L: Wolf Popper Files Securities Class Action
MCKESSON CORPORATION: Court Denies Relief from Nondispositive Order

MDL 2752: Prelim Approval of Data Security Breach Suit Deal Denied
MDL 2879: Cases Transferred to Maryland Dist. Ct.
MG NAIL & BEAUTY: Denied Li Overtime Pay, Wage Statements
MIDWAY IMPORTING: Prudencio Appeals Final Judgment to 9th Cir.
MIDWEST DIVERSIFIED: Demastes Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

MINNE INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA and IMWL, Cortez Says
MONSANTO COMPANY: McCrae Sues Over Herbicide Side-effects
NATIONSTAR: Sued Over Unlawful Mortgage Servicing Practices
NESTLE USA: Court Dismisses Tomasella Suit Over Child Labor Issues
OCWEN LOAN: $500K Settlement in Grant FDCA Suit Has Final Approval

OHIO NATIONAL: Brokers' Lawsuit Over Trail Commissions Amended
PETROLEUM WHOLESALE: Misclassifies Store Managers, Hradil Alleges
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Martin Suit Alleges FDCPA Breach
PREMIER NUTRITION: Gregorio Suit Dismissal Appealed to 2nd Cir.
PYRAMID CONSULTING: Courts Approves S. Banks' FLSA Settlement

RAG & BONE INDUSTRIES: Haggar Claims Website not Blind-Friendly
RAY KLEIN: Russell Files Suit Asserting FDCPA Breach
ROYAL BUILDING: M. Hairston Not Allowed to Add Class Claims
RPT REALTY: Nekouee Claims Establishments Not Wheelchair-Friendly
RYDER INTEGRATED: Faces Class Suit Over Storage of Biometric Data  

SA DUNN: Class Action Mulled Over Landfill Foul Odors
SANDIA CORP: To Produce Policy Docs from 2018 in Kennicott Suit
SCHWABE NA: Sheppard Mullin Attorneys Discuss 9th Cir. Ruling
SONY MUSIC: Faces Johansen Class Action for Copyright Infringement
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Saxon Files Labor Class Action

SPERIAN ENERGY CORP: Perrong Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
SPREEMO INC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss R. Mauthe's TCPA Suit
SSC KERRVILLE: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Passmore Suit
ST ANNE'S CATHOLIC: Ex-Pupils to Get Payouts for Mulligan Abuse
STORM TIGHT WINDOWS: Mendoza Hits Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls

SUN LIFE: Must Face $2.5-Bil. Class Action, Top Court Rules
TOLL BROS: Kurilchik Suit Asserts Illegal Debt Collection
TRANS UNION: Kiler Sues Over Not Blind-accessible Website
UBS: Aug. 19 Canadian FX Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
UNION BANK: Merger Gets Regulatory Approval After Suit Withdrawn

VALE SA: Epstein Files Securities Class Action Over Share Drop
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Jasken Claims Unpaid Overtime Wages
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Ruemmele Seeks Unpaid Wages
WAWA INC: Employees to Proceed with Suit Over Stock Sell-Off
WETSCH ABBOTT OSBORN: Johnson Disputes Collection Letter

WEYERHAEUSER CO: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Order in Esanbock Suit
WISCONSIN: Juvenile Prisons Still Need Significant Improvements
WYNDHAM VACATION: Maree Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
YALE UNIVERSITY: McNeil Suit Asserts Discrimination and Harassment
YUBA COUNTY, CA: Amended Consent Decree in Hedrick Suit Approved

[*] Group Calls for Removal of Mandatory Arbitration Clauses
[*] Panel in Europe Gives Views on Funding Class Actions
[*] Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Key Trends in Workplace Class Action

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ga. Ct. App. Says Insurers Must Indemnify Scapa
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jenkins Bros. Appeal of Idell Suit Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgment Favors Pneumo Abex, et al., in Dove
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WCB Ruling of Hall's Exposure Affirmed on Appeal


                            *********

3M: Judges Review Firefighting Foam Cases for Consolidation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marc S. Reisch, writing for c&en, reports that straight out of
college, Ted Schaefer's first assignment at 3M Canada was to
provide technical support and formulate firefighting foams. It was
1980, and 3M was the dominant producer of
fluorosurfactant-containing foams used to quell hydrocarbon fires
after aircraft crash landings and to put out fires at oil
refineries, chemical plants, and storage-tank facilities.

From the 1970s through the 1990s, 3M's Light Water fire suppressant
-- and other fluorosurfactant-based firefighting foams like it --
were the "highest performing" foams available, recalls Schaefer,
who earned a degree in chemistry from the University of Waterloo.
The foams seemed to have few, if any, drawbacks.

A concentrated formula, diluted with water, forms a heat-resistant
foam blanket that rapidly cools and smothers most
hydrocarbon-fueled fires. The fluorine content helps create a
low-surface-tension film that rapidly spreads across the surface of
a flammable liquid. A foam's quick action in a fire can mean the
difference between life and death.

Fluorosurfactants are a class of fluorine-based chemicals also used
in fabric-protection sprays sold under names such as Scotchgard and
Teflon and, previously, as processing aids in the manufacture of
nonstick pots and pans. But because firefighting foams are applied
in the outdoor environment, they are a major vector for the release
of fluorochemicals into drinking water, where their presence is
associated with diseases including cancer.

Schaefer recalls asking fellow 3M scientists how fluorosurfactants
degrade in the environment. "I was told that fluorosurfactants are
nonreactive, inert materials," he says. "They should be thought of
as 'chemical rocks.' " His colleagues assured him that the
surfactants would do no harm when they got into the environment.

The 3M scientists were wrong. In 2000 the company admitted that
surfactants based on perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), which
were used in Light Water, were accumulating in the environment and
showing up in humans and animals at levels that raised health
questions. Similar fluorosurfactants based on perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA), another eight-carbon fluorochemical, have been linked
to human health concerns as well.

However, many firefighting experts, including US military
scientists, consider fluorosurfactant-containing foams essential to
preserving life and property because they suppress fires more
quickly than alternatives, such as old-style protein foams
containing hydrocarbon surfactants and ground animal hooves.

Layered on top of the safety debate are lawsuits from firefighters
and people claiming illness from drinking water contaminated with
PFOA- and PFOS-based fluorosurfactants and their six-carbon
replacements -- compounds that together are known as per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). States and municipalities have
also filed lawsuits seeking to recoup costs for water filtration
systems.

A 2016 Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health study using US
Environmental Protection Agency data found PFAS in drinking water
at 664 military training facilities and 533 civilian airports. A
Department of Defense report to Congress in late 2017 acknowledged
393 active and closed military installations where the department
knows or suspects itcontaminated drinking water with PFOA or PFOS
compounds.

Last year, the state of Washington passed legislation to ban
PFAS-containing firefighting foams beginning in 2020. Fire trucks
will no longer be able to use them on fuel spills and car fires,
though use will continue at airports, military bases, petroleum
refineries, and chemical plants.

In October, President Donald J. Trump signed the Federal Aviation
Administration Reauthorization Act of 2018 requiring the FAA to
allow civilian airports to use fluorine-free foams by 2021. Rules
now require US airports to use military-grade foams that contain
PFAS. Public-interest groups such as the Environmental Working
Group and the International Persistent Organic Pollutants
Elimination Network (IPEN) want an end to the use of PFAS in all
firefighting foams.

For their part, fluorochemical suppliers such as Chemours, Dynax,
and AGC Chemicals and foam makers such as Perimeter Solutions and
Solberg are calling for a more measured approach. With few
exceptions, all have turned to C6 fluorosurfactants, which they
consider safer and less likely to bioaccumulate than surfactants
based on PFOA and PFOS.

To limit environmental exposure, foam makers have also called on
all users to stop training exercises using
fluorosurfactant-containing foam. Others champion fluorine-free
foams that they consider just as good as the fluorosurfactant
types. Though not everyone agrees that fluorine-free foams are up
to the task, pressure is mounting to severely restrict
fluorosurfactants or remove them completely from firefighting
foam.

A high standard

"I feel badly if I did something that led to people being hurt,"
says Schaefer, the former 3M fluorochemical foam formulator.In
2003, while still working for 3M, he developed and patented the
first modern fluorine-free foams. 3M later decided it no longer
wanted to be involved in firefighting foams, and in 2007 it sold
the patents to Solberg.

Shortly after the sale, Schaefer joined Solberg. Until his
retirement in 2015, he led the formulation and sale of
fluorine-free foams in Australia, where he had worked for 3M since
the late 1980s. "The technology of fluorine-free foam that I
developed utilized a lot of organic chemicals, including complex
sugars and starches," Schaefer says. "These add heat resistance and
stability to the foam."

Schaefer's work garnered Solberg a Presidential Green Chemistry
Challenge Award in 2014 for its fluorine-free foams. The EPA
presents the award to recognize technologies that prevent pollution
and match or improve the performance of existing products.

Eduard Kleiner, president of Dynax, a C6 fluorosurfactant maker,
disagrees that fluorine-free foams are up to the task. A former
director of corporate research at Ciba-Geigy, a onetime
fluorosurfactant producer, he refers to himself as "the old man in
the field." Kleiner founded Dynax in 1991.

"The fluorine haters are looking for any possible deficiency" to
remove fluorosurfactants from foams, Kleiner says. "They ignore the
fact that fluorine-free foam can't meet the most stringent
performance specifications" demanded by the US military.

The haters, Kleiner says, lump all fluorosurfactant chemistries
together, but the C6 compounds have a much better toxicological
profile than PFOS- and PFOA-related materials, he claims.

Many foam formulations containing C6 fluorosurfactants now meet US
military specifications, Kleiner says. None of the fluorine-free
foams can do that, he notes. "If 200 passengers burn up in a crash
landing because firefighters use fluorine-free foam, I'm willing to
testify this could have been foreseen and likely avoided by the use
of C6 fluorosurfactant-based foams."

Kleiner acknowledges that fluorosurfactants, including C6 types,
persist in the environment. But he says the C6-based surfactants do
not bioaccumulate. He supports the use of alternatives for small
hydrocarbon fires and says firefighters should not use
fluorine-containing foams in training exercises. "I personally
think it is good" that military scientists "are searching for
fluorine-free foam meeting military specifications," he says.

Researchers at the US Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) who write the
specifications for firefighting foams are actively looking at
fluorine-free alternatives, but they say they haven't found any
that meet performance standards that include extinguishing a 2.6 m2
test fire in as little as 30 s.

John Farley, director of fire test operations at NRL, says the lab
has qualified 16 firefighting foams containing C6 chemistry. They
are mostly updated recipes for PFOA-based materials. "We need to
come up with fluorine-free foam. But what's available now can't
meet specification," he says.

Katherine M. Hinnant, a chemical engineer who leads NRL research on
firefighting foams, says fluorinated foams "outperform
fluorine-free foams by a factor of four to five," by containing a
fire and suppressing vapors that can reignite. Fluorine-free foams
are stable for 3 min, she says, while the fluorosurfactant kind can
last 30 min.

In the search for more effective fluorine-free foams, Hinnant says
she is evaluating hydrocarbon surfactants, silicones, and
sulfonated surfactants. "Fluorine is really amazing," she says, but
"we are focusing on eliminating fluorine."

Safety versus the environment

Hinnant and other government researchers are well aware that
ineffective firefighting foams contributed to the deaths of 134
sailors on board the navy's USS Forrestal in 1967. It was in an
effort to avoid similar catastrophes that the navy developed a
fluorosurfactant-containing foam with 3M.

However, some who use firefighting foams in critical situations
claim that fluorine-free foams already perform as well as
fluorine-containing ones. London's Heathrow Airport switched to
fluorine-free foams in 2013 after a 15-month evaluation project,
says airport fire regulation and oversight manager Graeme Day. He
has no qualms about performance. "It's been absolutely excellent,"
he says.

Two incidents at the airport, both in 2013, convinced Day that he
had made the right choice. In the first, an Airbus 319 en route to
Oslo, Norway, from London had to make an emergency landing at
Heathrow after covers blew off both engines, knocking out one and
setting the other on fire. The pilot landed the plane with the one
good engine "fully involved" in fire, Day says.

Firefighters were able to quell the fire with the fluorine-free
foam in less than 3 min after the plane touched down. They also
safely evacuated all 80 people. "That incident boosted our
confidence" in fluorine-free foams, Day says.

Afterward, maintenance crews washed the runoff into drains feeding
the airport's water treatment plant, Day says. A 2008 incident
using a fluorosurfactant-containing foam required collection and
disposal of the effluent to prevent release of the persistent
ingredient into the environment, he says.

In the second, less serious incident, firefighters quickly put out
a fuselage fire in a parked Boeing 787 Dreamliner using a
fluorine-free foam.

Day acknowledges that putting out large fuel-tank fires isn't part
of his job.Firms such as BP, ExxonMobil, and Shell that do deal
with such fires have banded together in a group called the Large
Atmospheric Storage Tank Fires project to reduce the risk of tank
fires and to test foam performance.

"Fluorinated foams are a major issue," says project coordinator
Niall Ramsden. "Our priority is to get an end-user picture of what
can and what cannot be done with various foams. We see the way the
world is going. Our current testing focus is on foams that do not
contain fluorosurfactants."

So far, tests show fluorine-free foams perform as well as the
fluorine-containing kind for smaller tank fires, Ramsden says. But
for large tanks (those with a diameter of 100 m or larger), he
indicates that fluorochemical-containing foams still perform best.

Despite growing skepticism over fluorosurfactant foams, Perimeter
Solutions, a leading foam maker, has yet to see a drop in US demand
for C6 foams. Still, many customers in northern Europe and
Australia are shifting to fluorine-free foams, CEO Edward Goldberg
says. ­Goldberg expects an eventual shift in the US as well, given
recent legislation in Washington State and at the federal level.

The firm started in the fire-retardant business as a maker of
phosphate-based retardants used on forest fires. It acquired the
Spanish C6 foam maker Auxquimia in 2014. And Perimeter is now
offering fluorine-free foams. Earlier in January, it completed the
acquisition of Solberg, the firm that bought Schaefer's patents on
fluorine-free foams.

The move from C6 fluorochemical foams to fluorine-free versions "is
a natural evolution of the market," Goldberg says. However, the
shift will involve a trade-off, he says. "Fluorine-free foam can't
match the performance of C6 foams. When life and property are at
risk, you want to put the fire out as quickly as possible," and
that currently requires fluorosurfactant chemistry in many cases,
he says.

In fact it was a Solberg representative that made the case for C6
fluorochemical foams at the Washington State foam legislation
hearings in February 2018. "The fluorine-free foams are very
effective on spill fires," Mitch Hubert, Solberg's global product
development vice president, told the legislators. But when those
foams are used on fuel-tank fires, the foam plunges below the
surface, picks up fuel, and contributes to the fire, he said.

"You don't want a situation like they had in Buncefield, England,"
he said, "where one tank caught on fire and then another one caught
on fire . . . and you had a huge ecological disaster from their
inability to extinguish the first fire."

News reports described the 2005 Buncefield fuel-depot fire, which
involved 20 big fuel tanks, as the largest of its kind in Europe
since World War II. A delay in spraying fluorochemical-containing
foams on the flames, in part because of ecological concerns,
allowed the fire to grow. The local water utility closed a nearby
pumping station after PFOS contamination was found in groundwater
nearby.

Firefighters weigh in

Users of fluorochemical-containing foams are worried about what
exposure to the foams means for their health. Testifying to
Congress in September 2018 before it passed the legislation
allowing civilian airports to use fluorine-free foams, Timothy
Putnam, a 24-year civilian firefighter for the navy, said he
recalled using fluorine-containing foam—in the days before
scientists raised safety flags -- "as a substitute for vehicle soap
to wash fire department vehicles. We also used [it] to clean the
fire station floors."

Now, Putnam said, he is worried about "human impacts" of the
exposure. And he didn't accept the argument that C6
fluorosurfactants are safer than PFOA- and PFOS-containing foams.
Though the C6 formulas "are generally less toxic and less
persistent in the environment compared to the longer-chain PFOA...
they are likely to contain trace amounts of PFOA as a by-product,"
he said.

Other firefighters are worried as well. In October, lawyers filed a
class-action suit in the US District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio against fluorosurfactant makers, including 3M and
Chemours, seeking unspecified relief for health-related injuries.
The case, which names firefighter Kevin D. Hardwick as the lead
plaintiff, doesn't restrict plaintiffs to firefighters. All
individuals residing in the US who "have a detectable level of PFAS
materials in their blood serum" are named as members of the class.

One feature of the case is a request that the presiding judge
appoint a panel of scientific experts to evaluate evidence and
determine probable links between PFAS exposure, including C6
fluorosurfactants, and health problems. A panel appointed as part
of a similar 2004 class-action case against DuPont, Chemours's
former parent, found probable connections between PFOA and health
problems, including thyroid disease, testicular and kidney cancers,
pregnancy-induced hypertension, and ulcerative colitis.

The panel's findings ultimately led DuPont and Chemours to pay $670
million to settle 3,550 lawsuits by residents living near a PFOA
plant in West Virginia. Claimants said that drinking
PFOA-contaminated water made them ill.

The Hardwick case is one of more than 70 firefighting-foam-related
cases that a panel of federal judges is reviewing for
consolidation. Cases include claims against 3M, Tyco Fire Products,
Chemguard, and other firms that have made PFOA- and PFOS-containing
firefighting foams.

Whether the fluorosurfactants used in foam are based on PFOA, PFOS,
or C6 chemistry, "these are tough chemicals," says Stephen
Korzeniowski, a consultant who earlier worked as a fluorotechnology
expert for Chemours and DuPont. The molecules' carbon-fluorine
bonds "are one of the toughest bonds known. That can be both a
blessing and a curse," he says.

Those tough bonds mean the fluorosurfactants are chemical and heat
resistant—and also environmentally persistent, Korzeniowski says.
But in work for the FluoroCouncil, which represents fluorochemical
users and makers, researchers found that C6 fluorosurfactants are
not bioaccumulative (Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol.2019, DOI:
10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.01.019) and have a "significantly better"
toxicological profile than PFOA- and PFOS-based surfactants, he
says.

Environmental groups say they are concerned about the use of any
fluorosurfactant foams.

The C6 products appear to be less bioaccumulative than those
containing PFOS and PFOA, acknowledges David Andrews, a senior
scientist at the Environmental Working Group. But the C6
surfactants are still environmentally persistent and have toxicity
end points similar to those of PFOS and PFOA types, Andrews says.
EWG estimates that up to 110 million Americans could have PFAS in
their drinking water. "Fluorine free is the much better option," he
says.

When the United Nations Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants banned PFOS in 2015, it made an exception for use in
firefighting foam. Governments are now considering lifting the
exception for PFOS foams and adding a ban on PFOA foams.

IPEN, a Sweden-based public-interest group, released a report
recommending that governments ban all PFAS surfactants, including
the C6 chemistries, in firefighting foam. IPEN science adviser Sara
Brosche, a chemist, says PFAS are "too dangerous to deal with one
at a time, and countries should take action to address them as a
class and remove all of them."

If governments vote in favor of such a ban, that would mean the end
to PFAS in firefighting foams. However, such a ban is unlikely.
IPEN points out that China still produces large quantities of PFOA,
and industry experts say PFOA is still widely used to make
firefighting foams in Asia.

Schaefer, the father of fluorine-free foams, says he is confident
that continued research and testing will yield fluorine-free foams
that can meet the most demanding requirements. "I expect the
pressure will continue and even US defense forces will get away
from fluorosurfactants," he predicts. If that happens,
fluorine-based firefighting foams could become a thing of the past.
[GN]


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Al Labade Hits Share Drop Over Franchise Row
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mohamad Al Labade, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., Robert
A. Kotick, Spencer Neumann and Collister Johnson, Defendants, Case
No. 19-cv-00423, (C.D. Cal., January 18, 2019), seeks to recover
damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Act of 1933.

Activision Blizzard develops and distributes content and services
on video game consoles, personal computers and mobile devices.
Activision went into an agreement with Bungie, Inc. for exclusive
rights to publish and distribute "Destiny" franchise video games
for the next ten years. However, Defendants failed to disclose that
the termination of the said partnership gave Bungie full publishing
rights and responsibilities for the Destiny franchise and would
have significant negative impact on Activision's revenues.
Following the news, its stock price fell $4.81 per share, or 9.37%,
to close at $46.54 on January 11, 2019. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (818) 532-6499
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com


ALLIANZ LIFE: Court Denies Certification in Thompson Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
issued a Memorandum and Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned Debra J. Thompson, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America,
Defendant. Civ. No. 17-96 (PAM/TNL). (D. Minn.).

Plaintiff Debra J. Thompson is the beneficiary of an annuity her
now-deceased mother purchased from Defendant Allianz Life Insurance
Company of North America.  Thompson asserts that Allianz
impermissibly reduced the value of and/or the payouts from its
annuities in certain circumstances, by applying what Allianz called
an Expense Recovery Adjustment (ERA) to the value or payouts.  

Thompson seeks to represent a class consisting of:

     All Owners and Beneficiaries under the deferred annuity
contracts for the Allianz products listed on Exhibit 1 for which
the Annuitization Value or Accumulation Value, or the resulting
annuity payment amount, has been reduced by the Expense Recovery
Adjustment.

A plaintiff seeking to certify a class must initially establish
that: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all the members
is impracticable (2) there are questions of law or fact common to
the class (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties
are typical of the claims or defenses of the class and (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.  

If Rule 23(a)'s threshold criteria are met, the plaintiff must then
show that the action is maintainable under one of the subsections
of Rule 23(b). In this case, Thompson seeks certification of a Rule
23(b)(3) class, which requires that: (1) questions of law or fact
common to the members of the class predominate over any questions
affecting individual members and (2) a class action is the superior
method of adjudicating the controversy.

Rule 23(a)

Commonality

Rule 23 does not require that all questions of law and fact be
common to every member of the proposed class. Rather, the Rule
requires only that common questions exist. The presence of
differing legal inquiries and factual discrepancies will not
preclude class certification under this prong.  

Here, there are common questions in all class members' claims: did
the contracts allow Allianz to apply the ERA to reduce the AV or
the resultant payouts? Whether that common question predominates is
a different issue, but for purposes of Rule 23(a), Thompson has
established commonality.

Adequacy

Thompson must demonstrate that she will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class. To do so, she must show that:
(1) her counsel is competent to pursue the action; and (2) her
interests are not antagonistic to the interests of the class.
Allianz challenges Thompson's adequacy, contending that she does
not understand the litigation and in fact in her mind her complaint
is that Allianz marketed an annuity product to her elderly mother,
not that Allianz ostensibly reduced the benefit payout.

The class representatives need not have, and often will not have,
personal knowledge of the facts needed to make out a prima facie
case. Indeed, the depth of a named representative's knowledge is
irrelevant. Thompson is willing to prosecute this action on behalf
of the class, her interests are not antagonistic to those of the
class, and she is an adequate class representative. Thompson has
established the threshold Rule 23(a) criteria.

Rule 23(b)

Next, the Court must consider whether this action meets the
requirements of one of the subsections of Rule 23(b). Thompson
seeks the certification of a class under subsection (b)(3).

Before certifying a class under Rule 23(b)(3), a district court
must find that the questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

Predominance

A class may be certified based on common issues even though other
important matters will have to be tried separately, such as damages
or some affirmative defenses peculiar to some individual class
members.  

Thompson argues that many decisions apply a single state's law to a
class such as this. These decisions include one from this District
determining that the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act
applied to Allianz in a nationwide class action challenging sales
practices for certain annuities.  

But the facts of Mooney render that case inapposite. As noted,
Mooney involved claims under Minnesota's Consumer Fraud Act, a
statute that the Minnesota legislature intended to apply to
Minnesota companies like Allianz. There is no such substantial
interest regarding breach-of-contract claims. The Mooney class's
claims emanated from Allianz's marketing materials, which were
created in and distributed from Minnesota. While the insurance
contracts at issue here were partially executed in Minnesota, the
connection with each insured's state of residence is at least as
strong. And, as discussed above, some states' laws require that the
law of the place where the insured executed the contract be
applied.

This case is more similar to Rapp v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 302
F.R.D. 505 (D. Minn. 2014) (Schiltz, J.). In Rapp, the putative
class raised breach-of-contract claims against a mortgage insurer,
alleging that the insurer charged more than the actual cost of
insurance in breach of the mortgage contracts. While the decision
noted that the presence of contract claims invoking the laws of all
50 states did not necessarily preclude class certification,
differences in state law will compound the disparities among class
members from the different states.

The court ultimately determined that, because the claims would
likely require extrinsic evidence to resolve the meaning of the
challenged contract term, the state-by-state differences meant that
there was no predominance. Figuring out the laws of each of the 50
states with respect to the admissibility of extrinsic evidence
would be difficult enough; fashioning a plan for applying those
laws on a class basis would be nearly impossible.

The same result is appropriate here. The Court has concluded that
Minnesota law cannot be constitutionally applied to all of the
claims at issue. And even if some putative plaintiffs could
constitutionally invoke Minnesota law, that would be only the first
step of individualized inquiries. The class raises
breach-of-contract claims under the laws of multiple states, and
each state's laws regarding extrinsic evidence and limitations are
different. These individual differences simply overwhelm any common
questions, and Thompson has failed to satisfy predominance.

The failure to satisfy either of Rule 23(b)'s elements mean a class
cannot be certified, and the Court will therefore not address the
superiority prong of the Rule 23(b) analysis.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class is denied.

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

Debra J. Thompson, an individual on behalf of herself and on behalf
of all others similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by
Andrew S. Friedman, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, pro hac
vice, Anne T. Regan, Hellmuth & Johnson, Ingrid Maria Evans, Evans
Law Firm, P.C., pro hac vice, Kimberly C. Page, Bonnett Fairbourn
Friedman & Balint, pro hac vice &Nathan D. Prosser, Hellmuth &
Johnson PLLC.

Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, a Minnesota
corporation, Defendant, represented by Dawn B. Williams, Carlton
Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., pro hac vice, James F. Jorden, Jorden
Burt LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey D. Hedlund, Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP, Roland Carl Goss, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA, pro hac vice,
Staci L. Perdue, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Stephen J. Jorden,
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA, pro hac vice & Wendy Jo Wildung,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.


ANTHEM INC: Can't Use First Class Mail for Settlement Notices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Anthem Inc.
can't use basic first class mail to notify about 200 people of a
class action settlement over spinal surgery valued as high as
$35,000 per person.

The parties must at least use Priority Mail Flat Rate Envelopes and
mark the envelopes with "attention-getting text" to maximize the
likelihood that class members will pay attention to the notice,
Judge Andre Birotte Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California said. [GN]


ATH HOLDING: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in Bell ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY BELL, JANICE GRIDER, CINDY PROKISH, JOHN HOFFMAN,
and PAMELA LEINONEN individually and as representatives of a class
of similarly situated persons of the Anthem 401(k) Plan (formerly
the WellPoint 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan), Plaintiffs, v.
PENSION COMMITTEE OF ATH HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, ATH HOLDING COMPANY,
LLC, and BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ATH HOLDING COMPANY, LLC,
Defendants. VANGUARD GROUP, INC., Interested Party, Case No.
1:15-cv-02062-TWP-MPB (S.D. Ind.), Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division, denied the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment.

The Defendants are fiduciaries of the Anthem 401(k) Plan, a defined
contribution plan within the meaning of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").  The Plan is sponsored by
ATH and, as of Dec. 31, 2014, is one of the largest 401(k) plans in
the United States, with over $5.1 billion in total assets.  It
provides retirement income for employees of ATH and any direct or
indirect subsidiary of the company that has been offered the Plan.
The retirement benefits are limited to the value of an employee's
account, which depends upon employee and employer contributions, as
well as investment options' fees and expenses.

The Plaintiffs are current and former participants of the Plan. The
Pension Committee is appointed by the Board and serves as the
Plan's administrator which entails responsibility for the control,
management, and administration of the Plan's investment options.

The Defendants select and determine the available investment
options offered in the Plan.  These decisions are made at the Plan
level; therefore, the available options and the associated expenses
are the same for all Plan participants.  The Plan offers three
tiers of investment options: Tier 1, the Target Date Funds; Tier 2,
the Core Funds; and Tier 3, the Vanguard Brokerage Option.

The Plan's investment options vary based on risk and return
profiles.  Vanguard is the Plan's record-keeper, and the Plan pays
Vanguard investment management fees which are deducted from
participants' accounts on a pro rata basis, based on each fund's
"expense ratio" -- a percentage of a fund's assets charged for
expenses that reduce the rate of return of the investment option.
Until 2013, the Defendants compensated Vanguard for its
administrative services (primarily recordkeeping) through revenue
sharing payments from the Plan's mutual funds, paid through a
portion of the Plan's mutual funds expense ratios.  Effective July
22, 2013, the Defendants charged a flat annual recordkeeping fee of
$42.00 to each participant's account with a balance of over
$1,000.

On March 23, 2017, the Court denied in part and granted in part the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  It dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim
regarding the Vanguard Prime Money Market Fund without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs then filed the operative Second Amended Complaint,
which provides additional facts supporting the Money Market Fund
claim.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by causing their retirement plan to pay excessive investment
and management fees to Vanguard, and also invested in an imprudent
money market fund, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of Plan
losses.  In their Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs made the
following claims against the Defendants: (1) the Defendants
provided investment options charging unreasonable management fees
compared to available superior institutional investment products
(Count I); (2) the Defendants failed to monitor and control the
excessive administrative expenses paid to Vanguard (Count II); (3)
the Defendants provided the Money Market Fund as the Plan's sole
capital preservation option even though it did not provide any
meaningful retirement benefits (Count III); (4) the Defendants
failed to prudently and regularly monitor the Money Market Fund
(Count IV); (5) Defendant ATH breached its fiduciary duty by
failing to monitor the Pension Committee, the entity to which it
delegated its fiduciary duty (Count V); and (6) Defendant Pension
Committee violated ERISA document production requirements by
failing to timely provide the Plaintiffs with requested material
(Count VI).

The Plaintiffs initially sought certification of the following
classes:

      a. Administrative Fee and Investment Management Fee Class:
All participants and beneficiaries of the Anthem 401(k) Plan
(formerly the WellPoint 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan) from Dec.
29, 2009 through the date of judgment, excluding the Defendants.

      b. Money Market Fund Class: All participants and
beneficiaries of the Anthem 401(k) Plan (formerly the WellPoint
401(k) Retirement Savings Plan) who, from Dec. 29, 2009 through the
date of judgment, excluding the Defendants, invested in the
Vanguard Money Market Fund.  

The Court certified the Money Market Fund Class but denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Administrative Fee and Investment
Management Fee Class because that the class failed to satisfy
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)'s typicality requirement.
On Jan. 24, 2019, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Modify the Class Certification Order, certifying the Administrative
Fee and Investment Management Fee Class with the following
subclasses:

      a. Flat Fee Subclass: All participants and beneficiaries of
the Anthem 401(k) Plan (formerly the WellPoint 401(k) Retirement
Savings Plan) who had an account balance greater than $1,000 at any
time from July 22, 2013 through the date of judgment, excluding the
Defendants.

      b. Revenue Sharing Subclass: All participants and
beneficiaries of the Anthem 401(k) Plan (formerly the WellPoint
401(k) Retirement Savings Plan) who had a reduction in the value of
their account balance at a rate of more than $35 per year due to
revenue sharing payments to The Vanguard Group at any time from
Dec. 29, 2009 through July 21, 2013, excluding the Defendants.

On Sept. 26, 2018, the Defendants moved for summary judgment on all
claims.  They assert four arguments in their motion for summary
judgment: (1) the Plaintiffs' money market fund claims are
time-barred and legally and factually baseless; (2) the Plaintiffs'
excessive fee claims are time-barred and legally and factually
baseless; (3) the Plaintiffs' failure to monitor claim falls within
their breach of fiduciary duty claims; and (4) Bell's document
request claim fails as a matter of law because there is no evidence
that the request was ever received.

Judge Pratt agrees with the Plaintiffs. The three-year statute of
limitations on their Money Market Fund claim would begin when they
had actual knowledge of the process the Defendants used to
determine the Plan would offer the Money Market Fund instead of
alternative funds.  The Plaintiffs' Money Market Fund claim is not
time-barred because, although the participants received disclosures
of the nature of the investment options offered, they were not
informed of how those options were chosen nor that there may lower
cost or higher yield alternatives that the Plan did not offer.
Accordingly, she cannot grant summary judgment to the Defendants on
the Plaintiffs' Money Market Fund claims based on ERISA's statute
of limitations.

Next, she finds that the Plaintiffs have established a genuine
issue of disputed fact as to whether the process by which the
Pension Committee managed the capital preservation funds offered in
the Plan comported with ERISA's prudent fiduciary standard.  Some
designated evidence suggests that the Pension Committee did at
least discuss the possibility of adding other funds to the Plan's
capital preservation options -- including a stable value fund.  But
other evidence indicates the Pension Committee rarely considered
whether a money market fund was the optimal investment tool for
participants or whether some superior option was out there.
Because a genuine issue of disputed fact exists as to the prudence
of the Pension Committee's process, the Judge need not determine
whether an issue of disputed facts exists as to whether the
substantive funds offered met ERISA's prudent fiduciary standard.
The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied as to Counts
III and IV of the second amended complaint.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' excessive fee claims are
time-barred by ERISA's three-year statute of limitations.  And for
the same reason it failed in relation to the Plaintiffs' Money
Market Fund claims, the Defendants' argument fails.  The generic
plan information the Defendants rely on to impute knowledge to the
Plaintiffs did not disclose that identical lower-cost alternative
fee structures may be available, nor did it provide the Plaintiffs
with actual knowledge of the Defendants' solicitation and
monitoring process.

Having raised questions of fact as to whether the Plan paid
reasonable fees, the Plaintiffs have met the threshold to survive a
summary judgment motion.  It is beyond dispute that the higher the
fees charged to a beneficiary, the more the beneficiary's
investment shrinks.  The element of damages goes hand-in-hand with
the reasonableness of the fees -- if the Defendants breached their
fiduciary duty by failing to ensure the Plan paid reasonable fees,
that breach necessarily shrunk the Plaintiffs' investment by
overpaying on administrative and investment fees.  Accordingly, the
Judge denied the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts
I and II.

Because Count V is derivative of the other claims, and the Judge
denied summary judgment on those claims, she denied summary
judgment on this claim as well.

Finally, the Judge declined to grant summary judgment in the
Defendants' favor at its discretion, and therefore the Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment is denied as to Count VI.  She finds
that the Defendants' reliance on Jacobs v. Xerox Corp. Long Term
Disability Income Plan, and Romero v. SmithKline Beecham, is
misplaced.  Neither case bears on the Plaintiffs' contention that
they twice directed requests for information to the Pension
Committee at the address provided by the Defendants and the Pension
Committee deliberately refused to accept both requests.  Nor does
the Defendants' second argument, that the Plan's summary plan
description identified a different party as the optimal target for
Bell's request, move the Court.  The Pension Committee cannot avoid
its statutory obligation to furnish plan information to
participants by designating a third party and directing requests to
that party.  ERISA requires the "administrator" to provide
information, and it is the administrator who may be penalized when
plan information is not provided.

For these reasons, Judge Pratt denied the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment.  Counts I-VI survive the Defendants' Motion and
remain pending for trial.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/kNzU6H from Leagle.com.

MARY BELL, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander L. Braitberg --
abraitberg@uselaws.com -- SCHLICTHER BOGARD DENTON LLP, pro hac
vice, Andrew D. Schlichter -- aschlichter@uselaws.com -- SCHLICHTER
BOGARD & DENTON, LLP, pro hac vice, Heather Lea -- hlea@uselaws.com
-- SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP, pro hac vice, Jerome J.
Schlichter -- jschlichter@uselaws.com -- SCHLICHTER, BOGARD &
DENTON, LLP, pro hac vice, Kurt C. Struckhoff --
kstruckhoff@uselaws.com -- SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP, pro
hac vice, Michael A. Wolff -- mwolff@uselaws.com -- SCHLICHTER,
BOGARD & DENTON, LLP, pro hac vice, Sean Soyars --
ssoyars@uselaws.com -- SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLP, pro hac vice
& Troy A. Doles -- tdoles@uselaws.com -- SCHLICHTER, BOGARD &
DENTON, LLP, pro hac vice.

JANICE GRIDER & CINDY PROKISH, individually and as representatives
of a class of similarly situated persons of the Anthem 401(k) Plan
(formerly the WellPoint 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan),
Plaintiffs, represented by Alexander L. Braitberg, SCHLICTHER
BOGARD DENTON LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew D. Schlichter , SCHLICHTER
BOGARD & DENTON, LLP, pro hac vice, Heather Lea , SCHLICHTER,
BOGARD & DENTON, LLP, pro hac vice, Jerome J. Schlichter ,
SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP, pro hac vice, Kurt C. Struckhoff
, SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP, pro hac vice, Michael A. Wolff
, SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP, pro hac vice & Troy A. Doles ,
SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP, pro hac vice.

JOHN HOFFMAN & PAMELA LEINONEN, Plaintiffs, represented by
Alexander L. Braitberg , SCHLICTHER BOGARD DENTON LLP, pro hac
vice, Andrew D. Schlichter , SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON, LLP, pro
hac vice, Troy A. Doles , SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP & Jerome
J. Schlichter , SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON, LLP, pro hac vice.

PENSION COMMITTEE OF ATH HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, ATH HOLDING COMPANY,
LLC & BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ATH HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Ada W. Dolph -- adolph@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW
LLP, pro hac vice, Ian Hugh Morrison -- imorrison@seyfarth.com --
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Jason Priebe, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, pro hac vice &
Megan E. Troy -- mtroy@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP.

VANGUARD GROUP, INC., Interested Party, represented by Laura Hughes
McNally -- laura.mcnally@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS
LLP.


BAKERY BOYS: Espinal Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yovanny F. Espinal, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bakery Boys of New York Ltd. (d/b/a Bakery
Boys of NY), Al Kritikos (a.k.a. Alex), Nicholas John Kritikos,
Jr., Sandra Kritikos, and Manuel Doe, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00791 (E.D. N.Y., February 8, 2019) seeks unpaid minimum
and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law ("NYLL"), and
the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

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

Plaintiff Espinal is a former employee of Defendants.

Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a bakery, located at
45-05 104th Street, Corona, New York 11368-3138 under the name
"Bakery Boys of NY".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BALTIMORE, MD: Seeks Dismissal of Sexual Assault Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Rentz, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that
attorneys for Baltimore County authorities filed motions to dismiss
claims against them in a class-action lawsuit that alleges law
enforcement and prosecutors fostered a culture to dismiss and cover
up complaints of sexual assault.

Five women with ties to the University of Maryland, Baltimore
County, allege they were sexually assaulted by UMBC students in
separate incidents and that authorities failed to properly
investigate, report or prosecute, according to the civil lawsuit
originally filed in September and expanded in October. Their
complaint states that university and Baltimore County authorities
have discriminated against women for years on the basis of gender,
denying women "equal access to justice and of equal protection
under the law."

Attorneys for Baltimore County police, prosecutors and UMBC argue
that the defendants are immune from lawsuits, that the plaintiffs
failed to provide enough facts showing authorities engaged in sex-
or gender-based discrimination, and that the alleged conspiracy to
conceal rapes did not occur.

Lawyers in Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh's office filed
motions on behalf of UMBC, Baltimore County State's Attorney Scott
Shellenberger and others. Private attorneys Neil E. Duke --
nduke@bakerdonelson.com -- and Christopher C. Dahl --
cdahl@bakerdonelson.com -- from Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell
& Berkowitz PC filed on behalf of Baltimore County police.

"We are encouraged to learn that the Maryland Attorney General has
filed documents affirming the high priority UMBC and the
individuals named gave to carefully reviewing and responding to the
sexual assault allegations," UMBC spokeswoman Dinah Winnick wrote
in a statement.

Lawyers for the attorney general described plaintiffs' allegations
that UMBC conspired with Baltimore County law enforcement to
underreport incidents of sexual assault "long on hyperbole but
devoid of concrete factual allegations."

They stated that "contrary to Plaintiffs' outcry of 'deliberate
indifference' and gender bias against women, [UMBC] responded to
each and every complaint of sexual misconduct filed by a student
(and even non-students) with deliberate and thorough investigation
and, in many cases, found the accused students responsible and
disciplined them accordingly."

In one case involving a UMBC student who said she was assaulted by
four members of UMBC's basketball team in 2014, lawyers
representing the university said two of the alleged assailants were
expelled after an investigation. The woman said she drank that
night and didn't remember the assault the next day. She only found
out two months later when another student told her the alleged
assailants had "pass[ed] her around," according to her complaint.

The two men who were expelled were the only two to have admitted to
the acts, according to the lawsuit. The woman complained that
neither police nor UMBC fully investigated the assault to implicate
the other two.

Lawyers for police said her complaint is time-barred. Lawyers for
UMBC said the university found just two of the four sexually
assaulted her and that their alleged failure to investigate further
does not equate to "deliberate indifference."

UMBC lawyers said the administrative process for a 2017 case
involving two former UMBC female students and three baseball
players has not yet concluded. They said they have investigated and
also overcame a motion filed in Baltimore County Circuit Court by
the alleged assailants to stop UMBC from investigating the
complaint. The court denied their motion.

Bernadette Hunton, a private attorney hired by UMBC to investigate
assault claims and also named as a defendant in the class-action
suit, filed a separate motion to dismiss. She argues she should not
be sued as she made no final investigative or punitive decisions in
connection with the investigations and that the claims against her
failed to support any gender or sex bias.

Citing special immunity given to prosecutors, Maryland Assistant
Attorney General Wendy Shiff wrote that Shellenberger and other
employees in his office were immune from civil liability. She wrote
that such protections exist in part so that prosecutors do not make
decisions about whom to prosecute based upon the potential for
civil damages.

She also referenced the 2018 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
decision to block a lawsuit against Baltimore State's Attorney
Marilyn J. Mosby brought by five city police officers who claimed
she maliciously prosecuted them after the death in 2015 of Freddie
Gray.

The federal appeals court agreed with Mosby's lawyers that as a
prosecutor, she had immunity.

Prosecutorial immunity does not extend to actions that fall outside
their duties, such as intimidating a witness, as the Baltimore
County suit alleged happened in at least one case, according to
legal experts.

In the 2017 case, two former UMBC female students who were then
attending Towson University accused three UMBC baseball players of
sexual assault. Bonnie Fox, an investigator in Shellenberger's
office and a defendant in the case, asked a police detective to go
to one of the women's residences to tell her to stop trying to file
charges against her alleged assailants, according to police
detective notes.

After the state's attorney's office declined to charge the men, one
of the women applied for charges directly with a commissioner of a
Maryland District Court, according to detectives' notes. She wrote
in the application for charges that she was "mentally incapacitated
by alcohol and was physically helpless" the night she alleged three
UMBC baseball players raped her.

The men told police they drank at bars with the two women and then
engaged in consensual sex with them after the women invited them
into one of their apartments, according to the police reports.

The Baltimore Sun is withholding the women's names because it does
not identify alleged victims of sexual assault.

Ms. Shiff wrote that the woman's application for charges could have
been considered harassment, so that the state's attorney's
defendants "could have reasonably believed that by sending the
police officer, they were attempting to provide a reasonable
warning or request to stop her behavior so that she would not be
charged with criminal or potentially liable civilly for her
actions."

Both Ms. Shiff and the other lawyers representing police and UMBC
argued that the plaintiffs' case lacked evidence showing any
violation of equal protection on the basis of sex.

"The cursory allegation that 'female victims of sexual assault were
less likely to have their cases investigated than victims of other
crimes' is without support," Ms. Shiff wrote.

Lawyers wrote that plaintiffs did not provide enough facts to show
any constitutional or other federal rights were violated as the
result of an intent to treat male and female victims of sexual
assault differently.

"Despite 832 numbered paragraphs, the Plaintiffs have not pleaded a
single fact to show that either the County or the BCPD adopted any
policy out of animus towards women," wrote private attorneys
representing Baltimore County Police Department and several of its
current and former employees.

They added that the lawsuit places law enforcement in an "untenable
position" as police officers, especially those charged with
investigating sensitive crimes, "already walk a tightrope."

"They are constantly subject to suit should they investigate and
prosecute the wrong person. This is heightened in rape and sexual
assault cases, where the claims are inherently more sensitive,"
they wrote.

In response to the filing, the plaintiffs' lawyer Rignal W. Baldwin
V said he had not had time to review all the motions, which were
filed late on Jan. 14, but that he "looks forward to addressing any
issues the defendants raise."

Baltimore County police spokesman Shawn Vinson wrote in an email to
The Sun, "We cannot comment on pending litigation."

State's Attorney Shellenberger could not be reached before
publication.

Attorneys in Frosh's office wrote an earlier memorandum to support
a dismissal of claims against UMBC Police Chief Paul Dillon and
also filed motions on Jan. 14 to dismiss claims against UMBC, UMBC
President Freeman A. Hrabowski III, Dillon and others. [GN]


BEYOND BETTER: Sued Over Products' Deceptive, Misleading Labels
---------------------------------------------------------------
Romel Hightower, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Beyond Better Foods, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00004 (E.D.
N.Y., January 1, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the New York General Business Law, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranty of
merchantability, fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant had a duty to disclose and
provide non-deceptive labeling of its products and knew or should
have known same were false or misleading. This duty is based, in
part, on the Defendant's affirmative claim that the Products were a
form of ice cream ("Good-For-You Ice Cream") when (i) the Products
do not fit within the expectations and requirements for any kind of
ice cream and (ii) to the extent the Products may be considered a
type of ice cream, the disclosure that they are "light" ice cream
is presented in a misleading and deceptive manner.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of Queens County, New York. In 2016,
2017 and 2018, the Plaintiff purchased one or more of the Products
for personal consumption,

The Defendant Beyond Better Foods, LLC manufactures, markets and
distributes frozen dairy desserts under the "Enlightened" brand,
sold to consumers by third-parties from brick-and-mortar stores and
online. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
      SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Tel: (516) 303-0552
      E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com


BIG HEART HOME: Latysheva Seeks Reimbursements, Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Nataliia Latysheva, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Big Heart Home Care LLC and
Merlmax Challenge Home Care, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 501343/2019
(N.Y. Sup., January 18, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages, overtime compensation, spread-of-hours compensation,
reimbursement for business expenses and damages arising from breach
of contracts, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs under New
York Labor Law.

Defendants are primarily engaged in providing nursing and home
health aide services at the residences of its clients where
Latysheva worked as a home health care attendant. She worked more
than 40 hours per week during her employment but was not paid the
overtime premium. She claims that she was required to purchase her
own supplies, such as soap, paper towels and sanitizer, to use
during her work.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUE DIAMOND: Proskauer Rose Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence I Weinstein, Esq. -- lweinstein@proskauer.com -- and
Jeffrey H Warshafsky, Esq. -- jwarshafsky@proskauer.com -- of
Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
report that on December 20, 2018, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal without leave to amend of a putative class action
complaint against Blue Diamond Growers, which alleged that the term
"almond milk" on Blue Diamond's beverages was misleading. Painter
v. Blue Diamond Growers, -- Fed.Appx. --, 2018 WL 6720560 (9th Cir.
Dec. 20, 2018). The named plaintiff, Cynthia Painter, argued that
because almond milk is a substitute for dairy milk, but is not
nutritionally equivalent, it was misleading for Blue Diamond not to
disclose on the product label (i) that the product was an
"imitation milk" and (ii) the nutritional differences versus dairy
milk.

The Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court's dismissal of Painter's
claims on three grounds. First, it found that Painter's state law
claims were preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA")
because the FDCA's broad preemption provision prohibits states from
imposing food labelling requirements that differ from federal
requirements. The FDCA requires that foods imitating other foods
bear a label with the word "imitation" and, immediately thereafter,
the name of the food imitated. But Painter's claim that Blue
Diamond was required to also include a nutritional comparison of
almond milk to dairy milk (or else cease using the term "milk")
conflicted with the FDCA, and was thus preempted.

Second, the Ninth Circuit found that Painter failed to plausibly
allege that the absence of the word "imitation" on Blue Diamond's
labeling violated the FDCA. The Ninth Circuit held that almond milk
did not constitute an "imitation" product under the FDA's
regulations given that "almond milk does not involve literally
substituting inferior ingredients for those in dairy milk." Nor was
it plausible that a reasonable jury would believe almond milk is
comprised of nutritionally inferior substitutes because dairy milk
and almond milk are "two distinct food products" that "necessarily
have different nutritional profiles."

Finally, the Ninth Circuit found that the lower court properly
dismissed the complaint because Painter had failed to show that a
reasonable consumer would likely be deceived into thinking that
almond milk and dairy milk were nutritionally equivalent. The Ninth
Circuit contrasted Blue Diamond's labeling practices with the
labeling at issue in its decision in Williams v. Gerber (a case we
have discussed in previous posts), where the court had found it was
plausible that a reasonable consumer would be misled by a food
label. Here, unlike in Williams, Blue Diamond's labeling provided
clear and correct information about its nutritional value, stating
nothing that would mislead consumers about its contents. Thus, the
Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court's finding that "'[n]o
reasonable consumer could be misled by [Blue Diamond's] unambiguous
labeling or factually accurate nutritional statements.'"[GN]


BOISE SD 1: Zeyen Suit Stayed Pending Appeal in Idaho Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIKE ZEYEN, et al, Plaintiffs, v. BOISE SCHOOL
DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-207-BLW (D.
Idaho), Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motions to dismiss.

The case is a class action challenging fees allegedly charged in
contravention of the Idaho Constitution.  The Plaintiffs, who have
students attending schools in the Pocatello and Bonneville School
Districts, seek to proceed as class representatives of all patrons
-- that is, students and parents -- in the 115 school districts and
charter schools in the state of Idaho.  The Plaintiffs allege that
the fees charged by these school districts violate article IX,
Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution and constitute a due process
violation.  They seek declaratory relief, reimbursement of fees
charged for the past six years, and certification of a class of
plaintiffs and defendants.

The action was preceded by lengthy litigation in the Idaho state
courts.  Between 1993 and 2005, a series of five appeals were
decided by the Idaho Supreme Court challenging the level and method
of funding for Idaho's public schools.  In the midst of those
appeals, the Idaho Supreme Court remanded the case to the district
court to determine the narrow issue of whether the Legislature had
provided a means to fund facilities that provide a safe environment
conducive to learning, pursuant to the thoroughness requirement of
the Idaho Constitution.  That constitutional provision imposes a
duty on the Legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a
general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common
schools.

Following a trial, the district court described, among other
things, the many safety concerns of specific school districts, such
as structural problems and fire hazards.  Evidence showed that "57%
of all Idaho school buildings had serious safety concerns.  A 1999
report updating a 1993 assessment of facility safety concluded that
"53 of the buildings needing serious and immediate attention in
1993 had deteriorated even further.

Based on this and other evidence, the district court concluded that
the state funding system is not adequate to meet the constitutional
mandate to establish and maintain a general, uniform, and thorough
system of public, free common schools in a safe environment
conducive to learning for Idaho's poorest school districts.  On
appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed that decision but declined
to impose any remedy, finding that to be the task of the Idaho
Legislature.

Since that decision in 2005, the Plaintiffs have filed three state
court actions along with this suit.  In Joki v. Idaho, they
initially sued the State and 114 school districts seeking to
represent a class consisting of all students currently enrolled in
the defendant school districts together with their parents and
guardians.  They alleged that the State's funding violated the
Idaho Constitution Article IX, Section I.  Later, they narrowed
their complaint to seek (1) reimbursement of fees from a single
school district (the Meridian District) or the legislature of
certain fees imposed by the school district; and (2) a declaratory
judgment against the State Defendants that the current system of
funding education in Idaho is unconstitutional.  The district court
dismissed the State and the Plaintiffs appealed.

In the appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court, the State Defendants
argued that the claims against them fell squarely within the terms
of the Constitutionally Based Educational Claims Act ("CBECA").
The CBECA authorizes a patron to sue a local school district for
failing to provide constitutionally required educational services,
but also states that before a patron can sue the State, the patron
must first obtain a ruling from the district court that the local
school district is not providing the required educational services
and is either unwilling or unable to comply.  The Plaintiffs in
Joki sued the State without first obtaining this ruling from the
district court, and the State Defendants argued that the CBECA
required that they be dismissed.  The Idaho Supreme Court agreed,
rejecting the Plaintiffs' arguments that the CBECA did not apply
and that it violated provisions of the Idaho Constitution.

In a separate action filed in state court -- Zeyen v.
Pocatello/Chubbuck School District -- the Plaintiff sued a single
school district seeking to represent a class of all patrons of that
single school district, alleging that the fees charged by the
district were unconstitutional under Idaho's constitution.  The
district court held that the CBECA barred recovery for fees
improperly paid.  When the Plaintiff tried to amend his complaint
to add a claim for a Due Process violation, the district court
denied the amendment on the ground that it came too late in the
litigation.

The plaintiff in Zeyen appealed the district court's ruling in
August of 2018, and the appeal is pending at this time.  Another
action -- Wood v. Bonneville School District -- also challenges
fees charged by a single school district.  The plaintiffs seek to
represent a class consisting of all patrons of that single school
district, and have challenged the fees as violating both the Idaho
Constitution and the U.S. Constitution (5th and 14th Amendments).
That case was filed in November of 2017 and is presently stayed
pending a decision by the Idaho Supreme Court in the Zeyen appeal.

The lead plaintiff in that Zeyen case then filed the present action
in the Court on May 9, 2018.  The class action challenges fees
allegedly charged in contravention of the Idaho Constitution.  The
Plaintiffs, who have students attending schools in the Pocatello
and Bonneville School Districts, seek to proceed as representatives
of all students and patrons in the 115 school districts and charter
schools in the state of Idaho.  

The Plaintiffs assert a Takings Clause and due process claim
against defendants under Section 1983, and a declaration that the
fees charged by these local school districts are unconstitutional
under article IX, Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution.  That
constitutional provision requires the legislature to establish and
maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free
common schools.  The Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief,
reimbursement of fees charged for the past six years and
certification for both a Plaintiff and a Defendant class.

The Defendants have divided into two groups, each represented by
separate counsel.  Each group has filed a motion to dismiss.

The Defendants argue that the due process claims should be
dismissed for various reasons, but Judge Winmill will await the
ruling in Zeyen before resolving those issues.  The Defendants also
argue that the lawsuit is essentially an improperly removed case
from state court, but the Judge disagrees, finding no authority to
support the Defendants' argument.  The Judge will therefore deny
the motions to dismiss in large part, but grant that part of the
motions that asks the Court to abstain.  He will stay the
litigation pending resolution of Zeyen.

In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth, Judge Winmill
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motions to
dismiss.  They are granted to the extent that they ask the Court to
abstain and to stay the litigation pending resolution of the Zeyen
appeal in the Idaho Supreme Court.  They are denied in all other
respects.

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

Mike Zeyen, Olivia Zeyen, Rachael Booth & Kim Wood, Plaintiffs,
represented by Robert C. Huntley, THE HUNTLEY LAW FIRM & T. Jason
Wood, Wood Law Group, PC.

Boise District #1, Defendant, represented by Brian K. Julian --
bjulian@ajhlaw.com -- ANDERSON JULIAN & HULL, Andrea Julian
Fontaine -- ajfontaine@ajhlaw.com -- Anderson, Julian & Hull, LLP,
Bret Allen Walther -- bwalther@ajhlaw.com -- Anderson Julian & Hull
LLP & Daniel Joseph Skinner, CANTRILL SKINNER LEWIS CASEY &
SORENSEN, LLP.

Aberdeen District #58, American Falls Joint District #381, Another
Choice Virtual Charter School LEA #476, Anser Charter School Boise
SD #1, Bear Lake County District #33, Blackfoot District #55, Bliss
District #234, Bonneville Joint District #93, Boundary County
District #101, Bruneau-Grand View Joint School District #365, Buhl
Joint District #412, Butte County District #111, Camas County
District #121, Cambridge #432, Canyon-Owhyee School Service Agency
#555, Cascade District #422, Cassia Joint District #151, Challis
Joint District #181, Clark County District #161, Coeur dAlene
Charter Academy LEA #491, Coeur d'Alene District #271, Cottonwood
Joint District #242, Council District #13, Dietrich District #314,
Emmett Independent District #221, Filer District #413, Firth
District #59, Fremont County Joint District #215, Garden Valley
District #71, Genesee Joint District #282, Glenns Ferry District
#192, Gooding Joint District #231, Grace Joint District #148,
Hansen District #415, Highland District #305, Homedale Joint
District #370, Horseshoe Bend School District #73, Idaho Falls
District #91, Idaho Science & Technology Charter School LEA #468,
Jerome Joint District #261, Kamiah Joint District #304, Kellogg
Joint District #391, Kendrick District #283, Kimberly District
#414, Kootenai District #274, Kuna Joint District #3, Lake Pend
Oreille District #84, Lakeland Joint District #272, Lewiston
Independent District #340, Liberty Charter School LEA #458, Mackay
District #182, Marsh Valley Joint District #21, Meadows Valley
District #11, Middleton District #134, Midvale District #433,
Minidoka County Joint District #331, Moscow District #281, Mountain
View District #244, Mullan District #392, Murtaugh District #418,
Nampa District #131, New Plymouth School District #372, North Idaho
STEM Charter Academy LEA #480, Notus District #135, Oneida County
District #351, Palouse Prairie Charter School LEA #472, Parma
District #137;, Payette Joint District #371, Pleasant Valley
District #364, Pocatello/Chubbuck District #25, Pocatello Community
Charter School LEA# 494, Potlatch District #285, Preston Joint
District #201, Richfield District #316, Ririe Joint District #252,
Rockland District #382, Rolling Hills Charter School LEA #454, Sage
International School of Boise LEA #475, Salmon District #291,
Salmon River Joint District #243, Shelley Joint District #60, Snake
River District #52, Soda Springs Joint District #150, South Lemhi
School District #292, St. Maries Joint District #41, SugarSalem
District #322, Teton County District #401, Three Creek Joint
Elementary School District #416, Troy District #287, Valley
District #262, Victory Charter School LEA #451, Wallace District
#393, Weiser District #431, Wendell District #232, West Ada School
District #2, West Bonner County District #83, West Jefferson
District #253, West Side District #202, Wilder District #133,
Castleford District #417, Fruitland District #373 & North Gem
District #149, Defendants, represented by Brian K. Julian, ANDERSON
JULIAN & HULL, Andrea Julian Fontaine , Anderson, Julian & Hull,
LLP & Bret Allen Walther , Anderson Julian & Hull LLP.

Basin District #72 & Post Falls District #273, Defendants,
represented by Brian K. Julian, ANDERSON JULIAN & HULL, Andrea
Julian Fontaine, Anderson, Julian & Hull, LLP & Daniel Joseph
Skinner, CANTRILL SKINNER LEWIS CASEY & SORENSEN, LLP.

Blaine County District #61, Defendant, represented by Brian K.
Julian, ANDERSON JULIAN & HULL, David Paul Gardner, Hawley Troxell
Ennis & Hawley LLP, Jetta Hatch Mathews, Hawley Troxell Ennis &
Hawley LLP, Andrea Julian Fontaine, Anderson, Julian & Hull, LLP &
Daniel Joseph Skinner, CANTRILL SKINNER LEWIS CASEY & SORENSEN,
LLP.

Caldwell District #132, Compass Public Charter School LEA #455,
Jefferson County Joint District #251, Madison District #321,
McCall- Donnelly District #421, Mountain Home District #193, Twin
Falls District #411 & Vallivue District #139, Defendants,
represented by David Paul Gardner, Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley
LLP & Jetta Hatch Mathews, Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP.

Marsing District #363, Melba Joint District #136, Meridian Medical
Arts Charter High School, Monticello Montessori School LEA #474,
North Star Charter School LEA #493, SEI Tec Preston School District
#201, White Pine Charter School LEA #464 & Nezperce District #302,
Defendants, represented by Brian K. Julian, ANDERSON JULIAN &
HULL.


BRAULIO CHIWIANT: Lopez Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
Luis Lopez, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Braulio Chiwiant, Corp. and
Braulio Ofelia Chiwiant, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00402 (E.D.
N.Y., January 21, 2019), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid
"spread-of-hours" premium, compensation for failure to provide wage
notices at the time of hiring and failure to provide paystubs,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Law including monetary damages and other
relief.

Braulio Chiwiant, Corp. provides metal insulation services to
construction companies erecting buildings using metal beams for its
internal structures where Lopez was employed as a machinist at
their location in 1483 Greene Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11237 from
on or about September 1, 2016 to September 15, 2018. He claims to
be denied overtime compensation at the statutory rate of time and a
half for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek and
did not receive wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lorena Duarte, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718)353-8588
      Email: lduarte@hanglaw.com


CAREFIRST INC: Court Narrows Claims in Attias Data Breach Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Christopher R. Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, CHANTAL ATTIAS, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CAREFIRST, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
15-cv-00882 (CRC) (D. D.C.).

In May 2015, the District of Columbia-area health insurer CareFirst
announced that it had suffered a data breach that compromised the
personal information of millions of its policyholders.  The
Plaintiffs in the putative class action are among those whose data
was accessed.  They seek compensation for the breach through both
tort- and contract-based claims under District of Columbia law, as
well as statutory claims under several D.C., Maryland, and Virginia
consumer-protection laws.

Common to all of the Plaintiffs' claims is the assertion that they
have been injured by CareFirst's failure to protect their personal
information from exposure.  The alleged injuries do not, for the
most part, involve actual misuse of their personal information.
The Plaintiffs instead claim that the data breach resulted in an
increased risk of identity theft and the need for prophylactic
expenditures -- on credit monitoring services and the like -- to
reduce that risk.  They also contend that CareFirst's failure to
protect their personal information resulted in a contractual injury
because they did not receive the full value of the policies they
purchased.  And they say they have suffered emotional distress in
dealing with the breach.

The Plaintiffs initiated the action shortly after learning of the
data breach and filed the operative second amended complaint in
July 2015.  They bring eleven claims: breach of contract (Count I),
negligence (Count II), violation of the District of Columbia
Consumer Protection Procedures Act (Count III), violation of the
District of Columbia Data Breach Notification Statute (Count IV),
violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (Count V),
violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (Count VI), fraud
(Count VII), negligence per se (Count VIII), unjust enrichment
(Count IX), breach of the duty of confidentiality (Count X), and
constructive fraud (Count XI).

They allege that they have suffered economic and non-economic loss
in the form of mental and emotional pain and suffering and aguish
[sic] as a result of the Defendants' failures to secure the
Plaintiffs' confidential information.  The Tringlers specifically
allege that they have experienced "tax-refund fraud" as a result of
the data breach.  And all of the Plaintiffs allege that they face
years of constant surveillance of their financial and personal
records, monitoring, and loss of rights.

The Court previously dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims for lack of
Article III standing, finding that they had failed to allege a
non-speculative injury-in-fact.  The D.C. Circuit reversed and
remanded.  CareFirst now moves to dismiss the operative second
amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
for failure to state a claim.

Judge Cooper granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.  He granted motion in large part.  After briefly
recounting the factual and procedural background, he began by
confirming that it has diversity jurisdiction over the case
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.  He then explained his
conclusion that, while the Plaintiffs' alleged injuries may be
enough to establish standing at the pleading stage of the case,
they are largely insufficient to satisfy the "actual damages"
element of nine of their state-law causes of action.  The Judge
then moved to the interplay between the Plaintiffs' tort and
contract claims, finding that the parties' non-fiduciary
contractual relationship independently forecloses tort liability
based on the allegations in the complaint.  Finally, he addressed
issues specific to the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim and
their claims under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection
Procedures Act and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

At the end of the day, the Judge dismissed all of the Plaintiffs'
claims except for a breach of contract claim and a Maryland
Consumer Protection Act claim brought by the only two Plaintiffs
(Kurt and Connie Tringler of Maryland) who have plausibly alleged
actual misuse of personal information resulting from the data
breach.  In reaching this outcome, he acknowledged the difficulty
of applying traditional tort and contract principles in the
contemporary context of data security.  He also recognized that
courts across the country have divided on a number of important
legal issues that frequently arise in data breach litigation.  The
Judge has attempted to illuminate some of these divisions in his
Opinion.

A separate order accompanies the Memorandum Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/P4pILv from Leagle.com.

CHANTAL ATTIAS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, RICHARD BAILEY, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, LATANYA BAILEY, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated & LISA HUBER, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by
Christopher T. Nace -- cnace@paulsonandnace.com -- PAULSON & NACE,
PLLC, Matthew Andrew Nace, PAULSON & NACE, PLLC, Matthew W.
Stonestreet, GIATRAS LAW FIRM, PLLC, pro hac vice, Troy Nino
Alexander Giatras, GIATRAS LAW FIRM, PLLC & Jonathan B. Nace --
jnace@paulsonandnace.com -- NIDEL & NACE, PLLC.

ANDREAS KOTZUR, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, CURT TRINGLER, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & CONNIE TRINGLER, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Matthew
W. Stonestreet, GIATRAS LAW FIRM, PLLC, pro hac vice, Troy Nino
Alexander Giatras, GIATRAS LAW FIRM, PLLC & Jonathan B. Nace, NIDEL
& NACE, PLLC.

CAREFIRST, INC., doing business as GROUP HOSPITALIZATION MEDICAL
SERVICES, INC., GROUP HOSPITALIZATION AND MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.,
doing business as GROUP HOSPITALIZATION MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.,
CAREFIRST BLUECHOICE, doing business as CAREFIRST BLUECROSS
BLUESHIELD & CAREFIRST OF MARYLAND, INC., doing business as
CAREFIRST BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD, Defendants, represented by Matthew
O. Gatewood -- matt.gatewood@sutherland.com -- EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND
(US) LLP & Robert D. Owen -- robertowen@eversheds-sutherland.com --
SUTHERLAND ASBIL & BRENNAN, LLP.


CARMENGIO'S LLC: Navarrete Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS NAVARRETE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) v. CARMENGIO'S LLC, Case
No. 4:19-cv-00409 (S.D. Tex., February 6, 2019), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs on behalf of current and former servers and under Section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Carmengio's, LLC, doing business as Carmengio's Cucina Italiana, is
a Texas Limited Liability Company.

The primary function of Defendant is the operation and management
of a restaurant called Carmengio's Cucina Italiana located at 1833
Williams Way Blvd., in Richmond, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
          HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
          801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 479-9229
          Facsimile: (817) 260-0801
          E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com


CHARLOTTE, NC: Homebuilders File Class Action Over Unlawful Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Fahey, writing for Charlotte Business Journal, reports that
ongoing issues relating to water and sewer infrastructure have
prompted a number of major homebuilders active in Charlotte to file
a class-action lawsuit against the city and Charlotte Water.

D.R. Horton, True Homes, Lennar Carolinas, CalAtlantic Group, David
Weekley Homes and Shea Homes are among a group of developers that
say they have paid unlawful water and wastewater capacity fees on
properties that didn't have connections to city water and sewer
systems. The groups say the city has illegally charged and
collected capacity fees "in excess of" $5 million during a
three-year period.

The plaintiffs seek damages in the form of a refund of all capacity
fees along with an interest rate of 6% annually from the date of
payment of the fees, according to the suit filed in U.S. District
Court.

On Jan. 14, the city declined to comment, noting in a statement
that its practice is not to comment on pending litigation and that
the city will respond to the complaint through the judicial
process.

Some developments in South End and SouthPark -- two of the city's
fastest-growing areas -- have been halted or delayed because
existing sanitary sewer infrastructure has not kept up with denser
projects planned there. The sheer number of developments, as well
projects' size and density, has put more pressure on sewer
infrastructure needs than was anticipated, Charlotte Water has
previously said. In several of the affected areas, new lines had to
be constructed.

The timeline to finish capacity projects extended beyond the
construction timeline of some planned developments in the affected
areas. Charlotte Water said in a memo in late 2017 that the
department "cannot approve new connections to sanitary sewer lines
when the new users will cause lines to overflow."

The complaint says city policy requires residential homebuilders to
pay one-time water and wastewater capacity fees when submitting any
application for water or wastewater service — or to extend
infrastructure to their properties — before they could use those
systems. It goes on to say that, after full payment of capacity
fees, it takes a minimum of four to six weeks before properties
receive water or wastewater services and, if infrastructure needs
to be built, it can take six months to a year after payment before
the properties receive service.

Capacity fees are diverted into a city fund used to pay for future
water and sewer projects.

The suit says capacity fees were imposed separately from
"connection fees" (the cost to tap a line into the city's water and
wastewater systems). It says capacity fees were charged illegally
by the city and Charlotte Water "in addition to and regardless of
the further expense" required of homebuilders or developers to
build infrastructure that would connect their properties to
Charlotte's systems, which would then be required to be dedicated
to the city after construction.

"Defendants had no legal authority at that time to charge fees for
water and/or wastewater services to be furnished," the suit says.

The lawsuit cites an N.C. Supreme Court decision in 2016 that ruled
municipalities did not have the authority to charge for future
services and only allows such fees for the "actual, contemporaneous
use" of the municipality's water and/or wastewater systems. It says
the homebuilders' properties here were not connected to Charlotte
Water's systems and there was no contemporaneous or actual use of
the systems by the properties.

The homebuilders also allege fees imposed in previous fiscal years
were higher than allowed. The suit references an analysis by
Raftelis Financial Consultants completed in January 2018 that found
the maximum cost that could be assessed by Charlotte Water for
system development fees was $610 for water and $1,848 for
wastewater per property. But, it says, the city was charging up to
$3,394 in capacity fees in fiscal year 2018. The maximum allowable
amount determined by Raftelis ($2,458) was put in effect by the
city in FY 2019.

The homebuilders allegedly contacted the city in June with their
concerns, requesting a justification for the capacity fees. In
August, the defendants purportedly responded by saying they
disagreed with the contentions but, the plaintiffs charge, "failed
to reference any authority" for the city to charge those fees. No
further communication has been made by the city since, the suit
says.

The lawsuit says it estimates that the class action could apply to
"more than 1,000 individuals and entities."

Claims must be made no later than August 19, 2019. [GN]


COMMUNITY INSURANCE: Court Narrows Claims in ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Western Division, issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion for
Partial Dismissal in the case captioned A.G., by and through her
father, N.G., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. COMMUNITY INSURANCE COMPANY D/B/A/ANTHEM
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD, Defendant. Case No. 1:18-cv-300. (S.D.
Ohio).

This civil action is before the Court upon Defendant Community
Insurance Company d/b/a/Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield (Anthem)'s
Partial Motion to Dismiss Counts 1 — 3 of Plaintiff's class
action complaint and the parties' responsive memoranda.

This is an Employee Retirement Income and Security Act (ERISA)
action arising from Defendant's decision to deny health plan
benefits for allegedly medically necessary services for wilderness
behavioral health treatment for mental health and substance abuse
issues. A.G. has struggled for years with mental health issues such
as depression, anxiety, eating disorders, suicide ideations, and
drug use. A.G. received treatment at Blue Ridge. N.G. personally
paid $46,650 for the Blue Ridge services. Anthem denied the claims
submitted for A.G.'s treatment at Blue Ridge based on a plan
provision that excludes claims for wilderness camps.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) operates
to test the sufficiency of the complaint and permits dismissal of a
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. To show grounds for relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) requires
that the complaint contain a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.

Count 1 — Plaintiff's Claim for Plan Benefits

Count 1 requests that the Court award benefits to the Plaintiff
under the Plan. A civil action may be brought by a participant or
beneficiary to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his
plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to
clarify his rights to future benefits under the plan. Here, the
Court is unable to award benefits to Plaintiff because the services
provided by Blue Ridge are expressly excluded under the Plan.

The Plaintiff argues that the term wilderness camps is ambiguous,
as it is undefined, and does not encompass the services provided at
Blue Ridge. The Plaintiff argues that Blue Ridge is a wilderness
therapy program, not a wilderness camp.

The Plaintiff argues that wilderness camps could be understood to
refer to such experiential programs such as Outward Bound. The
Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss includes a table that
shows how the services provided at Blue Ridge are different from
the services provided at wilderness experiential programs like
Outward Bound.  

This argument lacks merit.

It is undisputed that Anthem had full discretionary authority to
interpret the Plan. Where a plan administrator is given
discretionary authority, judicial review is limited to whether the
denial of benefits was arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the
Court must defer to Anthem's interpretation of the Plan unless its
interpretation is arbitrary and capricious.  

As described in the complaint, Blue Ridge Therapeutic Wilderness
provides treatment in the wilderness. On its website, Blue Ridge
even refers to the setting as a camp. The Court simply cannot find
that Anthem's interpretation that Blue Ridge is a wilderness camp,
and therefore excluded under the Plan, is arbitrary and capricious.
Therefore, Count 1 fails as a matter of law and is dismissed.

Count 2 and 3 - Parity Act

Count 2 and 3 of the complaint are brought under the Parity Act. 29
U.S.C. Section 1185a.

The Parity Act was designed to end discrimination in the provision
of coverage for mental health and substance use disorders as
compared to medical and surgical conditions in employer-sponsored
group health plans and health insurance coverage offered in
connection with group health plans.. Under the Parity Act, when a
group health plan provides coverage for both medical benefits and
mental health and substance abuse benefits, the plan must ensure
that:

The treatment limitations applicable to such mental health or
substance abuse disorder benefits are no more restrictive than the
predominant treatment limitations applied to substantially all
medical and surgical benefits covered by the plan (or coverage) and
there are no separate treatment limitations that are applicable
only with respect to mental health or substance use disorder
benefits.

To state a Parity Act violation, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the
insurance plan is of the type covered by the Parity Act (2) the
insurance plan provides both medical benefits and mental-health
benefits (3) the plan has a treatment limitation, either
quantitative or nonquantitative for one of those benefits that is
more restrictive for mental-health treatment than it is for medical
treatment and (4) the mental-health treatment is in the same
classification as the medical treatment to which it is being
compared.

Here, the Plaintiff contends that the Plan's exclusion of
wilderness camps violates the Parity Act because the Defendant
explicitly covers medical and surgical services rendered at
intermediate facilities such as at rehabilitation hospitals and
skilled nursing facilities. The Defendant argues that the
Plaintiff's claims under the Parity Act must be dismissed because
Plaintiff (i) fails to identify any treatment limitation that does
not apply equally to mental health and a medical/surgical analogue,
and (ii) cannot plausibly allege any facts showing that wilderness
programs constitute intermediate care under the Parity Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Plan violates the Parity Act because
it includes services at intermediate facilities such as
rehabilitation hospitals and skilled nursing facilities, but not
wilderness camps. But the Plan does explicitly cover services at
residential treatment centers for both medical and mental health
services it simply does not cover any services performed at
wilderness camps A residential treatment center is an intermediate
facility analogue to a rehabilitation hospital and skilled nursing
facility. Therefore, applying the standard outlined in Gallagher,
because the Plan both provides benefits for services performed at
residential treatment centers for medical/surgical patients and for
mental health conditions, the Plan does not contain a
discriminatory limitation.

Because the Plan equally covers mental health services and
medical/surgical services at residential treatment centers, the
Court cannot find that the Plan's blanket exclusion of services at
wilderness camps is a treatment limitation in violation of the
Parity Act. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a viable claim
under the Parity Act and dismissal of Counts 1 and 2 of the
complaint is appropriate.

Accordingly, the Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss Counts 1-3
is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 28, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y88zsqav from Leagle.com.

N. G., Individually and on behalf of all others simularly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Robert R. Sparks, Strauss Troy Co., LPA,
Jeffrey Adam Levine, Strauss Troy Co., LPA & Jordan M. Lewis,
Jordan Lewis, P.A., pro hac vice.

Community Insurance Company, doing business as Anthem Blue Cross
and Blue Shield, Defendant, represented by Kent Allen Britt, Vorys
Sater Seymour & Pease, Martin J. Bishop, Reed Smith LLP, pro hac
vice, Rebecca R. Hanson, Reed Smith LLP, pro hac vice & Wesley
Abrams, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, LLP.


DENN-OHIO LLC: Sued by O'Neal for Paying Servers Sub-Minimum Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christie D. O'Neal and Dusty M. Shepherd on behalf of themselves
and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v.
Denn-Ohio, LLC, an Ohio corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-00280-JJH
(N.D. Ohio, February 6, 2019), accuses the Defendant of violating
the Fair Labor Standards Act by paying servers sub-minimum,
tip-credit wages without informing them of the tip-credit
provisions of the FLSA.

Denn-Ohio, LLC, is a corporation duly licensed to transact business
in the state of Ohio.  Denn-Ohio does business, has offices, and/or
maintains agents for the transaction of its customary business in
Lucas County, Ohio.

Denn-Ohio owns and operates a chain of Denny's restaurants.  This
chain of restaurants provides the same service product to its
customers by using a set formula when conducting its business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Telephone: (480) 382-5176
          E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
                  chris@bendaulaw.com

               - and -

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
          6000 Freedom Square Dr.
          Independence, OH 44131
          Telephone: (216) 525-8890
          Facsimile: (216) 642-5814
          E-mail: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com


DIRECTSONG: No Update on Guild Wars 2 Consumers' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mat Ombler, writing for VG247, reports that Jeremy Soule is a BAFTA
winning composer with over 60 credits to his name. If you're not
familiar with his name, you'll be familiar with his music. Jeremy's
scoring credits include The Elder Scrolls Oblivion and Skyrim,
Guild Wars, the Harry Potter games, and many more.

What you might not be familiar with is The Northerner Symphony, a
Kickstarter project Jeremy launched in March 2013. Composing a
symphony is no easy task, but Jeremy said the project would be
completed in September 2013. Over 4,000 backers pledged over
$121,227 to help fund the project -- including five super backers
who pledged $1,500 each. The problem is, the Northerner isn't
finished yet and many of the people I spoke to who backed it are
worried it never will be.

The Kickstarter has been a strange journey, documented by sporadic
updates from Jeremy, his PR company The Max Steiner Agency, and,
strangely, one official update posted on February 9, 2017, that
wasn't written by Jeremy or his PR agency – the update was copy
and pasted from a fan post on Soule's Facebook wall, something his
PR agency admitted to Kotaku last year.

Other updates include music transcripts, and in November 2014 Soule
posted he has "been travelling". "Today, I am happy to announce
that the Symphony will be recorded in November," Soule wrote at the
time. "In the last several months, I have travelled the world to
survey places of inspiration and possible recording venues."

It didn't go down well with fans. "I was very forgiving about the
constant delays until I learned I was funding your international
vacation," one backer wrote on the page.

In an update posted on Feb 24, 2016, Jeremy apologised for the
delays and said: "Those who want to say goodbye and withdraw backer
support, please know I will refund you without hesitation. Simply
email refunds@maxsteineragency.com"

For those that requested refunds, that process has not been easy.
Many of them had to wait months or even years to get their money
back.

"I pledged $100 plus shipping to get a signed copy of his CD," one
backer tells me over email. "I requested my refund a few months
after it was possible and after much prodding, I received it a few
months after that. I gave up on waiting -- he continually posted
about work that was ongoing with deadlines that subsequently
passed."

Despite the vocal amount of backers on the Kickstarter page saying
they've asked for refunds, Soule tells me the total number of
people who requested them has been "a very small amount (less than
2%)". Out of the five super backers who pledged $1,500, Soule says
one of those has requested a refund.

Unfortunately, waiting to receive what you've been promised from
Jeremy Soule is nothing new. In 2005, Jeremy and his brother Julian
founded DirectSong, a music distribution company that sold Jeremy's
compositions, such as Guild Wars and Skyrim. People who purchased
soundtracks through the websites had waits of up to four years to
receive their album.

The long waits and lack of communication led to members of the
Guild Wars 2 community trying to launch a class action lawsuit
against the company in 2015. Chimicles & Tikelis, a class action
law firm in the USA, posted the following statement on their
website in January 2015.

"Chimicles & Tikellis is investigating a potential class action
lawsuit on behalf of consumers who paid for music or other products
through DirectSong's website. It has been alleged that DirectSong
has been refusing to provide its customers with the products they
purchased through DirectSong's website. It has been further alleged
that DirectSong has also failed to provide refunds to customers
upon request."

Mr. Ombler reached out to attorneys at the law firm asking if the
class action lawsuit was ever pursued, but they haven't responded.
The website for DirectSong is no longer online, but a
ResellerRatings listing for the company holds a one star review
rating out of five.

It's worth pointing out, while people did have to wait up to four
years for their products to arrive, they did eventually receive
them. Similarly, Jeremy Soule's Northern Symphony Kickstarter has
not been abandoned. A few days after a report from Kotaku in
November 2017, Jeremy released 'The Northerner Diaries.' This is
not the finished symphony he promised. Instead, they are virtual
orchestral and choir "sketches" that represent the "wild and
unfiltered ideas created in the same vein as concept art you might
see from an artist prior to the commencement of an oil
painting".[GN]


DISKOLAB LLC: Faces TCPA Text Messaging Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
David O. Klein, Esq. -- dklein@kleinmoynihan.com -- of Klein
Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that a
nationwide class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal text
messaging law has been filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida against a prominent Miami
nightclub. The lawsuit claims that Diskolab, LLC's ("Diskolab")
text messaging campaign was conducted in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). This TCPA text messaging case was
commenced on January 8, 2019 and remains in the pleading stages of
the proceedings.

What were the practices that gave rise to the claims of TCPA text
messaging violations?

The TCPA text messaging complaint alleges that Diskolab violated
the TCPA by sending out text message advertisements without the
consent of the recipients and that such text messages were sent en
masse using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS"). The
plaintiff deduced that the text messages that he received were sent
by an ATDS due to the general and impersonal nature of the content
of the text messages, which promoted the commercial availability of
tickets to the Diskolab club. Despite alleging receipt of only a
small number of text messages, the plaintiff hopes to represent a
nationwide class of individuals who received similar text messages
from Diskolab at any point over the previous four years.

Maintaining Compliance with TCPA Text Messaging Rules

Long time readers of this blog are aware of the extensive posts we
have published on the topic of the increased interest (from both
class action attorneys and regulators alike) in popular text
message marketing campaigns. The recent TCPA text messaging lawsuit
filed against Diskolab is further proof that businesses that
endeavor to reach potential customers on their cell phones must
ensure that telemarketing practices and procedures are compliant
with applicable state and federal telemarketing laws. [GN]


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Delivery Drivers to Share $1MM Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Paula Christian, writing for WCPO Cincinnati, reports that some
local Domino's Pizza delivery drivers will share a $1 million
settlement from a class-action lawsuit for unpaid wages and
mileage.

Attorneys for 163 Cincinnati pizza delivery drivers employed by a
19-store Domino's franchise filed a motion for final approval of
the $1,070,000 settlement on Dec. 27.

U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott held a final court hearing on Jan.
10 and is expected to approve the unopposed settlement and dismiss
the case, attorneys said.

"We believe the settlement is an excellent result for our pizza
delivery driver class members," said Andrew Kimble. "If approved,
the drivers will receive an average of over $6,000 per person,
which we hope is difference-making money for them."

Domino's did not return a request for comment.

Mr. Kimble and his partner Andy Biller of Cincinnati firm
Markovits, Stock & DeMarco have filed nearly 20 wage lawsuits on
behalf of pizza delivery drivers across the nation.

In October a Dayton federal judge approved a $850,000 settlement
that was shared by 411 Domino's Pizza delivery drivers in that
area. Each driver received roughly $2,068.

Paul Mullins, a delivery driver for a Domino's franchise in
Cincinnati, Southern Ohio Pizza, filed his lawsuit in June 2017.

He claimed that pizza franchise owners paid delivery drivers at or
below minimum wage and, at the same time, required them to pay for
their own delivery expenses like vehicle maintenance, insurance,
vehicle wear and tear.

Mr. Mullins and other pizza delivery drivers were reimbursed $.28
per mile, instead of the IRS mileage baseline of approximately $.56
per mile, according to the lawsuit.

When there were no deliveries, Mullins was still paid a lower
tipped wage for tasks such as building pizza boxes, cleaning,
preparing food and taking orders.

Under the settlement agreement, pizza delivery drivers who joined
the lawsuit class will receive $.51 per mile and $6 per hour for
work they did inside the store. That is expected to total roughly
$6,000 per worker.

"We hope Paul's actions in standing up for his co-workers will
encourage others to come forward and help put an end to the pizza
industry's systematic minimum wage violations," Mr. Kimble said.

Named in the lawsuit are: Southern Ohio Pizza, which operates 19
stores as a Domino's franchise from Loveland to Mason; franchise
owners Louis and Karen Metro; Domino's Pizza Inc.; Domino's Pizza
LLC; and Domino's Pizza Franchising.

If Judge Dlott approves the final settlement, the defendants would
also pay $348,689 in Mr. Mullins' attorney fees, $6,310 in legal
expenses and $10,000 as an incentive award to Mr. Mullins. [GN]


FINANCIAL CORPORATION: Thomas Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Thomas, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Financial Corporation of America,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00152, (N.D. Tex., June 18, 2017), seeks
injunctive relief and statutory damages in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Financial Corporation of America is a debt collection agency who
attempted to contact Thomas using an automatic telephone dialing
system. Thomas did not give her expressed consent to be contacted
using an auto-dialer, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
      KOZONIS LAW, LTD
      4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300
      Chicago, IL 60630
      Phone: (773) 545-9607
      Fax: (773) 496-8617
      Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com

             - and -

      Jarrett Ellzey, Esq.
      W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
      HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
      Galleria Tower I
      2700 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1120
      Houston, TX 77056
      Tel: (713) 554-2377
      Fax: (888) 995-3335
      Email: craft@hughesellzey.com
             jarrett@hughesellzey.com


FLOWERS BAKING: Green, et al. Seek Overtime Wages, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Green, Gerald Hall, James D. House, John K. Rary, Carlton
Keith Farr, James Columbia, II, Kevin Bryant, Thomas Adam Bryant,
Andrew Hubbard, Larry Patrick, Thomas Bernard, Bradley Robbins,
Gregory Lee Martin, Anthony Wayne Edmonds, Gary Rudolph, and
Richard Lewis Reece, Jr., Steven Long, Justin Dickens, Adam Ben
Hooper, Kevin Wine, and Jacy Booth, Individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. Flowers Baking Co. of
Birmingham, LLC, Flowers Baking Co. of Gadsden, LLC, Flowers Baking
Co. of Bardstown, LLC, Flowers Baking Co. of Denton, LLC, Flowers
Baking Co. of New Orleans, LLC, Flowers Baking Co. of Baton Rouge,
LLC, Flowers Baking Co. of Opelika, LLC, Flowers Baking Co. of
Batesville, LLC, Flowers Baking Co. of Jamestown, LLC, Flowers
Baking Co. of Knoxville, LLC, Flowers Baking Co. of Morristown,
LLC, Flowers Baking Co. of Lynchburg, LLC, and/or Flowers Baking
Co. of Lenexa, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01021 (W.D. Tenn.,
February 1, 2019) seeks monetary relief in the form of unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and other relief
pursuant to the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The lawsuit seeks relief on behalf of the Plaintiffs and those
similarly situated who were classified as independent contractor
"Distributors" and operated under a Distributor Agreement with one
of the Flowers Baking Entities during the Covered Period.

The complaint asserts that the Defendants did not pay overtime for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiffs are current and former "Distributors" of Defendants.

Flowers Baking is in the food service business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
     J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
     Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
     JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
     262 German Oak Drive
     Memphis, TN 38018
     Phone: (901) 754-8001
     Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
     Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
            rbryant@jsyc.com
            pjackson@jsyc.com

          - and -

     Michael L. Weinman, Esq.
     Weinman Thomas Law Firm
     112 S. Liberty Street, Suite 321
     P.O. Box 266
     Jackson, TN 38302
     Phone: (731) 423-5565
     Email: mike@weinmanthomas.com

          - and -

     Emily Alcorn, Esq.
     Gilbert McWherter Scott Bobbitt
     341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 2300
     Franklin, TN 37067
     Phone: (615) 354-1144
     Email: ealcorn@gilbertfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     Jonathan O. Harris, Esq.
     OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
     401 Commerce Street, Suite 1200
     Nashville, TN 37219
     Email: jon.harris@odnss.com

          - and -

     Audrey M. Calkins, Esq.
     OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
     International Place, Tower II
     6410 Poplar Avenue, Suite 300
     Memphis, TN 38119
     Email: audrey.calkins@odnss.com

          - and -

     Margaret Santen Hanrahan, Esq.
     OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
     191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4800
     Atlanta, GA 30303 and 201 South College Street, Suite 2300
     Charlotte, NC 28244
     Email: Maggie.hanrahan@odnss.com


FOREST PHARMA: 1st Cir. Flips Summary Judgment in Celexa Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: CELEXA AND LEXAPRO MARKETING AND SALES
PRACTICES LITIGATION. PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES DISTRICT COUNCIL
82 HEALTH CARE FUND; DELANA S. KIOSSOVSKI; RENEE RAMIREZ, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated; MARLENE T. LOCONTE,
Plaintiffs, Appellants, MARTHA PALUMBO, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated; PETER PALUMBO,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated;
JAYNE EHRLICH, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated; ANNA MURRET, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated; UNIVERSAL CARE, INC.; ANGELA
JAECKEL; MELVIN M. FULLMER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated; NEW MEXICO UFCW UNION'S AND EMPLOYER'S HEALTH
AND WELFARE TRUST FUND, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated; ALLIED SERVICES DIVISION WELFARE FUND, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated; TARA JOHNDROW,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; BRIAN
ANSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
SCOTT A. WILCOX, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated; MUNICIPAL REINSURANCE HEALTH INSURANCE FUND; RANDY
MARCUS; BONNIE MARCUS; RUTH DUNHAM; TANYA SHIPPY; JILL POWELL,
Plaintiffs, v. FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; FOREST LABORATORIES,
INC.; FOREST LABORATORIES, LLC, successor in interest to Forest
Laboratories, Inc., Defendants, Appellees, PFIZER, INC.; WARNER
LAMBERT COMPANY, Defendants, Case Nos. 18-1146, 18-1147 (1st Cir.),
Judge William J. Kayatta Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit (i) reversed the dismissal of the claims brought by
two of the four Plaintiffs; (ii) vacated the denial of the
Plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of additional documents
by Forest; and (iii) otherwise affirmed the challenged
district-court rulings, including the denial of class
certification.

These consolidated appeals arise out of two so-called "off-label"
prescription-drug-marketing cases aggregated for pretrial
proceedings in the District of Massachusetts by order of the
multidistrict litigation panel.  The Plaintiffs claim that the
Defendants, Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Forest Laboratories,
Inc., engaged in fraud to push their antidepressant drugs on
unsuspecting minors for whom the FDA had not approved the use of
these medications.

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA") requires drug
manufacturers to obtain approval from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") before marketing a drug for a particular
medical use.  The FDCA, however, does not prohibit doctors from
prescribing drugs for off-label uses.

Forest manufactures and markets prescription drugs, including the
antidepressant medications Celexa and Lexapro.  Celexa and Lexapro
are chemically similar selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors
("SSRIs"), a class of antidepressants that affect a patient's mood
by blocking the reabsorption of the neurotransmitter serotonin in
the brain.  The FDA approved Celexa and Lexapro for the treatment
of major depressive disorder ("MDD") in adults (i.e., individuals
aged eighteen or over) in 1998 and 2002, respectively.

The record in the case nevertheless strongly suggests that Forest
engaged in a comprehensive off-label marketing scheme from 1998
through 2009 aimed at fraudulently inducing doctors to write
pediatric prescriptions of Celexa and Lexapro when Forest had
insufficient reason to think that these drugs were effective for
the treatment of depression in children and adolescents.  For
years, Forest nevertheless denied that it was engaged in the
off-label promotion of these drugs.

In September 2010, Forest paid a $39 million fine in connection
with pleading guilty to criminal violations of the FDCA for its
off-label promotion of Celexa between 1998 and 2002 and an
additional $149 million to the United States to settle civil claims
that Forest illegally promoted Celexa and Lexapro for pediatric use
in 2002 through 2005.

Within the following four years, over a dozen consumers and
entities who paid for prescription drugs filed the lawsuits that
led to the instant appeal.  Initially, four Plaintiffs joined in
the notice of appeal.  Only two, Renee Ramirez and the Painters and
Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care Fund ("Painters")
have presented any argument on appeal.

Ramirez purchased Celexa and Lexapro for her young son from
February 2003 through March 2010 on the recommendation of her son's
neurologist. Painters h as reimbursed its pediatric insureds for
off-label prescriptions of Celexa and Lexapro since early 1999.
The Plaintiffs together seek recovery under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the Minnesota
Consumer Fraud Act, and the Minnesota Unfair Trade Practices Act,
and for unjust enrichment.

In June 2016, the district court denied Painters' motion to certify
two nationwide classes of similarly situated health-insurance
companies and health plans that had paid for or reimbursed
off-label pediatric prescriptions of Celexa or Lexapro.  

Subsequently, in March 2017, a dispute arose as a result of
Forest's apparently belated production of two internal memoranda in
advance of a deposition conducted by agreement after discovery had
otherwise closed. The two documents contained details regarding a
study of Celexa's effectiveness.  Forest revealed that it had not
sought any responsive documents from its Clinical Supply Group in
responding to Painters' discovery requests.  The district court
nevertheless denied Painters' motion to compel Forest's
supplemental production of documents from this group, concluding
that any such production would be cumulative.

In due course, after deeming discovery complete and ruling on
various interim motions, the district court entered summary
judgment for Forest on the Plaintiffs' RICO claims.  In granting
summary judgment dismissing all of the Plaintiffs' claims, the
district court concluded that the Plaintiffs had no competent proof
that either Celexa or Lexapro was ineffective for treating
depression in children or adolescents.  The court then proceeded to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' state-based allegations as deriving from
their noncognizable RICO claims.  The appeal by Painters and
Ramirez followed.

Judge Kayatta resolves two questions.  First, whether the FDA's
various pronouncements or actions close the door on any effort to
convince a jury that either Celexa or Lexapro was ineffective.
Second, whether the evidence in the case is nevertheless
insufficient to support a jury finding of ineffectiveness to the
extent that the FDA's pronouncements and actions are not
preclusive.

The Judge holds that the FDA's 2009 approval of Lexapro does not
preclude a jury from concluding that the off-label uses of Celexa
and Lexapro at issue in the case were ineffective in treating
pediatric depression.  Moreover, the Plaintiffs have provided
competent and sufficient evidence -- through DBRCTs, expert
testimony, and peer-reviewed literature -- to raise a genuine issue
of material fact as to the efficacy of these drugs for pediatric
use.  Accordingly, the district court erred in granting summary
judgment for Forest on the Plaintiffs' RICO and state-law claims on
this basis.

As for Ramirez, Forest did not challenge her standing on the basis
of causation in its memorandum in support of its motion for summary
judgment.  Accordingly, the Judge expresses no opinion as to
whether Ramirez has raised a triable issue on RICO causation.

As for proximate causation, it is of no moment that pediatricians
were the immediate target of Forest's fraudulent marketing.  A jury
could find that Painters and Ramirez were the primary and intended
victims of Forest's scheme to defraud.  Moreover, Painters' and
Ramirez's alleged harm (i.e., reimbursing or purchasing more
pediatric prescriptions than they otherwise would have) was a
"foreseeable and natural consequence" of Forest's scheme.  Indeed,
it was precisely the point.  Accordingly, for the foregoing
reasons,the Judge reversed the district court's entry of summary
judgment for Forest on Painters' RICO and state-law claims and on
Ramirez's RICO and unjust-enrichment claims.

Early on in the litigation the district court denied Painters'
motion to certify this case as a class action under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).  The Judge finds that Painters' clinical
and statistical evidence, if believed, could establish causation
and injury at least for any TPP who paid for more than a handful of
different patients' prescriptions.  Nevertheless, it has become
apparent that the proper application of the statute of limitations,
while preserving the Plaintiffs' individual claims, precludes
Painters' attempt to maintain a class action.

Next, the Judge finds that the Court effectively ruled that the
tolling effect of a motion to certify a class applies only to
individual claims, no matter how the motion is ultimately resolved.
To hold otherwise would be to allow a chain of withdrawn
class-action suits to extend the limitations period forever.  For
the foregoing reasons, he holds that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in declining to certify Painters' proposed
nationwide class of TPPs.

Finally, the Judge vacated the district court's discovery ruling so
that on remand it can consider whether further discovery is called
for in view of his decision in the appeal.  Because he has
explained why the FDA's approval of Lexapro for its use in
adolescents is not as preclusive as the district court might have
reasonably thought, and because Painters and Ramirez have a live
claim on the merits, one might reasonably expect Forest to search
for responsive files within the "Clinical Supply Group."

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Kayatta reversed the district
court's entry of summary judgment for Forest on Painters' and
Ramirez's RICO and state-law claims; and vacated the district
court's denial of Painters' Rule 37 motion to compel supplemental
discovery.  At the same time, he affirmed the district court's
denial of Painters' motion for class certification.  He awarded no
costs to any party.

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

R. Brent Wisner -- RBWisner@BaumHedlundLaw.com -- with whom Michael
L. Baum -- MBaum@BaumHedlundLaw.com -- Baum, Hedlund, Aristei &
Goldman, P.C., Christopher L. Coffin -- ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com --
and Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP were on brief, for appellants.

Andrew J. Ceresney -- aceresney@debevoise.com -- with whom Edwin G.
Shallert -- egschallert@debevoise.com -- Kristin D. Kiehn --
kdkiehn@debevoise.com -- J. Robert Abraham --
jrabraham@debevoise.com -- Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, John G.
O'Neill -- oneill@sugarmanrogers.com -- and Sugarman, Rogers,
Barshak & Cohen, P.C. were on brief, for appellees.


FORSTER & GARBUS: Radie Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP.  The case is styled as Sean T Radie, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster & Garbus, LLP,
Mark A. Garbus and Ronald Forster, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00739 (E.D. N.Y., February 6, 2019).

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

Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company
specializes in collecting debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
   775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
   Huntington, NY 11743
   Tel: (631) 335-1107
   Email: mpash@verizon.net


HOME DEPOT: Oral Argument Set in Class Action Over Sales Tactics
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Home Depot
Inc. would try to convince the U.S. Supreme Court at oral argument
Jan. 15 that consumers game the system to keep class actions out of
federal court.

The company's position as a third-party counterclaim defendant in a
class action over misleading sales tactics shouldn't prevent it
from exercising the removal rights extended to typical defendants,
it says.

"When all you are is a defendant, you should be treated as a
defendant," Home Depot counsel Sarah Harrington --
sharrington@goldsteinrussell.com -- of Goldstein & Russell P.C. in
Washington told Bloomberg Law.

But the consumer here argues that Congress didn't intend
"defendant" in the general removal statute or the Class Action
Fairness Act, which creates federal jurisdiction for certain large
class actions, to include counterclaim defendants.

Congress explicitly allows counterclaim defendants to remove patent
suits under the America Invents Act, Paul Bland, who is arguing for
the consumer, told Bloomberg Law. If it wanted CAFA to include
counterclaim defendants, it would have said so, Mr. Bland, of
Public Justice P.C. in Washington, said.

Who Counts as a Defendant?
Citibank N.A. sued George W. Jackson in state court alleging he
fell behind on payments for a water treatment system he bought
using a Citibank credit card. Jackson filed a counterclaim against
Citibank and third-party class claims against Carolina Water
Systems Inc., which made the system, and Home Depot, which sold it
to him.

The Fourth Circuit ruled that, as an additional defendant to a
counterclaim, Home Depot couldn't invoke federal jurisdiction.

The Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth circuits have held that the
statutory language allowing "any defendant" to move class actions
filed in state court to federal court only applies to the original
defendant, not third-party or counterclaim defendants.

Although no circuits have held otherwise, Home Depot argued the
Supreme Court needs to step in to correct what it sees as the lower
courts' interpretive error.

Class Action Impact
Home Depot and its amici argue this procedural posture isn't
unusual, and will become more common if endorsed by the Supreme
Court.

"It's not a traditional way that a class action comes up but the
courts of appeals have created this loophole in the removal
protections that CAFA provides," Ms. Harrington said.

She pointed to an almost identical case against Home Depot filed in
Madison County, Ill. The Seventh Circuit also refused to allow Home
Depot to remove it because it was a counterclaim defendant.

"The experience of my client—having had it happen twice—is that
it's picking up speed," Harrington said. "I think we have every
reason to believe if we don't prevail in this case it will be
viewed as a road map to get around the CAFA requirements."

She called it a "particularly easy way" for plaintiffs to file
unremovable class actions. They can wait for a simple collection
action or mortgage foreclosure to be filed in state court, "and
then hijack that as a vehicle for a class action that if you had
just filed it on your own undoubtedly would have been removed under
CAFA."

But Mr. Bland said counterclaim class actions don't come up that
often. Whatever the outcome of the case, it's "going to have almost
no impact at all in the actual world of class actions," he said.

Home Depot warns of a "tip of an approaching iceberg," but the
reality seems to be "more of an ice cube," he said.

He scoffed at the idea that a consumer would go into debt and ruin
his credit just to file a class action that stays in state court.

Wider Effect?
The question the Supreme Court added to the case could be more
consequential, but for cases outside the class action sphere, Bland
said.

The new question presented asks if the court should extend its
holding in a 1941 case—that an original plaintiff can't remove a
counterclaim against it—to third-party counterclaim defendants
even outside the class context.

A "no" to that question isn't likely to have much effect on class
actions, but could open the door to federalizing personal injury
and products liability cases.

He gave two examples: A plaintiff sues the local defendant that
harmed him in state court, and the defendant brings in its
out-of-state insurer. Or a plaintiff sues the local store where it
bought a product that injured her, and the store brings in the
national company that made the product.

"I'd be surprised if the Supreme Court really wants to see this
enormous number of these cases moved to federal court," Mr. Bland
said.

But Ms. Harrington said Home Depot just wants the court to correct
the lower courts' interpretation of the case. It's a narrow ruling
that doesn't say anything about a defendant that is brought in
involuntarily, she said.

It's unusual for the court to add a question presented, she noted.

"It will be interesting to see if these are distinct questions in
their minds or if they decide them together," she said.

Mr. Bland will argue for Mr. Jackson.

William Barnette of Home Depot will argue for the company.

The case is Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, U.S., No. 17-1471,
argument 1/15/19. [GN]


HOSPITAL CORP: 5th Circuit Appeal Filed in Maderazo Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Marissa Maderazo, Barbara Miles and Roselia Pollard
filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Marissa
Maderazo, et al. v. Hospital Corporation of America, Incorporated,
et al., Case No. 5:06-CV-535, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, San Antonio.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that hospitals in the San Antonio Metropolitan Statistical
Area have conspired to keep their nurses' wages at artificially low
levels.

The lawsuit invokes the federal antitrust laws to force the
hospitals to pay their nurses compensation that is long overdue.

The appellate case is captioned as Marissa Maderazo, et al. v.
Hospital Corporation of America, Incorporated, et al., Case No.
19-90004, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that
Response/Opposition was due February 19, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners MARISSA MADERAZO, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, ROSELIA POLLARD and BARBARA MILES
are represented by:

          Raymond J. Farrow, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          E-mail: rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com

Defendants-Respondents HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF AMERICAN,
INCORPORATED, and METHODIST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM OF SAN ANTONIO,
LIMITED, L.L.P., are represented by:

          Abram J. Ellis, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          900 G. Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 636-5500
          E-mail: aellis@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq.
          SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT, L.L.P.
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-3954
          Telephone: (212) 455-2000
          Telephone: jyoungwood@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Veronica Smith Lewis, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, L.L.P.
          2100 McKinney Avenue
          Dallas, TX 75201-6912
          Telephone: (214) 698-3320
          E-mail: vlewis@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Derick James Rodgers, Esq.
          DAVIS, CEDILLO & MENDOZA, INCORPORATED
          755 E. Mulberry Avenue
          McCombs Plaza
          San Antonio, TX 78212-0000
          Telephone: (210) 822-6666
          E-mail: drodgers@lawdcm.com

Defendant-Respondent CHRISTUS SANTA ROSA HEALTH CARE CORPORATION is
represented by:

          Darryl Wade Anderson, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US, L.L.P.
          1301 McKinney Street
          Fulbright Tower
          Houston, TX 77010-3095
          Telephone: (713) 651-5562
          E-mail: darryl.anderson@nortonrosefulbright.com

               - and -

          James H. Kizziar, Jr., Esq.
          BRACEWELL, L.L.P.
          300 Convent Street
          San Antonio, TX 78205-3723
          Telephone: (210) 299-3526
          E-mail: james.kizziar@bracewell.com

Defendant-Respondent VHS SAN ANTONIO PARTNERS, L.L.C., is
represented by:

          Andrew Patrick LeGrand, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, L.L.P.
          2100 McKinney Avenue
          Dallas, TX 75201-6912
          Telephone: (214) 698-3405
          E-mail: alegrand@gibsondunn.com


IPASS INC: Faces 2 Class Actions Over Merger Disclosures
--------------------------------------------------------
iPass Inc. in its Form SC 14D-9A filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission dated January 11, 2019, disclosed that on
December 12, 2018, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned
Darrell Boswell v. iPass Inc., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-7486 (the
“Boswell Action”). The Boswell Action is brought against iPass
and the five members of the iPass Board and alleges that the
Schedule 14D-9 failed to disclose material information regarding
the proposed transaction including certain financial projections,
the valuation of Pareteum and the Merger Consideration, and certain
inputs underlying the valuation analyses performed by Raymond
James, which rendered the Schedule 14D-9 materially false or
misleading. The causes of action set forth in the complaint are (i)
a claim against all defendants for violations of Section 14(e) of
the Exchange Act, as well as (ii) a claim against the members of
the Board for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
complaint seeks, among other things, an order that the action may
be maintained as a class action, injunctive relief, rescission of
the Merger Agreement, damages, and an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses. iPass believes that the action is without merit.

On December 18, 2018, a second lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for District of Delaware, captioned Jordan
Rosenblatt v. iPass Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-02004 (the
“Rosenblatt Action”). The Rosenblatt Action is brought against
iPass, the five members of the iPass Board, Pareteum Corporation,
and TBR, Inc. The complaint in the Rosenblatt Action alleges that
the Schedule 14D-9 failed to disclose material information
regarding the proposed transaction including certain financial
projections and certain inputs underlying the valuation analyses
performed by Raymond James, which rendered the Schedule 14D-9
materially false or misleading. The causes of action set forth in
the complaint are (i) a claim against all defendants for violations
of Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act, (ii) a claim against all
defendants for violations of Section 14(d) of the Exchange Act, and
(iii) a claim against the members of the Board, Pareteum, and TBR,
Inc. for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
complaint seeks, among other things, an order that the action may
be maintained as a class action, injunctive relief, rescission of
the Merger Agreement, damages, and an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses. iPass believes that the action is without merit. [GN]


IQVIA INC: Garner Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------
Rosanna Garner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. IQVIA, Inc., Case No. 8:19-cv-00001 (M.D. Fla., January
1, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sent out unsolicited
advertisements to telephone facsimile machines.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Tampa, Florida and maintains a
telephone facsimile equipment.

The Defendant IQVIA, Inc. is a foreign profit corporation located
in New Jersey and doing business in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
      Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
      THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
      4030 Henderson Boulevard
      Tampa, FL 33629
      Tel: (813) 500-1500
      Fax: (813) 435-2369
      E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
              Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com


JOE'S AUTO WRECKERS: Cabrera Seeks to Recover Min., Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Narciso Cabrera, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Joe's Auto Wreckers Inc., Joseph
Forti and Robert Dedonato, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00564 (S.D.
N.Y., January 18, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages and redress for failure to provide itemized wage
statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New
York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control an automobile salvage company,
located at 625-627 S. Columbus Ave., Mount Vernon, NY 10550 under
the name "Joe's Auto Wreckers" where Caberera worked as a general
assistant. He worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage, spread-of-hours and overtime compensation
for the hours that he worked. Defendants also failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, says the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KEURIG DR. PEPPER: Settles Canada Dry False Advertising Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Brean, writing for The Province, reports that Canada Dry
Ginger Ale will continue to be marketed in Canada as "Made from
Real Ginger" even though the soft drink's producer has agreed to
remove this controversial claim from American packaging in order to
settle a series of U.S. class action lawsuits over false
advertising.

The company is evaluating the Canadian packaging, but it still
makes the "Made from Real Ginger" claim prominently, and there are
"no changes to announce at this time," according to Katie Gilroy,
director of corporate communications for Keurig Dr. Pepper.

As part of the American settlement, Keurig Dr. Pepper will also
make cash payments to compensate anyone who has bought Canada Dry
in the U.S. since 2013, to a limit of $5.20 per household without
receipts, or $40 with them. If this settlement is finalized by a
court as planned later this year, it will resolve several related
class actions that alleged violations of state-level business laws,
all based on the ginger claim.

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

At issue was Canada Dry's actual ginger content, which lawyers for
the New York plaintiff claimed was negligible and falsely promoted
as part of a marketing scheme to make Canada Dry seem like a
healthy alternative to regular pop.

Ginger, a spice derived from the rhizome of a flowering plant, is
commonly used in alternative health treatments, often focused on
digestion, although actual science about its benefits is slim.

Flat ginger ale is a popular folk remedy for upset stomach, often
given to sick children as a kind of medicine or restorative. Like
other pops, however, Canada Dry is made of high fructose corn
syrup, citric acid, preservatives and natural flavours, mixed into
carbonated water.

Facing false advertising lawsuits, Canada Dry drops claim it is
'made from real ginger'

Court records suggest there was a 9 per cent rise in sales in the
first six months after the addition of "Made from Real Ginger" to
Canada Dry's packaging. A judge who heard preliminary arguments in
the California class action lawsuit cited internal company
documents that suggested 30 per cent of Canada Dry consumers who
increased their consumption did so because of expected health
benefits from real ginger.

Research by the New York complainant's lawyer estimated the actual
ginger compound content of Canada Dry at two parts per million,
which is below the threshold for human taste, and far lower than
any amount that could have health benefits. It claimed that Canada
Dry's "natural flavours" are actually "a flavour compound comprised
predominately of flavour extracts not derived from ginger, and a
minuscule amount of a ginger flavour extract."

"Canada Dry's ginger flavour extract is not 'real ginger' as
reasonable consumers understand that term," the lawsuit claims. "It
is manufactured in a lab using various chemicals and extraction
processes."

Keurig Dr. Pepper decided to remove the claim claim from its
American packaging as part of a negotiated settlement that only
applies in the U.S. and will "avoid a protracted litigation
process," Gilroy said in an emailed statement.

"Canada Dry Ginger Ale has always been made using real ginger
extract to provide its ginger flavour," she said.

She declined to answer further questions about this discrepancy,
however, such as why the company would not defend against the
lawsuit if the claim is true, or how it could put it on Canadian
packaging if it is false, or whether the company disputes the two
parts per million claim, or how much real ginger is actually in the
product. [GN]


KEYTRONICEMS: Vang Settlement Has Preliminary Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
issued an Order granting Parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary
Approval of a Class and Collective Action Settlement in the case
captioned  Kou Thao Vang and Dao Vang, on behalf Case of
themselves, others similarly situated, and the proposed Rule 23
Class, Plaintiffs, v. KeyTronicEMS and CDR Manufacturing, Inc.,
Defendants. No. 17-cv-5408 (WMW/BRT). (D. Minn.).

The Court has conducted a preliminary fairness review of the
Stipulation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). The
Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and the negotiated
resolution, including the payments to be made to the Settlement
Class Members and to the Settling Plaintiffs who file a Claim Form
and Release, is within the range of fair and reasonable settlements
for both the Settlement Class Members and the Settling Plaintiffs.

The parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of a class and
collective action settlement is granted.

Settlement Class. The following class is conditionally certified
for the purpose of settlement only: All persons who worked as
Manufacturing Associates for KeyTronic at KeyTronic's Oakdale,
Minnesota facility at any time from December 14, 2014, through
April 11, 2018. Plaintiffs Kou Thao Vang and Dao Vang are
conditionally approved as Class Representatives. Plaintiffs'
Counsel are conditionally approved as class counsel.

Settlement Approval. The Settlement Agreement, including but not
limited to (1) the release of Federal Released Claims and the State
Law Released Claims, (2) the amount of the Total Settlement Amount,
(3) the plan of allocation, and (4) the form and content of the
Class Notice and Claim Form and Release, are preliminarily approved
as fair and reasonable. The parties are ordered to perform and
satisfy the terms and conditions of the Stipulation.

Approval of Settlement Schedule. Consistent with the terms of this
Order, the Court approves the schedule set forth in Section IV.B.10
of the Stipulation.

Objection to Settlement. Any Settlement Class Member who wishes to
present objections to the proposed settlement at the Fairness
Hearing must first do so in writing. To be considered, such
objections must be addressed to the Court, Defendants' Counsel, and
Plaintiffs' Counsel as provided in the Class Notice, mailed via
United States Mail and postmarked no later than 60 days from the
date the Class Notice is first mailed. The time to submit
objections shall not be enlarged for returned mailings. Any
Settlement Class Member who has not filed and served timely written
objections may not speak at the Fairness Hearing. The parties may
file with the Court written responses to any filed objections no
later than 14 calendar days before the Fairness Hearing.

Failure to Object to Settlement. Settlement Class Members who fail
to object to the Stipulation in the manner specified above will:
(1) be deemed to have waived their right to object to the
Stipulation; (2) be foreclosed from objecting (whether by
subsequent objection, intervention, appeal, or otherwise) to the
Stipulation; and (3) not be entitled to speak at the Fairness
Hearing.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 28, 2018
Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7xb34dr from
Leagle.com.

Kou Thao Vang, on behalf of themselves, others similarly situated,
and the proposed Rule 23 Class & Dao Vang, on behalf of themselves,
others similarly situated, and the proposed Rule 23 Class,
Plaintiffs, represented by Rebekah L. Bailey, Nichols Kaster, PLLP
& Richard A. Williams, Jr., R.A.WILLIAMS LAW FIRM, P.A.

KeyTronicEMS & CDR Manufacturing, Inc., doing business as Ayrshire
Electronics, Defendants, represented by Ryan E. Mick, Dorsey &
Whitney LLP & Trevor C. Brown, Dorsey & Whitney, LLP.


KIIP INC: Farag Brings Data Theft Class Action to Illinois State Ct
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Farag and Jessica Vasil individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. KIIP, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH01695, filed in
the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
on February 8, 2019, is a Class Action Complaint against Defendant
for secretly tracking cellphone users' private information without
those users' consent.

The Defendant uses the information it collects to custom-tailor ads
to specific groups of app users located throughout the country,
including ads on behalf of clients such as Coca-Cola, Marriott, and
Home Depot. However, the Defendant's software often secretly
extracts information about smartphone users without their consent.
Indeed, as part of an attempt to improve its marketing capabilities
and tailor ads to consumers, Defendant has accessed consumers'
personal information by tracking and intercepting users' electronic
communications without their knowledge or consent-even at times
when those individuals' mobile devices were not in use, asserts the
complaint.

Not only does Defendant fail to inform consumers about its invasive
monitoring activities, Defendant also keeps its app developer
partners in the dark about its unseemly and illegal conduct, says
the complaint.

Plaintiffs were natural persons whose personal information were
collected, intercepted, and/or received by Defendant while she was
using her cellphone in Cook County, Illinois.

Kiip is a mobile marketing company that displays advertisements on
mobile devices through mobile applications, or "apps", installed on
individuals' smartphones, including iPhones and Android
devices.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Myles McGuire, Esq.
     Paul T. Geske, Esq.
     Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq.
     MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
     55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: (312) 893-7002
     Fax: (312) 275-7895
     Email: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
            pgeske@mcgpc.com
            tkingsbury@mcgpc.com

KITTRICH CORP: Faces Krumm Suit Over Useless Insect Repellent
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE KRUMM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KITTRICH CORPORATION, Case No. 4:19-cv-00182 (E.D. Mo.,
February 5, 2019), is brought on behalf of purchasers of Ecosmart
Insect Repellent in the United States for alleged violations of the
consumer protection laws of Missouri, violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unjust enrichment, breaches of express
and implied warranty, and fraud.

Ms. Krumm contends that the Defendant represents that the Product
is an "insect repellent" that "keeps away mosquitoes" and "repels
for hours."  The instructions direct users to "apply every 2-3
hours."  Unfortunately for consumers, however, the Product is a
complete sham, and scientific evidence shows that the Product does
not repel mosquitoes, she alleges.

Kittrich Corporation is a Missouri corporation with its principal
place of business located in Pomona, California.  The Defendant
manufactures, markets, and distributes the Product throughout the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com


KNOXVILLE, TN: Sued Over County Jail Video-Only Visitation Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Lakin, writing for Knoxville News Sentinel, reports that a
proposed class-action lawsuit filed by a dozen inmates at the Knox
County jail claims the sheriff's video-only visitation policy
violates their constitutional rights.

The complaint filed in U.S. District Court condemns the ban on
in-person visits as "cruel and unusual" and lists other grievances
that include overcrowding, a lack of fresh air and exercise,
sky-high commissary prices and poor medical and mental health care.
The lawsuit claims the video visitation system, profiled by the
News Sentinel last year, routinely malfunctions and leaves inmates
and their families staring at blank screens with no refunds.

The inmates' demands include an end to long-term lockdowns -- which
the lawsuit claims sometimes last as long as 48 hours at a time --
and a return to face-to-face visitation for inmates with family
members in visitation booths rather than by video.

"A prisoner's connections to their family or religious community
may be their only source of hope," John Eldridge, the inmates'
lawyer, wrote in the lawsuit. "Social interaction and meaningful
activity are crucial to human well-being. . . . The long-term
deprivation of meaningful social interaction has had a negative
impact."

Knox County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Kimberly Glenn refused
comment on the lawsuit.

Sheriff Tom Spangler has called jail overcrowding a persistent
problem and funding for expansion -- estimated in the neighborhood
of $40 million -- "an immediate need."

Screened out
Former sheriff Jimmy "J.J." Jones installed the video visitation
equipment in 2014 as part of an electronic inmate management system
through a contract with Securus Technologies. Relatives of inmates
can either set up online accounts and visit from home for $5.99 per
half-hour or reserve a kiosk at the downtown jail or the Roger D.
Wilson Detention Center on Maloneyville Road for a free visit.

Free visits are limited to one hour per week; remote visits have
prescribed hours but no limit.

The system also includes electronic tablets that inmates can use to
access a closed server not directly connected to the internet and
view sites like CNN and ESPN, read e-books, play games and exchange
messages with family and friends for 40 cents per message. Inmates
get 15 minutes of tablet time per day unless they pay $4.99 for a
24-hour gold pass.

The lawsuit claims the system often fails to work as advertised and
saps money from families that often can't afford to pay an inmate's
bond in the first place.

"Sometimes (Curtis Lane, one of the inmates) cannot see the face of
the caller because the kiosk (camera) is based on facial
recognition and the person calling, as well as the inmate, has to
be very still or the kiosk blurs," Eldridge wrote. "There are
frequent technical issues that interfere with the phone call on the
kiosk, and the kiosk visitation often ends abruptly before the time
has expired with no refund to the inmate or the visitor. . . . The
line to obtain (tablets) is often long with limited time out of the
cell, and the tablets are often not charged or nonfunctioning. ...
One hour of remote visitation every week for one year costs $1,246
to the visitor."

The jail forces inmates to rely on an electronic law library,
according to the lawsuit, which means inmates can't consult the
resources they need when their tablets don't work. On top of the
fees for visitation, inmates are charged ever-increasing commissary
fees for snacks, soap, toothbrushes and other incidentals,
according to the complaint.

Mr. Eldridge argues the ban on in-person visits violates inmates'
First Amendment right to freedom of association, the Eighth
Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment and the 14th
Amendment's guarantee of due process. Most inmates in the jail
haven't been tried yet and therefore retain their basic civil
rights.

Julie Gautreau, an assistant Knox County public defender, heads up
Face to Face Knox, a grassroots group demanding a return to
in-person visits at the jail. The group has organized protests
against the visitation policy but won't be joining the lawsuit.

"We've independently heard about these issues as well," she said.
"We support the litigation, but we're going to continue to raise
awareness in our own way."

Locked down
Overcrowded jails have been a perennial concern in Knox County
since at least the mid-1980s, when Eldridge and University of
Tennessee law professor Dean Rivkin won a federal court order that
forced construction of a new jail. The main jail on Maloneyville
Road held 1,163 inmates as of June, according to the lawsuit -- 127
more than it's equipped to house.

The number of inmates and a shortage of corrections officers
frequently leads to inmates being locked down in cells for 23 hours
per day or longer, according to the lawsuit.

"Inmates do not have time to get sufficient exercise, take a shower
or use the (visitation) kiosk," Eldridge wrote. "The lack of
staffing does not excuse treatment or conditions that violate the
plaintiffs' constitutional rights."

The overcrowding and understaffing also leads to inmates being
denied medical care and mental health treatment, even when they
become suicidal, the lawsuit claims.

"Prisoners are kept in small, cold cells with either two or three
cellmates inside," Eldridge wrote. "There is a tiny window, but no
real access to the outside world. There is no fresh air coming in,
and there is not enough space for all the inmates due to the
overcrowding."

The lawsuit seeks class-action status, which would allow any
current and former inmates of the jail to join the case. No hearing
has been set. [GN]


LLOYD'S OF LONDON: Says Committed to Protecting Policyholders
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Gangcuangco, writing for Insurance Business, reports that a
federal class action complaint was filed against certain Lloyd's of
London underwriters and syndicates. Now the world's specialist
insurance market has spoken about its "promise to pay" and
commitment to helping protect clients.

As reported, the lawsuit is alleging that homeowners were
'wrongfully steered' into surplus lines insurance and, in turn,
were denied comprehensive coverage against perils including the
recent Kilauea Volcano eruption in Hawaii. The court filing points
to "virtually worthless" insurance.

Lloyd's, for its part, cited how much it has compensated affected
residents.

While it wasn't directly offering a response to the 60-page
document filed with the United States District Court for the
District of Hawaii, Lloyd's outlined how it has approached the
insurance claims.

"It would be inappropriate for Lloyd's to comment on specific legal
proceedings," said a Lloyd's spokesperson in an emailed statement
to Insurance Business. "However, policyholders can be sure that the
Lloyd's market is always committed to meeting its obligations and
that Lloyd's underwriters review all claims as swiftly as
possible.

"So far, the Lloyd's market has paid US$84 million in respect of
homeowners' claims in Hawaii and hard work is going into resolving
all other outstanding claims."

The statement, as it was a general assertion, did not touch the
particular issue of the alleged lava exclusion in the Lloyd's
policies.

"The Lloyd's market has approached all these claims in good faith,"
it continued. "This approach has included paying claims where there
is no or limited cover, as well as providing indemnity for damaged
contents and additional living expenses.

"Only a small number have been declined and only for legitimate
reasons."

Lloyd's added that the market "has built its strong reputation over
the centuries by consistently honouring its promise to pay." They
will always remain committed to helping protect policyholders, said
the spokesperson. [GN]


MACQUARIE INFRA: Bernstein Litowitz to Lead in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. MacQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-3608 (VSB) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Vernon S.
Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (i) granted the motion to consolidate the Riviera Beach
Action and the Fajardo Action; and (ii) granted Moab Partners,
L.P.'s motion to be appointed the Lead Plaintiff and for approval
of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as the lead counsel.

Plaintiff City of Riviera Beach General Employees Retirement System
and Plaintiff Daniel Fajardo each filed separate securities fraud
class action lawsuits against Macquarie and several of its officers
and directors, alleging that he Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, as well as U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated pursuant
to the Exchange Act.

Macquarie owns and operates a portfolio of infrastructure and
infrastructure-like businesses that provide services to businesses,
government agencies, and individuals in the United States.

The Related Actions are class actions brought on behalf of persons
and/or entities who purchased or acquired Macquarie common stock
between Febr. 22, 2016 and Feb.y 21, 2018, seeking to pursue
remedies under federal securities laws.  The Plaintiff alleges that
during the Class Period, the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Defendants purportedly made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose the truth regarding
the impact on IMTT's financial and operational positions from
changes in the heavy and residual oil market.  The Defendants also
allegedly misled investors regarding the Company's continuing
ability to yield high dividends.

On Feb. 21, 2018, Macquarie surprised the market by announcing
disappointing fourth quarter earnings and that the Company would be
slashing its dividend.  These earnings were well short of the prior
estimates by analysts.  The Company cited as the main reason for
its poor performance the loss of 'half a dozen' IMTT contracts at
its flagship Louisiana storage facility due to a decline in the No.
6 fuel oil segment.  As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts
and omissions, and the resulting decline in the market value of
Macquarie's stock, the Plaintiff and other class members claim that
they have suffered significant losses and damages.

Since the Complaint was filed, six plaintiffs and plaintiff groups
have filed motions requesting consolidation of the Related Actions,
appointment of lead plaintiff, and approval of lead counsel.
Specifically, with regard to the appointment of lead plaintiff and
approval of lead counsel: (1) Paul Arthur Reimer moves to appoint
himself as lead plaintiff and for approval of Levi & Korsinksky,
LLP as lead counsel; (2) James Goetz moves to appoint himself as
lead plaintiff and for approval of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as lead
counsel; (3) Karnak Partners, L.P., the Selz Family 2011 Trust, the
Bernard Selz Revocable Trust, the Bernard T. Selz 2008 15-Year
Charitable Lead Annuity Trust, the Bernard T. Selz 2008 20-Year
Charitable Lead Annuity Trust, Selz Capital LLC, and the Lisa
Pagliaro Selz Revocable Trust move to appoint themselves as lead
plaintiffs and for approval of Cera LLP as lead counsel; (4)
Municipal Employees' Retirement System of Michigan ("MERS") moves
to appoint itself as lead plaintiff and for approval of Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel; (5) The Thomas J. Stone
Trust moves to appoint itself as lead plaintiff and for approval of
Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel; (6) Moab moves to appoint itself as
lead plaintiff and for approval of Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP as lead counsel.

In response to the mentioned motions for appointment of lead
plaintiff and approval of lead counsel, Goetz and the Stone Trust
withdrew their motions because they do not have the largest
financial interest in the matter.  Reimer and the Selz Funds filed
notices of non-opposition, acknowledging that they too do not
possess the largest financial interest in the action.  On July 9,
2018, Goetz and MERS each filed an opposition to Moab's motion, and
Moab filed an opposition to MERS' motion.  On July 16, 2018, Moab
filed a reply in further support of its motion, and MERS filed a
reply in further support of its motion.  The Defendants have not
taken a position on the merits of these motions.

Judge Broderick granted the Movants' motions for consolidation
based on the similarity of the Related Actions.  Because he finds
that Moab is the presumptive Lead Plaintiff and no other movants
have rebutted that presumption, Moab's motion for appointment as
the Lead Plaintiff and for approval of the lead counsel is granted.
The remaining motions from Paul Reimer, James Goetz, the Selz
Funds, MERS, and the Stone Trust for appointment as lead plaintiff
and for approval of lead counsel are denied.  The Clerk of Court is
respectfully requested to terminate the pending motions at Docket
Numbers. 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, and 34.

Moab is directed to file an amended consolidated complaint no later
than 30 days after the date of issuance of the Opinion & Order.
The Defendants are directed to answer or otherwise respond to the
amended consolidated complaint no later than 30 days after Moab
serves the amended consolidated complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/Ke7IUM from Leagle.com.

Moab Partners, L.P., Lead Plaintiff, represented by Avi Josefson --
avi@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

City of Riviera Beach General Employees Retirement System, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented by Avi Josefson, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP.

Paul Arthur Reimer, Movant, represented by Shannon Lee Hopkins --
shopkins@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP.

James Goetz, Movant, represented by Kim Elaine Miller --
kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC.

Selz Family 2011 Trust, Bernard Selz Revocable Trust, Bernard T.
Selz 2008 15-Year Charitable Lead Annuity Trust, Bernard T. Selz
2008 20-Year Charitable Lead Annuity Trust, Selz Capital LLC, Lisa
Pagliaro Selz Revocable Trust & Karnak Partners, L.P., Movants,
represented by Robert N. Kaplan -- rkaplan@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan
Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

Municipal Employees' Retirement System of Michigan, Movant,
represented by David Avi Rosenfeld -- DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Thomas J. Stone Trust, Movant, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman
-- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation, James Hooke, Jay Davis, Liam
Stewart & Richard D. Courtney, Defendants, represented by John Erik
Schreiber -- jschreiber@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP &
Richard Walter Reinthaler -- rreinthaler@winston.com -- Winston &
Strawn LLP.


MARY JANE ELLIOTT: Appeals Ruling in VanderKodde Suit to 6th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant-Appellee Cross-Appellant Mary Jane Elliott, P.C., filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Daniel
VanderKodde, et al. v. Mary Jane Elliott, P.C., et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-00203, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Michigan at Grand Rapids.

The appellate case is titled Daniel VanderKodde, et al. v. Mary
Jane Elliott, P.C., et al., Case No. 19-1127, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 13, 2019, the
Plaintiffs previously filed an appeal from a District Court ruling.
That appellate case is captioned as Daniel VanderKodde, et al. v.
Mary Jane Elliott, P.C., et al., Case No. 19-1091, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The Plaintiffs have moved for an order certifying classes and
Subclasses:

Elliott Class:

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

Berndt Class:

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

Midland Subclass

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

LVNV Subclass:

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

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

          Kevin J. Rogers, Esq.
          6140 28th Street S.E.
          Grand Rapids, MI 49546
          Telephone: (616) 970-0739

               - and -

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

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

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


MBT FINANCIAL: Pauli Seeks to Halt Merger With First Merchants
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Pauli, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MBT Financial Corp., Michael J. Miller, H.
Douglas Chaffin, Joseph S. Daly, Peter H. Carlton, Debra J. Shah,
John L. Skibski, James F. Deutsch, Tony Scavuzzo, Kristine L.
Barann and Joseph S. Vig, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-10181, (E.D.
Mich., January 18, 2019), seeks to enjoin defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the proposed merger between MBT and First
Merchants Corporation, rescinding it in the event defendants
consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this action,
including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Each share of MBT common stock will be converted into the right to
receive 0.2750 shares of First Merchants common stock.

The complaint asserts that the proxy statement filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission failed to provide any of the
company's financial projections made by Sandler O'Neill & Partners,
L.P. and Donnelly Penman & Partners, in connection with the
proposed transaction.

MBT is a bank holding company headquartered in Monroe, Michigan.
MBT's wholly-owned bank subsidiary, Monroe Bank & Trust, operates
20 banking offices in Monroe and Wayne Counties in Michigan.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
     E. Powell Miller, Esq.
     THE MILLER LAW FIRM, PC
     950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
     Rochester, MI 48307
     Tel: (248) 841-2200
     Fax: (248) 652-2852
     Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
            ssa@millerlawpc.com

              - and -

     Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
     Christopher R. Tillotson, Esq.
     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
     1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200
     New Orleans, LA 70163
     Tel: (504) 455-1400
     Fax: (504) 455-1498
     Email: michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com
            Christopher.tillotson@ksfcounsel.com

MCDERMOTT INT'L: Wolf Popper Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP on Jan. 14 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against McDermott International, Inc. (NYSE: MDR)
and certain of its officers, in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas (4:19-cv-135) on behalf of all
persons and entities that held McDermott common stock as of April
4, 2018, and had the right to vote on the Chicago Bridge & Iron
Company N.V. ("CB&I") merger pursuant to the Proxy Statement dated
March 29, 2018, and were damaged thereby (the "Action").  This
Action alleges claims for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act").

If you are a member of the Class, subject to Order of the Court,
you may file a motion no later than March 15, 2019 to be appointed
lead plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

The claims asserted in this Action are substantially different than
the claims asserted in Edwards v. McDermott International, Inc.,
Case No. 4:18-cv-04330 (S.D. Tex.).  Edwards asserts claims on
behalf of purchasers of McDermott common stock during the period
January 24, 2018 through October 30, 2018, pursuant to Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, whereas this Action asserts claims on
behalf of holders of McDermott common stock as of April 4, 2018,
who had the right to vote on the CB&I merger, pursuant to Section
14(a) of the Exchange Act.  The deadline for filing a lead
plaintiff motion in Edwards was January 15, 2019.

Wolf Popper -- http://www.wolfpopper.com-- has successfully
recovered billions of dollars for defrauded investors.  The firm's
reputation and expertise have been repeatedly recognized by the
courts, which have appointed the firm to major positions in
securities litigation.  

For more information, please contact:

          Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
          Tel.: (877) 370-7703
          Fax: (877) 370-7704
          Email: irrep@wolfpopper.com
          Website: http://www.wolfpopper.com[GN]


MCKESSON CORPORATION: Court Denies Relief from Nondispositive Order
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order denying Defendants’ Motion for Relief
from Nondispositive Pretrial Order in the case captioned TRUE
HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. McKESSON
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. Case No. 13-cv-02219-HSG. (N.D.
Cal.).

Defendants McKesson Technologies Inc. and McKesson Corporation
filed a motion for relief from an order by Magistrate Judge Ryu
denying Defendants' motion to compel discovery from Plaintiffs True
Health Chiropractic, Inc. and McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates,
Inc.

This is a putative class action alleging the receipt of unsolicited
faxed advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA). During discovery, McKesson identified three
groups of consent defenses that it argued relieved it of TCPA
liability and produced three exhibits (Exhibits A, B, and C)
corresponding to the consent-defense groups. True Health later
moved to certify a single class of all putative class members.The
Court denied certification on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to
satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement.  

Because the Court denied certification for failure to satisfy
predominance, the order did not address other Rule 23
requirements.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part,
and remanded.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that this Court should have considered the
certification of subclasses tracking Defendants' consent-defense
groups identified in Exhibits A, B, and C. Id. at 930-31. The Ninth
Circuit then (1) held that putative class members only in Exhibit A
satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement (2) held that
putative class members in Exhibit C do not satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s
predominance requirement; and (3) remanded to this Court to
determine whether putative class members in Exhibit B satisfy Rule
23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement.  

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a district judge may set
aside a magistrate judge's non-dispositive pretrial order only if
it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The magistrate's
factual determinations are reviewed for clear error, and the
magistrate's legal conclusions are reviewed to determine whether
they are contrary to law.

In their motion, Defendants argue that this Court did not cabin the
reopened fact discovery to the predominance inquiry for Exhibit B
putative class members, because the Court must address other Rule
23 requirements on remand. Defendants thus seek discovery related
to the requirements of adequacy and typicality.

First, as Magistrate Judge Ryu recognized in her order, this Court
directly limited the scope of fact discovery at the post-remand
case management conference.  

Second, that this Court must address Rule 23's adequacy and
typicality requirements following remand is beside the point. The
parties fully briefed all Rule 23 requirements including adequacy
and typicality during the initial class certification briefing, and
in doing so relied on hundreds of pages of documents in the record.
Defendants at no point challenged the adequacy of the record during
that briefing or before this Court issued its class certification
order.

Most important, nothing in the Ninth Circuit's order remanding this
case changed the adequacy and typicality analysis so as to warrant
further fact discovery on issues Defendants had a full opportunity
to develop and brief years ago. Plaintiffs do not seek
certification of the subclass of persons or entities listed in
Exhibit B in their renewed motion for class certification.  

Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendants' request for relief
from Magistrate Judge Ryu's Order.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 28, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y976l5po from Leagle.com.

True Health Chiropractic Inc, an Ohio Corporation, Individually and
as the Representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff, represented by Robert C. Schubert, Schubert Jonckheer &
Kolbe LLP, Willem F. Jonckheer, Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP,
Brian John Wanca, Anderson & Wanca, Dustin Lamm Schubert, Schubert
Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, George Demetrios Jonson, Montgomery Rennie
Jonson, pro hac vice, Glenn L. Hara, Anderson + Wanca, pro hac
vice, Matthew Elton Stubbs, Montgomery Rennie Jonson, pro hac vice,
Ross Michael Good, Anderson + Wanca, pro hac vice & Ryan Michael
Kelly, Anderson & Wanca.

McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Brian John Wanca, Anderson & Wanca, Dustin Lamm Schubert, Schubert
Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, George Demetrios Jonson, Montgomery Rennie
Jonson, Glenn L. Hara, Anderson + Wanca, pro hac vice, Matthew
Elton Stubbs, Montgomery Rennie Jonson, Ross Michael Good, Anderson
+ Wanca, pro hac vice & Willem F. Jonckheer, Schubert Jonckheer &
Kolbe LLP.


MDL 2752: Prelim Approval of Data Security Breach Suit Deal Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: YAHOO! INC. CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION, Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy H. Koh
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division, denied the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement.

Plaintiffs Kimberly Heines, Hashmatullah Essar, Paul Dugas, Matthew
Ridolfo, Deana Ridolfo, Yaniv Rivlin, Mali Granot, Brian Neff, and
Andrew Mortensen bring a putative class action against Yahoo.
Plaintiff Brian Neff also brings a putative class action against
Defendant Aabaco Small Business, LLC.

The instant lawsuit involves three data breaches that occurred from
2013 to 2016.  According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants did not
use appropriate safeguards to protect users' personal
identification information ("PII"), and their PII was thus exposed
to hackers who infiltrated the Defendants' systems.  Specifically,
the Plaintiffs allege three separate data breaches: a breach that
occurred in 2013, a breach that occurred in 2014, and a breach that
occurred in 2015-201.  Moreover, they allege that Yahoo made a
conscious and deliberate decision not to alert any of Yahoo's
customers that their PII had been stolen.

On Sept. 22, 2016, the same day that Yahoo first disclosed any of
the data breaches that are the subject of the case, the first
federal actions that became part of the instant Multidistrict
Litigation ("MDL") were filed.  On Dec. 7, 2016, the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") issued a transfer order
selecting the undersigned judge as the transferee court for the
instant MDL action.  Additional lawsuits were filed and related or
transferred to the undersigned judge.

On April 12, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint ("CAC") covering all three data breaches.  In the CAC,
Plaintiffs asserted claims on behalf of Yahoo users in the United
States, Israel, Venezuela, Australia, and Spain.  On May 22, 2017,
the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the CAC.  On Aug. 30,
2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to
dismiss the CAC.  The Court dismissed the Australia, Venezuela, and
Spain Plaintiffs.

After the Court had issued its ruling on the motion to dismiss the
CAC, Yahoo disclosed that the 2013 data breach affected an
additional two billion Yahoo user accounts.  As a result, the Court
gave the Plaintiffs time to conduct discovery and to amend their
complaint.  The Court ordered Yahoo to expedite its production of
discovery regarding the recent data breach disclosure.  

The Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on Dec.
15, 2017.  On Jan. 19, 2018, Defendants filed the motion to dismiss
the FAC. On March 9, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in
part the motion to dismiss the FAC.

On July 13, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  On Sept. 1, 2018, the Defendants filed their
opposition to the motion for class certification.

Separate from the instant case, parallel proceedings against Yahoo
have been ongoing in California state court ("JCCP case").  Seven
class action lawsuits were filed against Yahoo in California state
court.  On March 14, 2017, the Presiding Judge of the Orange County
Superior Court assigned the JCCP case to Judge Thierry Patrick
Colaw.

On June 23, 2017, Judge Colaw denied Yahoo's motion to stay the
JCCP case.  On June 27, 2017, Plaintiffs in the JCCP case filed a
consolidated class action complaint.  On Dec. 13, 2017, Judge Colaw
granted in part and denied in part Yahoo's demurrer.  On Aug. 27,
2018, the Plaintiffs in the JCCP case filed a motion for class
certification.

The complaint in the JCCP case alleged violations of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, Customer
Records Act, common law claims for negligence and breach of
contract, and an invasion of privacy claim under the California
Constitution and common law.  Except for the invasion of privacy
claim, all the California state law claims in the JCCP complaint
were also asserted in the instant MDL case.

The Plaintiffs in the instant MDL case and in the JCCP case jointly
engaged in settlement discussions with Yahoo.  As part of the
settlement negotiations, the parties agreed to seek approval of the
class action settlement before the undersigned judge.  On Sept. 14,
2018, the parties informed the Court that they had reached a
settlement in principle and requested that the Court stay the
matter in its entirety.  On Sept. 17, 2018, the Court denied the
requested stay.  On Sept. 18, 2018, the Court stayed the deadlines
related to the motion for class certification.

Following Judge Colaw's retirement in January 2018, the JCCP case
was re-assigned to Judge Glenda Sanders.  On Sept. 19, 2018, during
a status conference in the JCCP case, Judge Sanders approved the
parties' proposed settlement process and set a further status
conference on March 19, 2019, in order to give the Court in the
instant case time to reach a final disposition on the proposed
settlement.  The parties in the JCCP case agreed that they
anticipated requesting dismissal of the JCCP case if the Court
approved the settlement.

On Oct. 22, 2018, the Plaintiffs in the instant case filed a motion
for preliminary approval of class action settlement.  The
settlement agreement applies to the case as well as to the JCCP
case.  On Nov. 2, 2018, the Court ordered the parties to provide
supplemental information to support the Motion for Preliminary
Approval.  On Nov. 5, 2018, the Court ordered the parties to
provide additional supplemental information.  The parties filed
their supplemental statement on Nov. 9, 2018.  The Court held a
hearing on Nov. 29, 2018.

In sum, based on the parties' current filings, Judge Koh cannot
conclude that the settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and
reasonable.  She denied the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement.  She denied the motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement on several bases.
First, the settlement inadequately discloses the release of claims
related to any unauthorized access of data in 2012.  Second, the
release of the 2012 claims is improper.  Third, the proposed notice
inadequately discloses the size of the settlement fund.  Fourth,
the settlement appears likely to result in an improper reverter of
attorneys' fees.  Fifth, the settlement inadequately discloses the
scope of non-monetary relief.  Sixth, the settlement inadequately
discloses the size of the settlement class.  Any of these bases
would be sufficient to deny the motion for preliminary approval.  

The Judge concluded her discussion with a comparison of the
settlement with the settlement in In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach
Litig.  Anthem involved about 79 million victims and a $115 million
settlement.  The defendants there timely disclosed the data
breaches to affected users and provided two years of free credit
monitoring to users prior to any settlement of litigation.
Moreover, in addition to the clear and specific terms of the
settlement fund in that case, the defendants in Anthem committed to
tripling their budget for data security for three years and very
specific business practice changes to improve data security.

In contrast, the case involves allegedly 200 million users
according to Yahoo's public estimates, which Yahoo admits are not
accurate.  Yahoo's user database was breached multiple times over a
period of many years, and Yahoo denied any knowledge of
unauthorized access of personal data in its filings with the SEC
and delayed notification to users even when it had contemporaneous
knowledge of the breaches.  As a result, users were unaware of the
need to take any steps to protect themselves against potential
misuse of their data, and Yahoo has not provided any credit
monitoring on its own up to this point.

Yahoo's history of nondisclosure and lack of transparency related
to the data breaches are egregious.  Unfortunately, the settlement
agreement, proposed notice, motion for preliminary approval, and
public and sealed supplemental filings continue this pattern of
lack of transparency.

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

Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Plaintiff,
represented by Harlan Stuart Miller, III, Miller Legal P.C., pro
hac vice.

Ronald Schwartz, Plaintiff, represented by Joel H. Bernstein --
bernstein@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, John A. Yanchunis,
Morgan and Morgan, P.A., Michael Walter Stocker, Labaton Sucharow
LLP, Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, Corban
S. Rhodes -- crhodes@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac
vice, Dorothy P. Antullis -- webcontact@cglaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Gayle Meryl Blatt -- gmb@cglaw.com
-- Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP, Henry J.
Kelston, Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, Jason Henry
Alperstein -- jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Joseph Henry Bates, III, Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC,
Mark Dearman -- mdearman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and
Dowd LLP, Patrick A. Barthle, II, Morgan and Morgan Complex
Litigation Group, Paul J. Gellar  Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Ross M. Kamhi -- rkamhi@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow Llp, pro
hac vice, Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP & Stuart Andrew Davidson -- SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Edward McMahon, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis, Morgan
and Morgan, P.A., Andrew P. Bell, Locks Law Firm, pro hac vice,
Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, Gayle Meryl
Blatt, Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP, Henry
J. Kelston, Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, James A. Barry --
jbarry@lockslaw.com -- Locks Law Firm, Michael Francis Ram, Robins
Kaplan LLP, Patrick A. Barthle, II, Morgan and Morgan Complex
Litigation Group & Stuart Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP.

Maria Sventek, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis, Morgan
and Morgan, P.A., Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg Tadler Phillips
Grossman LLP, Gayle Meryl Blatt, Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla
Blatt & Penfield LLP, Henry J. Kelston, Milberg Tadler Phillips
Grossman LLP, Joseph Henry Bates, III, Carney Bates & Pulliam,
PLLC, Patrick A. Barthle, II, Morgan and Morgan Complex Litigation
Group & Stuart Andrew Davidson -- abell@lockslaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Jennifer J. Myers & Paul Dugas, Plaintiffs, represented by John A.
Yanchunis, Morgan and Morgan, P.A., Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg
Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, David S. Casey, Jr., Casey Gerry
Schenk Francavilla Blatt and Penfield LLP, Deval R. Zaveri, Zaveri
Tabb, APC, Gayle Meryl Blatt, Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt
& Penfield LLP, Henry J. Kelston, Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman
LLP, James A. Tabb -- jimmy@zaveritabb.com -- Zaveri Tabb, APC,
Jeremy Keith Robinson, Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt and
Penfield, Patrick A. Barthle, II, Morgan and Morgan Complex
Litigation Group, Stuart Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP & Wendy M. Behan, Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt &
Penfield.

Danielle Beck, Leah Cassell, Pooja Garg, Rajesh Garg, Ashish Gupta,
Jessica Jagir, Daniel Margo, Ann Marie Osborne, Susan Park & Amar
Patel, Plaintiffs, represented by John A. Yanchunis, Morgan and
Morgan, P.A., Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman
LLP, Deval R. Zaveri, Zaveri Tabb, APC, Gayle Meryl Blatt, Casey
Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP, Henry J. Kelston,
Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, Patrick A. Barthle, II,
Morgan and Morgan Complex Litigation Group, Stuart Andrew Davidson,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Wendy M. Behan, Casey Gerry
Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield.

Christopher Havron & Katelyn Smith, Plaintiffs, represented by John
A. Yanchunis, Morgan and Morgan, P.A., Ann E. Callis --
acallis@ghalaw.com -- Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli PC, Ariana J.
Tadler, Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, Gayle Meryl Blatt,
Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP, Henry J.
Kelston, Milberg Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, Kevin Paul Green --
kevin@ghalaw.com -- Goldenberg Heller et al., Mark Chandler
Goldenberg -- mark@ghalaw.com -- Goldenberg Heller Antognoli and
Rowland, Patrick A. Barthle, II, Morgan and Morgan Complex
Litigation Group, Stuart Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP & Thomas P. Rosenfeld -- tom@ghalaw.com -- Goldenberg
Heller Antognoli and Rowland, P.C..

Michelle Greco & Jonathan Levy, Plaintiffs, represented by John A.
Yanchunis, Morgan and Morgan, P.A., Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg
Tadler Phillips Grossman LLP, Gayle Meryl Blatt, Casey Gerry Schenk
Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP, Henry J. Kelston, Milberg Tadler
Phillips Grossman LLP, Patrick A. Barthle, II, Morgan and Morgan
Complex Litigation Group, Stuart Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP & Michael Francis Ram, Robins Kaplan LLP.

Barbara Stras, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis, Morgan
and Morgan, P.A., Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg Tadler Phillips
Grossman LLP, Dorothy P. Antullis, Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP,
pro hac vice, Gayle Meryl Blatt, Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla
Blatt & Penfield LLP, Henry J. Kelston, Milberg Tadler Phillips
Grossman LLP, Jason Henry Alperstein, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Mark Dearman, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Patrick A.
Barthle, II, Morgan and Morgan Complex Litigation Group & Stuart
Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Francisco Filares, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Yanchunis,
Morgan and Morgan, P.A., Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg Tadler Phillips
Grossman LLP, Dorothy P. Antullis, Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP,
pro hac vice, Gayle Meryl Blatt, Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla
Blatt & Penfield LLP, Henry J. Kelston, Milberg Tadler Phillips
Grossman LLP, Jason Henry Alperstein, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Mark Dearman, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Patrick A.
Barthle, II, Morgan and Morgan Complex Litigation Group & Stuart
Andrew Davidson, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Yahoo! Inc., Defendant, represented by Ann Marie Mortimer --
amortimer@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams, Jason M. Beach --
jbeach@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP, Theodore J. Boutrous,
Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Attorney at Law Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, David A. Wheeler -- dwheeler@chapmanspingola.com --
Chapman Spingola, LLP, Jason Jonathan Kim -- kimj@hunton.com --
Hunton & Williams LLP, Joshua A. Jessen -- jjessen@gibsondunn.com
-- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Michael Li-Ming Wong --
mwong@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Rachel S.
Brass -- rbrass@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
Robert Andrew Chapman -- rchapman@chapmanspingola.com -- Chapman &
Spingola LLP & Shannon Therese Knight --
sknight@chapmanspingola.com -- Chapman Spingola, LLP.

Aabaco Small Business, LLC, Defendant, represented by Ann Marie
Mortimer, Hunton & Williams, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Attorney at
Law Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Joshua A. Jessen, Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Michael Li-Ming Wong, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP &
Rachel S. Brass, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.


MDL 2879: Cases Transferred to Maryland Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
In In Re: Marriott International, Inc., Customer Data Security
Breach Litigation, Case No. 8:19-md-02879-PWG, an MDL Certified
Transfer Order was entered on February 6, 2019, transferring "the
cases on Schedule A to the District of Maryland."

A separate order entered on February 7, advised Counsel that the
court will be issuing a pretrial order addressing the scheduling
of, and preparation for, a Case Management Conference. In the
meantime, the stays that previously have been imposed will remain
in effect, and no pleadings or motions should be filed until after
the Case Management Conference has taken place and a scheduling
order has been issued.

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

The Plaintiffs Harry Bell and Edward Claffy are represented by:

   Jessica H Meeder, Esq.
   Murphy Falcon and Murphy
   One South Street, 23rd Fl.
   Baltimore, MD 21202
   Tel: (410) 539-6500
   Fax: (410) 539-6599
   Email: jessica.meeder@murphyfalcon.com

      - and -

   John A Yanchunis, Esq.
   Morgan and Morgan PA
   201 N Franklin St Seventh Fl
   Tampa, FL 33602
   Tel: (813) 223-5505
   Fax: (813) 275-9295
   Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

      - and -

   Patrick A Barthle, Esq.
   Morgan and Morgan Complex Litigation Group
   201 N. Franklin St. 7th Floor
   Tampa, FL 33602
   Tel: (813) 223-5505
   Fax: (813) 222-4708
   Email: pbarthle@forthepeople.com

      - and -

   Ryan McGee, Esq.
   Morgan and Morgan Complex Litigation Group
   201 N. Franklin St. 7th Fl.
   Tampa, FL 33602
   Tel: (813) 223-5505
   Fax: (813) 222-4702
   Email: rmcgee@forthepeople.com

      - and -

   William H Murphy , III, Esq.
   Murphy Falcon and Murphy
   One South St 23rd Fl
   Baltimore, MD 21202
   Tel: (410) 951-8744
   Fax: (410) 539-6599
   Email: hassan.murphy@murphyfalcon.com

The Plaintiffs James Sprowl, Philip S. Friedman, Sarah Stone,
Sheila Wolff, Jeanine St. Hill, Kim Miller, Tracy Bradford, Eilene
Shaffer, Brandon Post, Destiny Esper, Terrie Bennett, Bruce
Fitzgerald, Terrance D. Bulger, Benjamin Quinn, Jose Herrera,
William Muckelroy II, Brad Ellish, Diane Bernard, Gwendolyn McNeal,
Ted Michelakos, Lisa Dotson, Andrea Marshall, Juli Poloway, Cindy
Medeiros, Marlo Johnson, Jill Fleisher, Parth Detroja, Latoya
Aguillard, Doug Smith, Heidi Myers, Jeremiah Moore, Terella
Williams, Cleary Johs, Timothy Hawkins, Joseph Rollins, Richard
Williams, Nikki Davis, Debra Anthony, David Fasolino, Lillian
Harris, Lauren Vasiliadis, Shakimberly Jones, Brian Herman, Ron
Jones, James Schultz, Yong Woo Stephano Kwon, Oscar Moreno, Camara
Karamatic, Bret Crockett, Mark Catuogno, Kia Thomas, Louann
Cashill, Howard William Myones, Africa Green, Salvatore Caponigro,
Mark Maxey, Danny Tolver, Alan Teitleman, Davin Christiansen,
Patricia Daughtery, Abdjul Martin, Luis Herrera, Peter Karkazis,
Lawrence Brenner, Linda Quinones, Kevin S. Rogers, Elizabeth
Collins, Paul Vannoy, Samantha Hendricks, John Coakley, William
Forrester, Anthony Latore, Jobe Anthony Diagne, Alice Poole, Alyssa
Groski, Tanya Harris, Pete Tittl, Sherri Cook, Darren Perks,
Robeson Heard, Cynthia Griffith, Julie Evans, Ashley Logan, James
Hardin, Matthew Russo, Kathryn Lucas, Tenise Houston, Earline
Williams, Justin J. Schmid, Jennifer White, Dean Schrickel, Tracy
Bradford Lockaby, David Collins, Erik Goudie, Elizabeth Cunningham,
Kashanna Price, Trish Hamilton Cobourn, Julie Shippy, Nathan Royce
Banks, Connie Bowman, Eddie Williams, Lisa Ramirez, Elizabeth
Maxwell, Robert Josephberg, Ashley Webster, Deborah Koulpasis, Lisa
McGuire, Robert Jamerson, Brittany Cliff Snyman, LaToya Brown, Mike
Galvin, Samantha Summers, Brian Sharnick, Jesse Gore and Savannah
Louise Lyon are represented by:

   Gary E Mason,Esq.
   Whitfield Bryson and Mason LLP
   5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
   Washington, DC 20016
   Tel: (202) 429-2290
   Fax: (202) 429-2294
   Email: gmason@wbmllp.com

The Plaintiffs Mary Ann Sundius-Rose and Nancy Molesworth are
represented by:

   Ben Barnow, Esq.
   Barnow and Associates PC
   One N LaSalle St Ste 4600
   Chicago, IL 60602
   Tel: (312) 621-2000
   Fax: (312) 641-5504
   Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com

      - and -

   Daniel S Katz, Esq.
   Tydings and Rosenberg LLP
   One East Pratt Street, Suite 901
   Baltimore, MD 21202
   Tel: (410) 752-9700
   Fax: (410) 752-5460
   Email: dkatz@tydingslaw.com

      - and -

   John Bucher Isbister, Esq.
   Tydings and Rosenberg LLP
   One East Pratt Street, Suite 901
   Baltimore, MD 21202
   Tel: (410) 752-9700
   Fax: (410) 727-5460
   Email: jisbister@tydingslaw.com

The Plaintiff Todd Joseph Elliot is represented by:

   Drew LaFramboise, Esq.
   Ashcraft & Gerel LLP
   4900 Seminary Rd., Ste. 650
   Alexandria, VA 22311
   Tel: (614) 403-4603
   Email: dlaframboise@ashcraftlaw.com

      - and -

   Joseph T Musso, Esq.
   Ashcraft & Gerel
   4900 Seminary Road, Suite 650
   Alexandria, VA 22311
   Tel: (703) 931-5500
   Fax: (703) 820-0630
   Email: jmusso@ashcraftlaw.com

The Plaintiff Nicholas Walker is represented by:

   Hassan A Zavareei, Esq.
   Tycko and Zavareei LLP
   1828 L St NW Ste 1000
   Washington, DC 20036
   Tel: (202) 973-0900
   Fax: (202) 973-0950
   Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

The Plaintiffs Peter Tapling and David Sparks are represented by:

   Andrew N Friedman, Esq.
   Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
   1100 New York Ave NW, Suite 500 East
   Washington, DC 20005-3964
   Tel: (202) 408-4600
   Fax: (202) 408-4699
   Email: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com

      - and -

   James J Pizzirusso, Esq.
   Hausfeld LLP
   1700 K Street, Ste 650
   Washington, DC 20006
   Tel: (202) 540-7200
   Fax: (202) 540-7201
   Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com

      - and -

   Megan Elizabeth Jones, Esq.
   Hausfeld LLP
   600 Montgomery St., Suite 3200
   San Francisco, CA 94111
   Tel: (415) 633-1908
   Fax: (415) 744-1968
   Email: mjones@hausfeldllp.com

The Plaintiff Debra Weinstein is represented by:

   Thomas Joseph Minton, Esq.
   Goldman and Minton PC
   3600 Clipper Mill Rd, Suite 201
   Baltimore, MD 21211
   Tel: (410) 783-7575
   Fax: (410) 783-1711
   Email: tminton@charmcitylegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

   Daniel R Warren, Esq.
   Baker and Hostetler LLP
   Key Tower 127 Public Square Ste. 2000
   Cleveland, OH 44114
   Tel: (216) 861-7145
   Fax: (216) 696-0740
   Email: dwarren@bakerlaw.com

      - and -

   Gilbert S Keteltas, Esq.
   Baker and Hostetler LLP
   1050 Connecticut Ave. NW Ste. 1100
   Washington, DC 20036
   Tel: (202) 861-1530
   Fax: (202) 861-1783
   Email: gketeltas@bakerlaw.com

      - and -

   Lisa M Ghannoum, Esq.
   Baker and Hostetler LLP
   Key Tower 127 Public Sq. Ste. 2000
   Cleveland, OH 44114
   Tel: (216) 861-7872
   Fax: (216) 696-0740
   Email: lghannoum@bakerlaw.com



MG NAIL & BEAUTY: Denied Li Overtime Pay, Wage Statements
---------------------------------------------------------
Jiani Li, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MG Nail & Beauty Inc., Krystal Wang, and Xu
Hong Wang, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00394 (E.D. N.Y., January 18,
2019), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid "spread-of-hours"
premium, compensation for failure to provide wage notice at the
time of hiring and failure to provide paystubs, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law.

Defendants operate as MG Nail Eyelashes & Brow SPA, a nail salon
located at 133-16 39th Ave., Basement, Flushing, NY 11354, where Li
was employed as a cashier and receptionist. She worked in excess of
40 hours per work week without overtime pay and/or spread-of-hours
pay and was not given wage statements. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Xiaoxi Liu, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718)353-8588
      Email: xliu@hanglaw.com


MIDWAY IMPORTING: Prudencio Appeals Final Judgment to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Balmore Prudencio and Michelle Quintero filed an appeal
from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Balmore Prudencio, et
al. v. Midway Importing, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-01469-AB-RAO, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 24, 2019, Judge
Andre Birotte, Jr., entered Final Judgment in favor of the
Defendants.

The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Class Action
Complaint came on for hearing on Dec. 14, 2018 at 8:00 a.m.  On
Dec. 19, 2018, after full consideration of the Motion and the
arguments of the counsel, the Judge granted the Defendants' Motion,
and dismissed the Second Amended Class Action Complaint with
prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as Balmore Prudencio, et al. v.
Midway Importing, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-55150, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by March 7, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on April 8, 2019;

   -- Appellants Balmore Prudencio and Michelle Quintero's
      opening brief is due on May 16, 2019;

   -- Appellees Grisi USA, LLC and Midway Importing, Inc.'s
      answering brief is due on June 17, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants BALMORE PRUDENCIO and MICHELLE QUINTERO,
individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          David R. Shoop, Esq.
          SHOOP APLC
          250 South Beverly Drive, Suite 330
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (866) 884-1700
          E-mail: david.shoop@shooplaw.com

Defendants-Appellees MIDWAY IMPORTING, INC., and GRISI USA, LLC,
are represented by:

          Amy Pesapane Lally, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 595-9500
          E-mail: alally@sidley.com

               - and -

          Michael Lawrence Mallow, Esq.
          Alexandria V. Ruiz, Esq.
          Rachel A. Straus, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West 5th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6000
          E-mail: mmallow@sidley.com
                  aruiz@sidley.com
                  rstraus@sidley.com


MIDWEST DIVERSIFIED: Demastes Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Demastes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Midwest Diversified Management
Corp, dba Carmel Maintenance, LLC, Waterford Square Apartments, LLC
and Piper Glen Apartments Associates, LLC, Midwest Diversified
Management Corp Employee Benefit Plan and Trust, James N. Gordon,
an individual; and Does 100, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00065
(W.D. N.C., February 8, 2019) is an action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the
North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA").

Consistent with Midwest's policy and pattern or practice, Plaintiff
has not been paid overtime wages earned for all hours worked and
Plaintiff and Opt-in Plaintiffs have not been paid premium overtime
compensation for all hours worked beyond 40 per workweek, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Melissa Demastes is an adult individual who is a resident
of Charlotte, North Carolina.

Midwest Diversified Management Corp. is a Missouri corporation
registered to do business in the State of North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represent by:

     L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHELLE GESSNER, PLLC
     435 East Morehead Street
     Charlotte, NC 28202
     Phone: (704) 234-7442
     Email: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com


MINNE INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA and IMWL, Cortez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CORTEZ v. MINNE, INC. d/b/a RON'S ITALIAN OVENS and KARON
MINNE, individually, Case No. 1:19-cv-00570 (N.D. Ill., January 28,
2019), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law for the Defendants' alleged failure to pay the
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees overtime wages at a rate
of one- and one-half times their regular rate.

Minne, Inc., is an Illinois corporation doing business within this
judicial district.  Karon Minne is the President of Minne, Inc.

The Defendants operate a restaurant under the name "Ron's Italian
Ovens" located at 2195 N Illinois 83, in Round Lake Beach,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos G. Becerra, Esq.
          BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC
          11 E. Adams St., Suite 1401
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312)957-9005
          Facsimile: (888)826-5848
          E-mail: cbecerra@law-rb.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: McCrae Sues Over Herbicide Side-effects
---------------------------------------------------------
Alex McCrae and Diane McCrae, Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00409 (N.D. Ill., January 21, 2019),
seeks compensatory and punitive damages, costs, expert fees,
disbursements and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting this
action, disgorgement of profits, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest at the maximum rate and such other relief resulting from
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 (R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

Alex McCrae used Roundup beginning in the mid 1980's for both
residential and agricultural use. He was subsequently diagnosed
with diffuse large B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma on January 31,
2017.

Monsanto is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation
based in St. Louis, Missouri. It is the world's leading producer of
glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, a broad-spectrum
herbicide used to kill weeds and grasses known to compete with
commercial crops grown around the globe.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
     CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C.
     120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312) 899-9090
     Fax: (312) 345-1565
     Email: smm@cliffordlaw.com


NATIONSTAR: Sued Over Unlawful Mortgage Servicing Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joey P. Blanchard, on behalf of The Joey Prakash Blanchard Trust
u/t/d December 22, 1992 as Trustee and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nationstar Mortgage Holdings,
Inc. and Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, doing business as 'Mr. Cooper',
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00935 (C.D. Cal., February 7, 2019)
seeks to redress a long list of unlawful mortgage servicing
practices in which Nationstar has engaged over the past four years
at the expense of Plaintiff and numerous other borrowers.

Nationstar promised its borrowers that it would refund any
overpayments inadvertently made in the course of discharging a
loan, and that it would only obtain force-placed insurance for a
collateralized property if the borrower failed to obtain the
requisite property insurance.

Notwithstanding Nationstar's contractually-imposed obligations to
refund any overpayments to the borrower after a loan is discharged
and to refrain from charging borrowers for unnecessary force-placed
insurance, over the past four years, Nationstar has systematically
billed borrowers -- without refund -- for the same monthly interest
payment multiple times, for accrued interest on already-discharged
loans, for 'late fees' in connection with payments that were not
even late, and for force-placed insurance on properties that
already were adequately insured, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Joey P. Blanchard, Trustee of The Joey Prakash Blanchard
Trust, is a citizen and resident of Los Angeles, California.

Nationstar Mortgage Holdings, Inc. and Defendant Nationstar
Mortgage LLC, doing business as 'Mr. Cooper,' are Delaware
corporations that maintain their principal places of business in
Dallas, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Tina Wolfson, Esq.
     Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
     AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
     10728 Lindbrook Drive
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Phone: (310) 474-9111
     Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
     Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
            rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com

          - and -

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


NESTLE USA: Court Dismisses Tomasella Suit Over Child Labor Issues
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts granted Nestlé's motion to dismiss the
case, DANELL TOMASELLA, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NESTLÉ USA, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Civil Action Nos. 18-cv-10269-ADB,
18-cv-10359-ADB, 18-cv-10360-ADB (D. Mass.).

In the putative class action, Tomasella filed suit against Nestlé,
alleging a violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A (Count One) and a
claim for unjust enrichment (Count Two) based on Nestlé's failure
to disclose on its product packaging that its chocolate products
likely contain cocoa beans farmed by child and slave labor.

Nestlé markets and distributes chocolate products that are made
with cocoa beans sourced from West Africa, including Nestlé
Crunch, 100 Grand, Baby Ruth, Butterfingers, Nestlé Toll House,
Nestlé Hot Cocoa Mix, Nestlé Milk Chocolate, and Nestlé seasonal
confections.  Some of the cocoa beans that Nestlé sources from
West Africa come from Côte d'Ivoire, where children and forced
laborers engage in dangerous tasks while harvesting cocoa.

The abuses suffered by children and forced laborers in Côte
d'Ivoire are well-documented, and Nestlé has acknowledged that it
sources cocoa in areas where such practices occur.  Nestlé does
not disclose any information about the child and slave labor
practices in its supply chain on its chocolate product packaging at
the point of sale.

The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on Feb. 12, 2018, seeking to
represent herself and all other consumers who purchased Nestlé's
chocolate products in Massachusetts in the last four years.  The
Plaintiff also filed substantially similar actions against Mars,
Inc., Mars Chocolate North America, LLC, the Hershey Company, and
Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery Corp., Inc., 18-cv-10359-ADB (D.
Mass.) ("Mars Action"); Tomasella v. The Hershey Co.,
18-cv-10360-ADB (D. Mass.) ("Hershey Action").

On April 19, 2018, the Defendants in all three cases filed motions
to dismiss.  On June 14, 2018, the Plaintiff filed her oppositions
to the Defendants' motions.  On July 13, 2018, the Defendants in
the instant action and the Mars Action filed their reply briefs,
and on July 17, 2018, the Defendants in the Hershey Action filed
their reply brief.  On July 23, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a
sur-reply brief in all three cases.

The question before the Court, however, is whether Nestlé is
liable under Massachusetts law for failing to disclose the labor
practices of its suppliers on its product packaging at the point of
sale.

Judge Burroughs finds that where Nestlé has remained silent about
its labor practices at the point of sale, it would not be
objectively reasonable for a consumer to affirmatively form any
preconception about the use of child or slave labor in Nestlé's
supply chain, let alone to make a purchase decision based on any
such preconception.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Complaint does
not state a claim for deceptive conduct upon which relief could be
granted under Chapter 93A.

He also finds that the Complaint does not state a claim for unfair
conduct upon which relief could be granted under Chapter 93A.  The
Plaintiff has failed to allege that the challenged omissions are
immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous, or that Nestlé
caused substantial injury to its customers.  The Plaintiff has also
failed to allege that Nestlé's omissions are within the penumbra
of any common law, statutory or other established concept of
unfairness.

Finally, he finds that the sum of the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment
allegations is that theDefendant has and continues to be unjustly
enriched as a result of the wrongful conduct alleged in the
Complaint.  As explained, the Plaintiff has failed to allege that
Nestlé has engaged in wrongful conduct under Chapter 93A, and the
conclusory allegation that a defendant has been unjustly enriched
is not enough to state a claim for unjust enrichment.  Accordingly,
Count Two will be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Burroughs granted Nestlé's motion
to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims for a violation of Mass. Gen.
Laws ch. 93A (Count One) and unjust enrichment (Count Two).

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

Danell Tomasella, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Elaine Byszewski --
elaine@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac
vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Hannah W. Brennan --
hannahb@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Nestle USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Bryan A. Merryman -- bmerryman@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP,
pro hac vice, Julian A. Lamm -- jlamm@whitecase.com -- White & Case
LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren M. Papenhausen --
lauren.papenhausen@whitecase.com -- White & Case, LLP & Michael
Kendall -- michael.kendall@whitecase.com -- White & Case, LLP.


OCWEN LOAN: $500K Settlement in Grant FDCA Suit Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GLENDA GRANT, f/k/a GLENDA RANDOLPH, individually and
on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:15-cv-01376-J-34-PDB (M.D. Fla.), Judge Marcia Morales Howard of
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Jacksonville Division, granted (i) the Parties' Joint Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and Supporting
Memorandum, filed on Jan. 8, 2019; and (ii) Plaintiff's Motion for
Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Incentive Award and Incorporated
Memorandum of Law, filed on Nov. 29, 2018.

Grant is a residential mortgage borrower whose loan was serviced by
the Defendant.  As a mortgage servicer, Ocwen's collection and
crediting of borrower payments is primarily regulated by the Truth
in Lending Act ("TILA"), and Regulation Z.  During the time period
relevant to the Action, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
("CFPB") had approved only one form of periodic monthly statement
for mortgage servicers to use with delinquent closed-ended loans,
such as home mortgage loans.  No separate form or instructions were
provided for discharged borrowers with intact mortgage liens
against the property in which they continued to reside.

The Plaintiff filed the Action on Nov. 15, 2015.  In the initial
complaint, she alleged that Ocwen violated Section 1692e(2)(A) of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA") by sending periodic
monthly statements and delinquency notices to borrowers, like her,
who had previously received Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharges of
personal liability on their home mortgage loans, but whose homes
were still subject to valid in rem mortgages.  It is undisputed
that the form and content of Ocwen's Monthly Statements, as used
during the relevant time period, attempted to follow the
requirements of TILA and Regulation Z, and also that Ocwen's
regular Monthly Statements and Delinquency Notices that were sent
during the relevant time period included bankruptcy disclaimer
language, explaining that persons who had been discharged in
bankruptcy should consider the correspondence to be for
informational purposes only.  In the Plaintiff's view, however, the
Monthly Statements and Delinquency Notices were not required to be
sent to borrowers whose personal liability had been discharged in
bankruptcy, and improperly suggested that discharged borrowers
remained personally obligated to continue making payments on their
home loans.  Violations of the FDCPA allow successful borrowers two
kinds of damages: actual damages as proven by the claimant and
statutory damages on a class-wide basis. 15 U.S.C. Section
1692k(a).  The Plaintiff sought only statutory damages.

Based on the results of the Class Counsel's investigation and the
Parties' cooperative due diligence efforts, the Plaintiff filed the
Operative Complaint on May 4, 2018.  In doing so, she elected to
not reassert her FCCPA claim, but reasserted her FDCPA claim on
behalf of a nationwide class of borrowers in order to capture all
loans potentially affected by the central issue in the Action -- in
other words, all borrowers on home mortgage loans who were sent a
Monthly Statement and/or Delinquency Notice by Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC between Nov. 17, 2014 and April 19, 2018 while their
loan was flagged in Ocwen's loan servicing system as having
received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge.

On Aug. 10, 2018, the Court entered an Order Preliminarily
Certifying a Class for Settlement Purposes, Granting Preliminary
Approval of Class Settlement, and Directing the Issuance of Notice.
In the instant Motions, the parties assert that they have complied
with the requirements of the Preliminary Approval Order and request
that the Court finally approve the terms of their settlement as set
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement and Release, including the
incentive award and attorneys' fees provisions.  The Court held the
Fairness Hearing on Jan. 17, 2019.

The Settlement offers each Settlement Class Member a share of a
$500,000 Settlement Fund, which equals the maximum amount of
statutory damages available to a class under the FDCPA.  The
Settlement Fund will be distributed in an equal amount to each
Class Loan.  Any court-approved attorneys' fees, costs and
incentive awards of the Class Counsel and the Class Representative
will not be deducted from the Settlement Fund, but will be paid by
Ocwen separately and in addition to the Settlement Fund.
Additionally, Ocwen is separately funding the costs of notice and
settlement administration (nearly $200,000).

Upon consideration of the Motions, the arguments raised at the
Fairness Hearing, as well as all matters of record, Judge Howard
finds that there is good cause to finally approve the proposed
Settlement.  In accordance with the requirements of Rule 23(e), she
concludes that the Settlement, including the attorneys' fees award
and incentive award, is fair, reasonable, and adequate.  Thus, she
determines that it is appropriate to grant the Motions.

Accordingly, the Judge granted the Parties' Joint Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement.  The Settlement Class
preliminarily certified by the Court on Aug. 10, 2018, is finally
certified for settlement purposes only, as it fully satisfies all
the applicable requirements of Rule 23 and due process.

The Settlement Class is comprised of all borrowers on home mortgage
loans who were sent a Monthly Statement and/or Delinquency Notice
by Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC between Nov. 17, 2014, and April 19,
2018, while their loan was flagged in Ocwen's loan servicing system
as having received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge.

The Judge approved each of the 136 timely and validly submitted
requests for exclusion that are reflected in Exhibit D to Ms.
Merryman's declaration, and thereby excluded from the Settlement
Class each of the 139 Class Loans and 186 potential Settlement
Class Members covered by those exclusion requests.  In addition,
with the consent of the parties, she approved the belated requests
for exclusion.  Therefore, Manuel C. Hernandez, Virginia Garcia
Hernandez, Renee Metoyer, Corrine E. Humm, and Dorothy M. Wenzler
are excluded from the Settlement Class.

Judge Howard finally approved the terms of the Settlement.  The
Parties are directed to implement and consummate the Settlement
according to its terms and provisions.  The Parties are also
directed to take all steps necessary and appropriate to provide the
Settlement Class Members with the benefits to which they are
entitled under the Settlement.  At the time that all checks have
been paid to the Settlement Class Members and time for cashing
those checks has expired, any funds remaining will be payable as a
cy pres award to: Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, Inc. 126 W. Adams
Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 (904) 356-8371.

She approved, incorporated and adopted the release set forth in
Section 8 of the Settlement.  The Release is made effective as of
the Final Settlement Date, and will forever discharge Ocwen and the
Released Parties of and from any liability to the Plaintiff and the
Settlement Class Members who did not exclude themselves from the
Settlement Class.

The Judge granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Attorneys'
Fees and Incentive Award and Incorporated Memorandum of Law.  She
approved the payment of $3,500 to Glenda Grant as an incentive
award.  In addition, she approved the agreed attorneys' fees and
expense award to the Class Counsel in the amount of $150,000.

Subject to the provisions of the Final Order and Judgment,
including the Court's retention of jurisdiction as set forth, the
action (including all individual and class claims presented) is
dismissed on the merits and with prejudice, and without any other
past or future fees, expenses, or costs to any Party or Settlement
Class Member.  The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate any
pending motions as moot and close the file.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2019 Final Order and
Judgment is available at https://is.gd/d281aB from Leagle.com.

Glenda Grant, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian W. Warwick --
bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com -- Varnell & Warwick, PA, David K.
Lietz -- dlietz@varnellandwarwick.com -- Varnell & Warwick, PA, pro
hac vice, Janet R. Varnell -- jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com --
Varnell & Warwick, PA & Steven Thomas Simmons, Jr., Steven Simmons,
P.A.

Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael R.
Pennington -- mpennington@bradley.com -- Bradley, Arant, Boult &
Cummings, LLP, pro hac vice & Timothy Allen Andreu --
tandreu@bradley.com -- Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP.

David J. Almaguer, Interested Party, pro se.

Valen Wayne Reagan, Interested Party, pro se.


OHIO NATIONAL: Brokers' Lawsuit Over Trail Commissions Amended
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Hilton, writing for InsuranceNewsNet, reports that attorneys
for LPL Financial broker Lance Browning refiled a lawsuit on Jan.
11 seeking damages from Ohio National's surprise decision to cut
trail commissions on certain variable annuities.

The amended lawsuit is part of a strategy to refocus away from the
class-action request to individual lawsuits, explained Dennis J.
Concilla -- dconcilla@cpmlaw.com -- of Carlile, Patchen & Murphy, a
Columbus, Ohio law firm.

Class-action lawsuits can "take years" to resolve, Mr. Concilla
said, so the firm will be filing several additional lawsuits on
behalf of individual brokers who will claim financial loss from
Ohio National's decision to end trail commissions on certain VAs.
Mr. Concilla did not know how many lawsuits will be filed.

"We certainly have a number of them from different firms," he said.
"Each case may be a little different depending on the individual
agreement the broker signed."

Meanwhile, Ohio National attorneys have asked the Southern District
of Ohio court to dismiss Mr. Browning's lawsuit. The insurer
accused Browning of making "a grab bag of claims" to which he "is
neither a party nor a third-party beneficiary."

'Unjust Enrichment'
An LPL broker based in Whitehouse, Texas, Browning sold annuities
with Morgan Keegan and UBS/Paine Webber prior to joining LPL in
2012, court documents say. He has sold more than 100 annuities with
trailing commissions that yield him $89,000 annually.

Mr. Browning's class-action lawsuit claims Ohio National is guilty
of "breach of contract" and "unjust enrichment," among other
claims.

Ohio National, represented by Zeiger, Tigges & Little, a Columbus,
Ohio law firm, said its contracts are with the broker-dealer, not
the broker.

Ohio National informed broker-dealers in a Sept. 28 letter that it
would terminate "any and all servicing agreements" on Dec. 13. That
means all compensation, specifically trail commissions, stopped on
that date.

The decision is believed to be the first of its kind in the
industry and affects variable annuity contracts purchased with a
guaranteed minimum income benefit rider. The GMIB is appealing to
clients looking for guaranteed income in retirement.

Ohio National distributes life and annuities through an independent
producing general agent channel with about 11,000 agents, and
through a career agency channel with about 4,000 agents, the
company said. Career agents are apparently unaffected by the
decision to stop paying trails on VAs with a GMIB. [GN]


PETROLEUM WHOLESALE: Misclassifies Store Managers, Hradil Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGIE HRADIL, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. PETROLEUM WHOLESALE, L.P., & SUNMART, INC., Case No.
5:19-cv-00102 (W.D. Tex., February 5, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying
Assistant Store Managers and Store Managers as exempt from overtime
and, therefore, failing to pay them minimum wage and overtime for
all hours worked.

Petroleum Wholesale, L.P., is a domestic limited partnership doing
business in the state of Texas.  According to its Web site,
Petroleum Wholesale is a privately owned motor fuel distributor in
business since 1973.  Headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas, with a
western division office in Salt Lake City, Utah, the Company
conducts business across nine states in the western United States.

Sunmart, Inc., is a company doing business in the state of Texas.
Petroleum Wholesale's convenience store chain, Sunmart, operates
its fuel business under many names, including Exxon, Mobil,
Chevron, Texaco and Conoco.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Martin Suit Alleges FDCPA Breach
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates LLC.  The case is styled as Robert Martin, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01147 (S.D.
N.Y., February 6, 2019).

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

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, also known as Anchor
Receivables Management, manages past-due accounts. It serves
customers through account representatives. The company was
incorporated in 1996 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC operates as a subsidiary of PRA Group,
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Amir J. Goldstein, Esq.
   591 Broadway, Suite 3a
   New York, NY 10012
   Tel: (212) 966-5253
   Fax: (212) 941-8566
   Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com




PREMIER NUTRITION: Gregorio Suit Dismissal Appealed to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Dave Mager filed an appeal from the District Court's final
judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice issued on January
17, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Gregorio v. Premier Nutrition
Corporation, Case No. 17-cv-5987, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that the Defendant markets certain products in a
systematically misleading manner, by misrepresenting that they have
specific amounts of protein that they do not in fact contain.

The appellate case is captioned as Gregorio v. Premier Nutrition
Corporation, Case No. 19-321, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Objector-Appellant Dave Mager is represented by:

          George Willard Cochran, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE W. COCHRAN
          1385 Russell Drive
          Streetsboro, OH 44241
          Telephone: (330) 607-2187
          E-mail: lawchrist@gmail.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Joseph Gregorio, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 7th Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com

Defendant-Appellee Premier Nutrition Corporation is represented
by:

          Aaron Daniel Van Oort, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          2200 Wells Fargo Center
          90 South 7th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 766-8138
          E-mail: aaron.vanoort@faegrebd.com


PYRAMID CONSULTING: Courts Approves S. Banks' FLSA Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order granting Joint Motion for Approval of
Settlement Agreement in the case captioned SABRINA M. BANKS,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. PYRAMID CONSULTING, INC., Defendant. Case No.
3:18-cv-00078-H-JLB. (S.D.Cal.)

The Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that Defendant violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay overtime
wages. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant "discouraged
recording of overtime or accurate tracking of hours worked, and/or
turned a blind eye to the falsification and underreporting of
Consultant hours worked."

Bona Fide Dispute

The central issue in this case whether the Defendants properly
compensated the Plaintiffs for all hours worked and at the correct
rates constitutes a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions. The
Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant instructed the Plaintiffs to
under-record their hours worked for the Defendant's clients and
then only paid the Plaintiffs for the hours they recorded, rather
than total hours actually worked. But, the Defendant maintains that
the Plaintiffs recorded their own hours, the hours recorded
accurately reflect the hours worked, and thus, the Defendant
properly compensated the Plaintiffs for the hours worked.   

Accordingly, there are legitimate questions about the existence and
extent of the Defendant's FLSA liability, and therefore, the Court
concludes that there is a bona fide dispute.  

Fair and Reasonable Resolution

The Court next considers whether the parties' proposed settlement
is fair and reasonable under the FLSA by evaluating the Selk
factors.

First, the Court finds that the proposed settlement amount bears a
reasonable relationship to the Plaintiffs' range of possible
recovery. Each Plaintiff, along with counsel, reviewed in detail
the pay rates, weeks worked, and nature and circumstances of the
unrecorded hours worked.   

The Plaintiffs' counsel was then able to make a reasonable estimate
of each Plaintiff's claim based on investigation of Defendant's
wage and hours policies, practices, procedures, and timekeeping,
and the Defendant's compensation records. The Plaintiffs' complaint
alleges the employment dates for each of the Plaintiffs. Each
Plaintiff's estimated unrecorded hours per week are as follows: 12
hours per week for Plaintiff Banks; 10 hours per week for Plaintiff
Soogrim-Belvey; 5 to 10 hours per week for Plaintiff Votraw; and 15
hours per week for Plaintiff Wooding.  

Based on such estimates, and considering strengths and weaknesses
of Plaintiffs' claims, the parties negotiated a total settlement
amount of $81,000. (Id.) The Court concludes this factor weighs in
favor of FLSA settlement approval.

Second, the Court evaluates the stage of proceedings and amount of
discovery completed in order to ensure the parties have an adequate
appreciation of the merits of the case before reaching a
settlement. The parties have litigated this case for nearly a year.
At all stages of litigation and settlement, Plaintiffs were
represented by experienced counsel The parties crafted their
Settlement Agreement through substantial and informed negotiation.
And as detailed above, Defendant produced payroll and time records
pertaining to each Plaintiff, which the parties utilized to
calculate damages.

The Court therefore determines that the parties have sufficient
information to make an informed settlement decision.  

The Court similarly finds that the serious risks of ongoing
litigation, as well as the views of counsel and participating
plaintiffs, favor approval of the Settlement Agreement. The parties
dispute key issues in this case and have weighed the likelihood of
prevailing on the merits of their respective claims and defenses.
The settlement terms, the parties conclude, signify a fair
compromise of the Plaintiffs' claims. Indeed, after having the
opportunity to review the settlement, including the proposed award
of attorneys' fees and costs, each Plaintiff executed a waiver and
release of liability as part of the Settlement Agreement. No
Plaintiff has objected to the settlement terms, (see id.), and the
Court finds no evidence that the settlement resulted from, or was
influenced by, fraud or collusion. These considerations weigh in
favor of the Court approving the Settlement Agreement.

Finally, the Court considers the scope of the Settlement
Agreement's release provision. An FLSA release "should not go
beyond the specific FLSA claims at issue in the lawsuit itself.
Here, the Court is satisfied that the release is not overbroad.
Under the proposed settlement, Plaintiffs release all claims
existing at the date of this Agreement raised in or related to the
Lawsuit or arising out of the same facts alleged in the Lawsuit.
This sufficiently narrows the release provision's scope to cover
claims relating to this suit. Thus, this factor favors approval of
the FLSA settlement.

In conclusion, having carefully considered the totality of the
circumstances, the Court concludes that the Settlement Agreement is
a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute regarding
FLSA liability.  

The Court grants the parties' joint motion for approval of
settlement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 28, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y847xsrn from Leagle.com.

Sabrina M Banks, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Fitzgerald, The Law Office
of Jack Fitzgerald, PC, Kevin Dolley, Law Offices of Kevin J.
Dolley, LLC, pro hac vice & Trevor Matthew Flynn, Law Office of
Jack Fitzgerald, PC.

Pyramid Consulting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Danielle
Hultenius Moore, Fisher & Phillips, LLC, James Randall Coffey,
Fisher & Phillips LLP, pro hac vice, Patrice Coady Nagle, Fisher &
Phillips & Samantha Jane Monsees, Fisher Phillips LLP, pro hac
vice.


RAG & BONE INDUSTRIES: Haggar Claims Website not Blind-Friendly
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elia Haggar and Kyo Hak Chu, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rag &
Bone Industries LLC and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-00450 (C.D. N.Y., January 21, 2019), seeks preliminary
and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive
damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs
and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Defendant offers housewares and furniture collections via its
website https://www.rag-bone.com. Plaintiffs are legally blind and
claims that Rag & Bone's website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bobby Saadian, Esq.
     Thiago Coelho, Esq.
     WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
     3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Tel: (213) 381-9988
     Fax: (213) 381-9989
     Email info@wilshirelawfirm.com


RAY KLEIN: Russell Files Suit Asserting FDCPA Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Russell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ray Klein, Inc. and Christopher Bevans, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00001 (D. Ore., January 1, 2019), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

In October 2018, Defendants send a garnishment to the Plaintiff and
his employer. A garnishment is a legal document that lets a
collector take a portion of a person's paycheck to pay a debt.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants falsely represented they were
entitled to collect amounts that they were not entitled to collect,
and by actually collecting the amounts. The garnishment the
Defendants used to collect money from the Plaintiff's paycheck said
he owed Defendants a $45 fee. But Mr. Russell did not owe the
Defendants a $45 fee because Defendants did not actually pay $45 to
an attorney to issue the garnishment, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiff lives and works in Medford.

The Defendants Ray Klein, Inc. is a debt collection corporation
that goes by the name Professional Credit Service, or PCS.
Christopher Bevans is a debt collection attorney who works for PCS.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Fuller, Esq.
      OLSENDAINES
      US Bancorp Tower
      111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150
      Portland, OR 97204
      Tel: (503) 743-7000
      E-mail: michael@underdoglawyer.com


ROYAL BUILDING: M. Hairston Not Allowed to Add Class Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Virginia, Abingdon Division, issued an Opinion and Order denying
Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend in the case captioned MARK ANTHONY
HAIRSTON, Plaintiff, v. ROYAL BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant.
Case No. 1:18CV00003. (W.D. Va.).

In this race discrimination case, the plaintiff has moved to amend
the Complaint to add class claims.  

Hairston, who is African-American, filed a charge of discrimination
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)  and
received a Dismissal and Notice of Rights. His EEOC charge alleged
that the defendant, his former employer, subjected him to hostile
and discriminatory working conditions on account of his race and
that his supervisors retaliated against him for complaining of
race-based discrimination.  

The original Complaint asserts a claim of race discrimination under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), a
retaliation claim under Title VII, a hostile environment
discrimination claim under Title VII, a race discrimination claim
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, a retaliation claim under Section
1981, and a hostile environment discrimination claim under Section
1981. The Complaint does not allege pay discrimination and only
asserts claims on behalf of Hairston individually.

Hairston moved for leave to file an amended complaint asserting
class claims. On behalf of this class, Hairston seeks to assert new
class claims of race discrimination under Title VII, based on a
hostile environment, pay disparity, and discriminatory
terminations, as well as Section 1981 claims based on the same
theories. The proposed amended complaint also continues to assert
the individual claims contained in the original Complaint.

The defendant opposes the plaintiff's motion to amend on a number
of grounds, including that the proposed amendment would be futile
because, among other reasons, Hairston failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies as to the class claims, some of the pay
discrimination claims would be time barred, and the plaintiff
cannot satisfy the elements of numerosity, commonality, typicality,
and adequacy required for class actions.  

A district court has discretion to deny a motion to amend a
complaint, so long as the court does not outright refuse to grant
the leave without any justifying reason. Denial of leave to amend
is appropriate when the amendment would be prejudicial to the
opposing party, when the plaintiff has acted in bad faith, or when
the amendment would be futile.  

The Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Class Complaint
was filed before the deadline for amended pleadings and does not
appear to have been made in bad faith. Nevertheless, it comes late
in the proceedings and would significantly change the nature of
this litigation, requiring extensive additional discovery.
Hairston's EEOC charge did not put the defendant on notice that he
would be alleging pay discrimination. The Complaint did not alert
the defendant that disparate pay would be an issue, nor did it
notify the defendant that Hairston would be asserting claims on
behalf of anyone other than himself.

The Court finds that allowing the proposed amendment at this time
would therefore unfairly prejudice the defendant and would not
promote the interests of justice. The plaintiff is certainly free
to initiate a separate class action against the defendant, but he
will not be permitted to bring his contemplated class claims in
this case, which is already well underway.

Accordingly, the motion to amend is denied

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

Mark Anthony Hairston, Plaintiff, represented by Linda Leigh
Strelka, Strelka Law Office, Norvell Winston West, IV, Strelka Law
Office & Thomas Eugene Strelka, Strelka Law Office.

Royal Building Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Yvette
Vanessa Gatling, Littler Mendelson PC & Joon Hwang, Littler
Mendelson PC.


RPT REALTY: Nekouee Claims Establishments Not Wheelchair-Friendly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Nekouee, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. RPT Realty, L.P., Michaels Stores, Inc., Ross Dress
for Less, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, and Petco Animal Supplies
Stores, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00174, (D. Colo., January
21, 2019), seeks injunctive relief, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

RPT Realty owns and operates a shopping center located at and near
205 Ken Pratt Boulevard, Longmont, Colorado 80501, in Boulder
County where Michaels Stores, Ross Dress for Less, Lowe's Home
Center and Petco Animal Supplies Store are located. Nekouee has
progressive multiple sclerosis and requires the use of a wheelchair
for mobility. He alleges that these establishments lack disabled
accessibility features that would permit him access. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Vincze, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT J. VINCZE
      PO Box 792
      Andover, Kansas 67002
      Phone: (303) 204-8207
      Email: vinczelaw@att.net


RYDER INTEGRATED: Faces Class Suit Over Storage of Biometric Data  
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Villalobos, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc.
a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH01712, filed in
the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
on February 8, 2019, is a class action against Defendant to put a
stop to its unlawful collection, use, and storage of Plaintiffs and
the putative Class members' sensitive biometric data.

While there are tremendous benefits to using biometric time clocks
in the workplace, there are also serious risks. Unlike key fobs or
identification cards, which can be changed or replaced if stolen or
compromised, handprints are unique, permanent biometric identifiers
associated with the employee. This exposes employees to serious and
irreversible privacy risks, notes the complaint.

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740
ILCS 14/1, et seq. ("BIPA"), specifically to regulate companies
that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as
handprints. Despite this law, Ryder disregards its employees'
statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects,
stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the BIPA,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Illinois.

Ryder is part of the Ryder transportation conglomerate that
operates over 800 maintenance facilities, utilizes over 7,000
drivers, and operates throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Fish, Esq.
     Seth Matus, Esq.
     Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
     John Kunze, Esq.
     THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
     200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
     Naperville, IL 60563
     Phone: 630.355.7590
     Fax: 630.778.0400
     Email: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
            smatus@fishlawfirm.com
            khilton@fishlawfirm.com
            jkunze@fishlawfirm.com
            admin@fishlawfirm.com


SA DUNN: Class Action Mulled Over Landfill Foul Odors
-----------------------------------------------------
Brian Nearing, writing for Times Union, report that a major
construction and demolition debris dump continues to draw legal
scrutiny, with a central New York law firm investigating a
potential class action lawsuit.

Residents around the dump were solicited by a Cayuga County law
firm that is considering a class action lawsuit over chronic odors
from S.A. Dunn & Co. landfill off Partition Street. The dump drew a
state inspector in December because of the recurring stink.

Jan Smolak -- smolak@michaels-smolak.com -- an attorney with
Michael & Smolak, of Auburn, wrote in a Jan. 8 letter to dump
neighbors that his firm is "currently investigating filing a class
action lawsuit against the Dunn landfill on behalf of residents who
believe the landfill is emitting foul odors into the
neighborhood."

Mr. Smolak's letter indicated his firm was affiliating with a
Detroit firm, Liddle & Dubin, that has won previous class action
lawsuits involving landfill odors. Attempts to reach Mr. Smolak for
comment were not successful.

In July 2018, the Liddle & Dunn law firm obtained a $1.9 million
settlement for residents around a dump in Dayton, Ohio. And in
September 2017, the firm obtained a $750,000 settlement for a dump
in Salem, Michigan.

After sending the inspector to the Dunn facility in response to
odor complaints by neighbors, the state Department of Environmental
Conservation "continues to closely monitor this facility, including
regular site inspections, to ensure operators are meeting permit
conditions and the strict terms of recent enforcement actions,"
according to an agency statement.

"DEC is also working with Dunn to develop an odor mitigation plan
at this facility, as well as to respond to odor complaints through
routine odor inspections at the facility and surrounding
neighborhoods," the statement continued.

Also, the Hudson Mohawk Chapter of the Sierra Club has obtained a
lawyer to look into the Dunn landfill on behalf of residents and
advise on a potential legal response.

The not-for-profit environmental group hired Albany lawyer
John Barone to review the 2012 permit issued by DEC for the Dunn
landfill.

A member of the Albany law firm of Tooher and Barone, Mr. Barone is
a former board member of Saratoga PLAN, a not-for-profit
environmental advocacy group in Saratoga County.

Neighbors have complained about dozens of large tractor-trailer
trucks that deliver loads to the Dunn dump during weekdays, and
question a 2012 state permit that allows up to 100 such vehicles
daily on Partition Street, which is the only way into and out of
the dump.

Since the dump opened in 2015, more than 50,000 trucks from several
states have used the facility to dump hundreds of thousands of tons
of debris.

The dump can legally accept concrete, sheetrock, asphalt, masonry,
roofing materials, plumbing fixtures, insulation (but not
asbestos), empty buckets, wood, plastics and "pulverized waste." It
cannot legally accept regular household garbage or hazardous
waste.

One of the dump's closest neighbors is the Rensselaer Junior-Senior
High School, which has more than 1,000 students.

District Superintendent Joseph Kardash said there have been dump
odors on school property and "it has not been pleasant."

He said the district routinely reports such incidents to the dump's
management "like they have asked us to do."

Mr. Kardash said he has "treated the dump like a learning
experience. We have taken students over to see the operation."

At this point, it would be very difficult to move the dump or the
school," he added.

New athletic fields next to the high school are being built by
Wilton-based Kubricky Construction, where former Dunn mine owner
Michael Dunn is now president. According to a February 2018 DEC
notice, Kubricky is subcontracted to operate the Dunn facility.

In 2015, Dunn sold the 99-acre property, which was a sand and
gravel mine, to Waste Connections, a Texas-based corporation that
is one of the nation's largest waste haulers.

As part of the $30 million sale, which also included a dump in
Texas, Dunn received a $3 million bonus for obtaining the state and
city agreements and permits necessary for the new dump, according
to a report that Waste Connections filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission in 2016. [GN]


SANDIA CORP: To Produce Policy Docs from 2018 in Kennicott Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LISA A. KENNICOTT, LISA A. GARCIA, SUE C. PHELPS, and
JUDI DOOLITTLE, on behalf of themselves and a class of those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SANDIA CORPORATION d/b/a SANDIA
NATIONAL LABORATORIES, Defendant, Case No. CIV 17-0188 JB\GJF (D.
N.M.), Judge James O. Browning of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico (i) granted in part and denied in part the
requests in the Plaintiffs' Letter from Anne B. Shaver, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, to the Court, filed Dec. 6,
2018; and (ii) ordered Sandia Labs to produce policy documents from
2018 and electronically stored information related to the vice
president of human resources.

Kennicott, Garcia, and Phelps sue Sandia Labs on behalf of
themselves and a class of those similarly situated.  The Complaint
was filed on Feb. 7, 2017.  Doolittle joined Kennicott, Garcia, and
Phelps as a named Plaintiff when the Plaintiffs amended their
Complaint.

In the First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert: (i) that
Sandia Labs engages in intentional discrimination, violating Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and (ii) that Sandia Labs
engages in disparate impact discrimination in violation of Title
VII.  Kennicott asserts individual Title VII claims against Sandia
Labs for retaliation and constructive discharge.

On Dec. 6, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the letter, requesting the
Court's assistance with discovery disputes so that the parties can
meet the case deadlines.  They notify the Court of two discovery
disputes. The Plaintiffs first complain that Sandia Labs refuses to
produce discovery on policies and practices that postdate April
2017.  They request that the Court orders Sandia Labs to produce
the requested discovery for the period from May 2017, through
December 2018.  The Plaintiffs next aver that Sandia Labs has
withheld information regarding its employees' prior pay data.  They
request that the Court orders that Sandia Labs produce the
requested information within one week so that the Plaintiffs may
analyze the information before the deadline for their class
certification motion.

In the Letter from Krissy A. Katzenstein, Morgan Lewis, to the
Court, filed Dec. 10, 2018 ("Letter Response"), Sandia Labs
concedes that it will produce discovery on the prior pay data.
Sandia Labs first contends that it did not refuse to provide prior
pay data; rather, according to Sandia Labs, it told the Plaintiffs
that they had not requested production of such documents.  It
concedes that, despite its complaints, it will produce to the
Plaintiffs the requested information. Sandia Labs next contends
that the Plaintiffs cannot ground their claims on policies and
practices that postdate the transition from Sandia Corporation to
National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia.

The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Letter.  The
Court held a hearing on Dec. 11, 2018.  The primary issues are: (i)
whether the Court should order Defendant Sandia Labs to produce
discovery on its current -- post-April 2017 -- employment policies
and practices; and (ii) whether the Court should order Sandia Labs
to produce data on its employees' prior pay.

Judge Browning will grant the requests in the Plaintiffs' Letter in
part and deny them in part.  The parties indicated that they have
resolved the dispute about the prior pay data, and so the Judge
will not order that Sandia Labs produce such information.  He will
order Sandia Labs to produce policy documents from 2018 and ESI
related to the vice president of human resources, because the
discovery is relevant and proportional.

The Judge first concludes that discovery post-dating April 2017, is
relevant.  Before a class certification decision, a party generally
may seek controlled discovery into the merits, limited to those
aspects relevant to making the certification decision on an
informed basis.  As the First Amended Complaint evidences, the
Plaintiffs bring claims against Sandia Labs' current practices.
Throughout the First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs write their
allegations in the present tense, which suggests that the
discriminatory activities did not cease at the transition.  The
Plaintiffs similarly describe their grounds for relief in the
present tense.  Moreover, they seek to enjoin the ongoing
discrimination of which they complain.  As an injunction cannot
affect past and terminated practices, the demand illustrates the
Plaintiffs' foci on current and continuing practices.  Because the
Plaintiffs allege ongoing discrimination, Sandia Labs' current
policies and practices relate to and are relevant to the
Plaintiffs' claims.

Sandia Labs' arguments for the discovery's irrelevancy do not
convince the Judge.  Sandia Labs contends that the named Plaintiffs
did not work long, if at all, under National Technology, and that
other women from "2014 forward," never worked under National
Technology.  These facts trouble Sandia Labs, because it contends
that National Technology's management lacked connections to the
alleged discriminatory actions.  In Sandia Labs' view, the
Plaintiffs cannot draw connections between employment under Sandia
Corp. and under National Technology.  Three of the named
Plaintiffs, however, worked for some time under National
Technology, and the Plaintiffs attack Sandia Labs' practice of
using prior pay data to set initial salaries, particularly a class
seeking injunctive relief, the Plaintiffs likely need to identify
whether Sandia Labs' discriminatory activities continue under
National Technology.  The Judge concludes, therefore, that Sandia
Labs' current policies and practices are relevant to the
Plaintiffs' allegations.

Second, the Judge addresses whether the discovery is proportional.
Sandia Labs contends that the Plaintiffs seek burdensome discovery.
The Judge, however, concludes that the solution developed at the
hearing does not disproportionately burden Sandia Labs.  First, the
Plaintiffs complain about widespread discrimination in Sandia Labs,
and, second, the Plaintiffs demand injunctive relief and damages
for the class.  Such complaints and damages requests are
significant and will effect many people and practices within Sandia
Labs.  Third, the Plaintiffs seek information to which they
otherwise have no access.  Fourth, the desired information may be
necessary to determine Sandia Labs' current policies and practices.
Fifth, Sandia Labs, a corporation, likely has access to the
resources to complete the discovery.  Sixth, the discovery's burden
will likely not outweigh the importance of obtaining accurate
information here or the above-mentioned benefits to the Plaintiffs.
Producing ten to twelve policy documents should not significantly
burden Sandia Labs.  Sandia Labs did not describe as burdensome the
ESI discovery related to the vice president, and the Judge does not
believe that this more limited discovery should disproportionately
burden Sandia Labs.  Accordingly, he will grant the Plaintiffs'
requests in part and deny them in part.  He will order Sandia Labs
to produce policy documents from 2018 and ESI related to the vice
president of human resources.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Browning ordered that: (i) the
requests in the Plaintiffs' Letter from Anne B. Shaver, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, to the Court, filed Dec. 6,
2018, are granted in part and denied in part; and (ii) Defendant
Sandia Labs will produce policy documents from 2018 and
electronically stored information related to the vice president of
human resources.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/Bpd7Gq from Leagle.com.

Lisa A. Kennicott, Lisa A. Garcia & Sue C. Phelps, on behalf of
themselves and a class of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Anne Brackett Shaver -- ashaver@lchb.com -- Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Gretchen Mary Elsner, Elsner Law
& Policy, LLC, Kelly Maureen Dermody -- kdermody@lchb.com -- Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Rachel Bien, Outten & Golden
LLP, pro hac vice, Adam T. Klein, Outten & Golden LLP, pro hac
vice, Cheryl-Lyn Bentley, Outten & Golden LLP, pro hac vice, David
Lopez , Outten & Golden LLP, pro hac vice, Lin Yee Chan, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Michael Ian Levin-Gesundheit --
mlevin@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Tiseme
Gabriella Zegeye -- tzegeye@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP.

Sandia Corporation, doing business as Sandia National Laboratories,
Defendant, represented by Cindy Jean Lovato-Farmer, Sandia National
Laboratories, Justin E. Poore, Sandia Corporation, Scott D. Gordon,
Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A., Grace E. Speights --
grace.speights@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro
hac vice, Jeffrey L. Lowry, Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb,
P.A., Krissy A. Katzenstein -- krissy.katzenstein@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Michael S. Burkhardt
-- michael.burkhardt@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, pro hac vice, Paola Viviana Jaime, Rodey, Dickason, Sloan,
Akin & Robb, P.A. & Theresa W. Parrish -- tparrish@rodey.com --
Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, P.A.


SCHWABE NA: Sheppard Mullin Attorneys Discuss 9th Cir. Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Guite, Esq. -- rguite@sheppardmullin.com -- and Abby
Meyer, Esq. -- ameyer@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard, Mullin,
Richter & Hampton LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
report that  the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Sonner v.
Schwabe N. Am., Inc. et al.,[1] resolves a split among district
courts evaluating the standard that applies to false labeling
claims brought under California's Unfair Competition Law and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act on summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit
confirmed that plaintiffs can survive summary judgment by supplying
a conflicting expert report, invalidating a line of cases that
required plaintiff's expert to also entirely undermine defendant's
expert.

Plaintiff Sonner sued Schwabe North America, Inc., and Nature's Way
Products, LLC, (collectively, "Schwabe") in a putative class action
alleging that "Ginkgold Advanced Ginkgo Extract" and "Ginkgold Max
Advanced Ginkgo Extract Max" were falsely labeled and that labels
on both products touting benefits to "mental sharpness," "memory,"
and "concentration" were false. The plaintiff asserted that the
operative ingredient in both products, the EGb 761 variety of
Ginkgo biloba extract, did not in fact have any of the asserted
cognitive benefits and was little more than a placebo. Schwabe
moved for summary judgment based on its expert's testimony and the
results of randomized controlled trials. The plaintiff opposed,
pointing to the testimony of her own expert who analyzed several
clinical studies and meta-analyses to conclude that Ginkgo biloba
is ineffective, other than as a placebo.

The district court granted Schwabe's motion for summary judgment
relying on case law that originated out of the Fourth Circuit that
treated false labeling claims under the UCL and CLRA specially.
That line of cases held that a plaintiff must not only produce
affirmative evidence supporting plaintiff's claims, but must also
fatally undermine the defendant's evidence, in order to defeat a
motion for summary judgment.

The Ninth Circuit rejected this more exacting summary judgment
standard articulated by the Fourth Circuit that had been adopted by
some courts in the Northern District of California and the Southern
District of California in the false labeling context. Rejecting
these cases, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that the burden on summary
judgment should not differ in the false labeling context and
reversed the grant of summary judgment. The Court noted that,
"[u]nder California law, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by
a preponderance of the evidence that a challenged advertisement is
false or misleading under the UCL and CLRA." Since this is the
burden at trial, "to defeat summary judgment, [a plaintiff] need
only produce evidence of a genuine dispute of material fact that
could satisfy the preponderance of the evidence burden at trial."
In short, the Ninth Circuit determined that there was no reason to
diverge from "the usual" summary judgment rules for UCL and CLRA
claims. If a plaintiff and defendant each come forward with
competing, admissible evidence, district courts should conclude
that a dispute of fact precludes summary judgment.

[1] Sonner v. Schwabe N. Am., Inc. et al., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS
36460 (9th Cir. Dec. 26, 2018), [GN]


SONY MUSIC: Faces Johansen Class Action for Copyright Infringement
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID JOHANSEN, an individual; JOHN LYON, an individual,
professionally known as SOUTHSIDE JOHNNY; PAUL COLLINS, an
individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SONY
MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1
through 10, Case No. 1:19-cv-01094 (S.D.N.Y., February 5, 2019), is
a civil action seeking damages and injunctive relief for copyright
infringement under the Copyright Act of 1976 and seeking
declaratory relief with regard to several legal issues that arise
from the language and interpretation of the Copyright Act.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other
similarly situated authors of sound recordings, who have served
Notices of Termination pursuant to Section 302 of the Copyright
Act.  The Plaintiffs contend that Sony has routinely and
systematically refused to honor the Notices.  They add that Sony
has refused to allow any recording artist to take over control of
the sound recordings or enter into an agreement with a different
label for the exploitation of recordings, after the effective date
of termination.

Sony is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
in New York City.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiffs.

Sony is a record label, as well as a global music conglomerate, and
released music under the Columbia, RCA, Epic, and Arista imprints,
among many others.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David C. Kistler, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          The Chrysler Bldg.
          405 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10174-0208
          Telephone: (212) 885-5000
          E-mail: Kistler@BlankRome.com

               - and -

          Gregory M. Bordo, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          2029 Century Park East, 6th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 239-3404
          E-mail: GBordo@BlankRome.com

               - and -

          David M. Perry, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          One Logan Square
          130 North 18th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998
          Telephone: (215) 569-5767
          E-mail: Perry@BlankRome.com

               - and -

          Evan S. Cohen, Esq.
          COHEN MUSIC LAW
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 510
          Los Angeles, CA 90035-1157
          Telephone: (310) 556-9800
          E-mail: esc@cohenmusiclaw.com

               - and -

          Maryann R. Marzano, Esq.
          COHEN MUSIC LAW
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 510
          Los Angeles, CA 90035-1157
          Telephone: (310) 556-9800
          E-mail: mmarzano@cohenmusiclaw.com


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Saxon Files Labor Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Latrice Saxon, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Southwest Airlines Co., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-00403 (N.D. Ill., January 18, 2019), seeks to recover minimum
compensation, overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Saxon currently works for Southwest as a non-exempt ramp
supervisor. She performed work before the start of her scheduled
shift and during meal breaks, but was not paid for her time worked.
She also claims to have worked though her meal breaks. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
            jzouras@stephanzouras.com
            aficzko@stephanzouras.com


SPERIAN ENERGY CORP: Perrong Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Perrong, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Sperian Energy Corp., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-00115, (D. Nev., January 21, 2019), seeks damages, attorneys'
fees, costs together with other relief for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Sperian Energy is a retail energy provider that focuses on
deregulated energy markets covering Illinois, New York,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland and Ohio. Its business model
relies on contacting current energy customers in those states and
convincing them to have their energy serviced through Sperian.
Despite Perrong's disinterest in their services, he still receives
multiple calls from Sperian without his prior express written
consent. He is on the national Do-Not-Call Registry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Friedberg, Esq.
      4760 South Pecos Road, Suite 103
      Las Vegas, NV 89121
      Phone: (702) 435-7968;
      Fax: (702) 825-8071
      Email: attcbf@cox.net

             - and -

      Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
      BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
      99 High St., Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (508) 221-1510
      Email: anthony@broderick-law.com


SPREEMO INC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss R. Mauthe's TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued an Memorandum granting Defedants' Motion to
Dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the case captioned ROBERT W.
MAUTHE, M.D., P.C., individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. SPREEMO, INC.
and THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GRP., Defendants. Civil Action
No. 18-1902. (E.D. Pa.).

Plaintiff Robert W. Mauthe, M.D., P.C., filed this putative class
action against Defendants Spreemo, Inc. (Spreemo) and the Hartford
Financial Services Group (Hartford) alleging Defendants violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), by sending
advertisements by facsimile (fax) to Plaintiff and a purported
class of similarly-situated persons.  

Following the Supreme Court's decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 679 (2009), pleading standards in federal actions have shifted
from simple notice pleading to a more heightened form of pleading,
requiring a plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to show that the
plaintiff has a plausible claim for relief. A facially plausible
claim may not be supported by conclusory allegations, but must
allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
is liable for the misconduct alleged.

The TCPA prohibits sending unsolicited advertisements to a
telephone facsimile machine. Thus, the issue here is whether the
fax sent to Plaintiff is an advertisement under the TCPA. The TCPA
defines an unsolicited advertisement as any material advertising
the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or
services which is transmitted to any person without that person's
prior express invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise.

In the instant case, the Defendants jointly purport that the fax at
issue could not have violated the TCPA because it is not an
unsolicited advertisement as defined by the statute and by the FCC.
Rather, the Defendants claim that the fax is merely informational
and simply informs Dr. Mauthe that Spreemo has been designated by
Hartford as its preferred diagnostic provider.

A careful review of the fax reveals that on its face, it neither
promotes goods or services, nor seeks to initiate a commercial
transaction with the Plaintiff. It is true, as the Plaintiff
contends, that the fax states that Spreemo is the Primary
Diagnostic Vendor' for Hartford. However, the Plaintiff is
incorrect that the fax promotes the availability and quality of
Spreemo's services. It merely, on its face, informs recipients that
if they are treating any patients whose treatment is covered by
Hartford, that Spreemo has been designated as Hartford's primary
diagnostic testing vendor.  

And, as previously determined by the FCC, the fact that the fax
includes Spreemo's name, logo, location, and contact information
does not convert this informational transmission into an
unsolicited advertisement actionable under the TCPA. What is most
telling here is what the fax does not include. The fax does not
include comparative prices for services. It does not include any
touting of quality of services. It does not include the ease of
making an appointment or arranging for any services. Those are all
things that would take the fax beyond the realm of information and
into the actionable realm of advertisement. Accordingly, the fax is
not an unsolicited advertisement on its face.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff has failed to aver any plausible
allegations that the fax at issue is a pretext for a broader
advertising scheme that would allow the claims asserted to survive
this Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, Count II is dismissed as
well.

A full-text copy of the District Court's January 28, 2018
Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybzclz4d from
Leagle.com.

M.D., P.C. ROBERT W. MAUTHE, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF
SIMILIARLY-SITUATED PERSONS, Plaintiff, represented by DANIEL J.
COHEN, BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC, MOLLY S. GANTMAN, BOCK
HATCH LEWIS & OPPENHEIM LLC, PHILLIP A. BOCK, BOCK HATCH LEWIS &
OPPENHEIM LLC, RICHARD E. SHENKAN, SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS LLC &
ANDREW J. REILLY, SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWILER.

SPREEMO, INC. & THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, Defendants,
represented by BART T. MURPHY, ICE MILLER LLP & FREDERICK A. TECCE,
ICE MILLER LLP.


SSC KERRVILLE: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Passmore Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants SSC Kerrville Alpine Terrace Operating Company, L.L.C.,
SSC Kerrville Edgewater Operating Company, L.L.C., and SSC
Kerrville Hilltop Village Operating Company, L.L.C., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Rosario
Passmore, et al. v. SSC Kerrville Hilltop Village, et al., Case No.
5:18-CV-782, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas, San Antonio.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 24, 2019,
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney denied the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss and to Compel Arbitration.

Plaintiffs Passmore and Brenda L. Chafton, formerly known as Brenda
Agbeye, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, originally filed the action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, as amended, on July 28, 2018.  In addition
to asserting individual employment claims under the FLSA and Texas
state law, the Named Plaintiffs also seek to represent a putative
class of similarly-situated individuals regarding their claims
under the FLSA, including certain opt-in Plaintiffs who have
already filed consents to join in the action.

The appellate case is captioned as Rosario Passmore, et al. v. SSC
Kerrville Hilltop Village, et al., Case No. 19-50101, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees ROSARIO PASSMORE, Individually and On behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, and BRENDA L. CHAFTON,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
formerly known as Brenda Agbeye, are represented by:

          Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
          MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          700 W. Summit Drive
          Wimberley, TX 78676
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel Anthony Verrett, Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT, P.C.
          2901 Bee Cave Road
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          E-mail: daniel@morelandlaw.com

Defendants-Appellants SSC KERRVILLE HILLTOP VILLAGE OPERATING
COMPANY, L.L.C., SSC KERRVILLE EDGEWATER OPERATING COMPANY, L.L.C.,
and SSC KERRVILLE ALPINE TERRACE OPERATING COMPANY, L.L.C., are
represented by:

          Lara Cardin de Leon, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          500 Dallas Street
          1 Allen Center
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (210) 354-1300
          E-mail: lara.deleon@ogletreedeakins.com


ST ANNE'S CATHOLIC: Ex-Pupils to Get Payouts for Mulligan Abuse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Britton, writing for Manchester Evening News, reports that a
group of former school pupils who claimed they were sexually abused
as children by a primary school headmaster have won damages claims
totalling more than GBP300,000, a law firm has revealed.

The men were students at St Anne's Catholic School in Ancoats and
made allegations against John Mulligan, who was the school's head
teacher.

In 2006 Mr Mulligan was charged with 12 counts of sexually
assaulting two pupils in the 1970s.

The case against him however wasn't fully heard in a criminal court
because he was deemed unfit to stand trial due to a stroke he had
suffered four years earlier.

He died in 2010 aged 84 after being moved to a care home in
Moston.

A group of ex-pupils later took legal action against Manchester
council, as the council was Mr Mulligan's employer at the time.

The law firm representing them has said the council has now agreed
to settle 25 claims out-of-court, and pay damages, following a
seven-year legal battle.

The men have agreed undisclosed, five-figure compensation
agreements totalling GBP367,500, and other claimants are in the
process of finalising their cases, said Stretford-based Simpson
Millar solicitors.

Peter Garsden, the firm's head of abuse claims, said a number of
men came forward after the Manchester Evening News first revealed
the allegations against Mr Mulligan.

He said he received initial reports from claimants in 2011.

Alleged abuse was said to have taken place in Mr Mulligan's office,
at swimming baths and in school changing rooms.

It's understood he also taught PE at the school.

Mr Garsden said the cases were contested by the council 'largely on
the basis of time delay', but said settlements were reached due to
the sheer amount of supportive evidence from the former pupils.

Mr Mulligan, he said, 'ruled' over the boys at the school 'with a
culture of fear and brutal discipline'.

"I would urge anyone else to come forward now with their stories to
help deal with the lasting effects of abuse which will likely have
blighted their lives. It is time to stop suffering in silence," Mr
Garsden said.

One man who was part of the class action has spoken of his ordeal.

The dad, now in his 40s and from north Manchester, said his
experiences had affected his life and he suffers from regular
flashbacks.

"This abuse has left deep mental scars and affects me every day,"
he said.

"It's always going to be there but at least the settlement shows a
form of apology for what happened to me and the other lads.

"We were frightened to death of Mulligan and had to do whatever he
said. I have tried to keep it locked away in my mind, but I have
had very dark days.

"This is always going to be with me but now I hope to move on with
my life."

A spokesperson for Manchester council said: "We take all
allegations of abuse seriously and are committed to ensuring they
are dealt with compassionately and are properly looked into." [GN]


STORM TIGHT WINDOWS: Mendoza Hits Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Mendoza and Manuel Mendoza, individually and on behalf of a
class of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Storm Tight
Windows of Texas, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00225 (S.D. Tex.,
January 21, 2019), seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant offers windows and doors installation. Halawani claims to
have received multiple pre-recorded telemarketing calls to his
cellular phone by use of an automatic telephone dialing system
without his permission. Mendoza is on the Do Not Call registry.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jarrett Ellzey, Esq.
      HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
      Galleria Tower I
      2700 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1120
      Houston, TX 77056
      Tel: (713) 554-2377
      Fax: (888) 995-3335
      Email: jarrett@hughesellzey.com

             - and -

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: 305-479-2299
      Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

             - and -

      Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
      KOZONIS LAW, LTD
      4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300
      Chicago, IL 60630
      Phone: (773) 545-9607
      Fax: (773) 496-8617
      Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com

             - and -

      Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
      110 SE 6th Street
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 907-1136
      Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
      Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


SUN LIFE: Must Face $2.5-Bil. Class Action, Top Court Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael McKiernan, writing for Law Times, reports that insurance
companies may want to rethink the wording of their consumer-facing
policies after the Court of Appeal for Ontario restored a class
action by life insurance policy holders against their insurers,
according to a Toronto lawyer.

In Fehr v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, a three-judge
panel of the province's top court certified the $2.5-billion class
action, overturning the decision of a motion judge who granted Sun
Life summary judgment dismissing the claim. Although a judge has
yet to tackle the merits of the underlying claim, civil litigator
Jeffrey Leon says the latest ruling is just one in a series of
decisions by Canadian courts interpreting agreements between large
corporate entities and relatively unsophisticated individuals with
a "consumer-focused approach."

"The Court of Appeal's reasons reflect the consideration given to
the differences between the companies who draft these complicated
agreements, and the consumers who are bound by them," says Leon, a
partner in the Toronto office Bennett Jones LLP, who is not
involved with the case.

"Regardless of how the case ultimately turns out, and the bar is
set fairly low for certification, one of the lessons to be taken
from it is that it's increasingly important to draft insurance
policies in a way that avoids ambiguities by using defined terms
wherever possible," he adds.

"It may also no longer be sufficient to rely on terms that are
based on industry practice or custom if they're not able to be
understood by someone who is actually acquiring the life insurance
coverage."

The case concerns at least 230,000 life insurance policies sold in
the years between 1985 and 1998 by the Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, whose Canadian business was subsequently subsumed by Sun
Life.

According to the decision, the variable-premium "universal life"
insurance policies combine a life insurance policy with an
investment vehicle to realize tax advantages. Although most were
sold in the high-interest-rate era of the mid to late 1980s, the
lower rates prevailing since the mid-1990s drove premiums and
administrative costs up, prompting complaints from policyholders
who claimed they were not adequately warned about the potential
downside of the scheme.  

The plaintiffs launched their class action in 2010, alleging
misrepresentation in the sale of the policies and breach of
contract. In a series of decisions between 2015 and 2017, Ontario
Superior Court Justice Paul Perell declined the certify any of the
claims and granted Sun Life summary judgment dismissing much of the
action as time-barred. A costs order was also granted in favour of
the insurer for $1 million.

Despite the setback at the summary judgment motion, the plaintiffs'
lawyer Megan McPhee says she always retained "full confidence in
our case."

"When we went to the Court of Appeal, our firm was on the hook for
a $1-millon cost order, but there was no point at which we
considered any other option," says Ms. McPhee, a principal at class
actions boutique Kim Spencer McPhee Barristers PC.

"So it was wonderful to see our confidence vindicated by the
decision."

Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Ontario Court of Appeal
Chief Justice George Strathy found Justice Perell got it right when
he refused to certify the part of the claim that related to
negligent misrepresentation common issues. While each individual
representative plaintiff testified they were misled by agents of
the insurance company, the judge noted that each had a unique
claim.   

"It is not enough for a common issue to provide 'context.' The
resolution of the common issue must advance the resolution of each
class member's claim," Strathy wrote.

"The proposed misrepresentation common issues would not do so."

However, when it came to claims for breach of contract, which
related to alleged adjustments to the cost of insurance and
administrative fees, as well as the potential for premium charges
in excess of the maximum identified in the policies, the appeal
court noted that the complexity of the policies as financial
instruments came into play.

"The language is technical and legalistic, and important terms are
undefined," reads the decision, which notes that even the meaning
of apparently straightforward phrases, such as "maximum premium"
and "minimum premium," were a matter of controversy between the
parties.

"Other terms, such as 'premium,' 'monthly cost of insurance' and
'monthly insurance charge,' are confusing. Key provisions, such as
the manner in which Sun Life could adjust the COI from time to
time, are opaque," the appeal court judges wrote, adding that
Justice Perell required the filing of "extensive additional
evidence" before reaching his decision.

But the appeal panel ruled Justice Perell ultimately overstepped
the mark in his decision denying certification for the breach of
contract issues, instead performing the task reserved for a
common-issue trial judge.

"In my view, it is entirely reasonable for a certification motion
judge to expect the parties to produce evidence relevant to whether
there is some basis in fact that the issue is common across the
class," Strathy wrote on behalf of his colleagues.

"However, by requiring the parties to file additional evidence and
analyzing that evidence to assess whether or not Sun Life had
actually breached the contract, the motions judge went beyond
determining whether there was "some basis in fact" for the common
issue. Rather, he decided the proposed common issue by interpreting
the contract and making a finding that there was no breach." In
addition, the appeal court found that Justice Perell had erred in
dismissing some of the plaintiffs' key claims on a summary basis as
time-barred.

While the judge concluded they should have discovered their
misrepresentation claims when they received their policies, the
appeal court ruled that a more granular analysis was ­required of
the company's limitations defence.

"The analysis would also take into consideration the special
relationship between the parties, which the motions judge himself
acknowledged contained a duty of utmost good faith," Strathy
wrote.

"This relationship of particular vulnerability and corresponding
duty of utmost good faith are contextual factors which should have
been taken into consideration in the motions judge's analysis of
when, with reasonable diligence, the plaintiffs ought to have
discovered the alleged misrepresentations, and the reasonableness
of any sreliance they placed on the initial or subsequent
representations made by the insurer and its agents."

"There was much to consider in this regard," the appeal court panel
added, noting its earlier conclusion that the policy language was
"impenetrable and confusing."

A spokesperson for Sun Life told Law Times that he could not
comment, given that the matter remains before the courts, but the
company has sought leave to appeal the verdict to the Supreme Court
of Canada.

According to Ms. McPhee, the significance of the appeal court's
decision extends well beyond those involved directly in the case.

"I can tell you that we are looking at a number of other universal
life insurance companies, so they should be all be taking a hard
look at their policies and how they are administering them," she
says. After dealing with the defendants' application for leave to
appeal, Ms. McPhee is already looking forward to proceeding with
discoveries and getting ready for a trial now that the action has
been certified.

"We need some sunshine shone on the business practices at play
here, and how policyholders were treated," she says. [GN]


TOLL BROS: Kurilchik Suit Asserts Illegal Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Kurilchik, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TOLL BROS., INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00170-CMH-JFA (E.D. Va., February 12, 2019) is a class
action brought pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA").

This action arises out of Toll Brothers illegal efforts as a "debt
collector", to collect consumer debts on behalf of the Toll Golf
owned country clubs, who are the original creditor of the debts.
Toll Brothers regularly attempts to collect country club membership
debts previously discharged by order of a federal bankruptcy court
in violation of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act, says the
complaint.

Phillip Kurilchik is a natural person and owns property in Ashburn,
Virginia.

Toll Bros., Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal
place of business at 250 Gibraltar Road, Horsham, PA 19044.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
     CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1-A
     Newport News, VA 23601
     Phone (757) 930-3660
     Facsimile (757) 930-3662
     Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com

          - and -

     Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
     Varnell & Warwick, P.A.
     P.O. Box 1870
     Lady Lake, FL 32158
     Phone: (352) 753-8600
     Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
     Email: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com


TRANS UNION: Kiler Sues Over Not Blind-accessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Marion Kiler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Trans Union LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00837-NG-SMG (E.D. N.Y., February 12, 2019) is a civil
rights class action against the Defendant for failing to design,
construct, maintain, and/or own a website that is fully accessible
to, and independently usable by, blind people.

The Defendant is denying blind individuals throughout the United
States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to
its non-disabled customers through www.transunion.com and related
domains owned by Defendant, including www.transunionplus.com.

The Website provides to the public a wide array of the services,
and other opportunities offered by the Defendant. Yet, the Website
contains access barriers that make it difficult, if not impossible,
for blind customers to use the Website, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is blind and has been a resident of Kings County, New
York.

Defendant is a foreign for profit corporation under the laws of
State of Illinois with a principal office and mailing address at
555 W Adams, Chicago, IL 60661.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UBS: Aug. 19 Canadian FX Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Sotos LLP, Koskie Minsky
LLP, Siskinds LLP, Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman LLP and Siskinds
Desmeules, s.e.n.c.r.l. ("Class Counsel") regarding the Canadian FX
Price-Fixing Class Action.

You may be able to receive money from class action settlements

WHAT IS A CLASS ACTION?

A class action is a lawsuit filed by one person on behalf of a
large group of people with the same concerns.

WHAT IS THIS CLASS ACTION ABOUT?

This action arises from an alleged conspiracy among the defendants
to fix, raise, maintain, stabilize, control, or enhance
unreasonably the prices of currency purchased in the foreign
exchange or foreign currency market (the "FX Market").

It is alleged that beginning at least as early as 2003 and
continuing through 2013, the defendants conspired with each other
to fix, raise, maintain, stabilize, control, or enhance
unreasonably prices in the FX Market.

Settlements totalling CDN$106.7 million have been reached with UBS,
BNP Paribas, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase,
Citigroup, Barclays, HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland, Standard
Chartered, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, and Societe Generale. The
settlements have received court approval in Ontario and in Quebec.

The settlements are a compromise of disputed claims and are not
admissions of liability.

AM I ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE MONEY

You may be eligible to receive money if you are a person in Canada
who, between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2013, entered into an
FX Instrument either directly or indirectly through an
intermediary, and/or purchased or otherwise participated in an
investment or equity fund, mutual fund, hedge fund, pension fund or
any other investment vehicle that entered into an FX Instrument
("Class Members").

Certain people connected to the Defendants are excluded from
eligibility.

HOW MUCH MONEY WILL I RECEIVE?

The settlement funds (plus any costs awards and accrued interest
and less approved fees and expenses) are available for distribution
to eligible claimants.

Payments will be distributed according to a Distribution Protocol
approved by the Courts.

The value of your claim for the purpose of determining your share
of the settlement funds will be calculated with reference to the
quantum and circumstance of your investment or transaction in the
FX market. The Distribution Protocol contemplates two streams of
Claimants: (a) Direct Claimants, who entered into FX Instruments
directly with financial institutions, or entered into an FX Trade
with an FX Dealer; and (b) Indirect Claimants, who entered into an
FX Instrument indirectly through an intermediary. A Class Member's
compensation will be adjusted with reference to the type of
financial instrument transacted, and the time period of their
transaction.

WHAT PROOF DO I NEED?

Direct Claimants must submit their transaction records to the
Claims Administrator.

Indirect Claimants must submit documents demonstrating their
holdings of Investment Vehicles available in Canada that entered
into FX Instruments. The Claims Administrator will establish a list
of Investment Vehicles eligible to participate in the Claims
Process.

Visit www.canadianfxnationalclassaction.ca for more information.

HOW DO I APPLY TO RECEIVE A PAYMENT?

Applications can be submitted online at
www.canadianfxnationalclassaction.ca. If you do not have internet
access, call the Claims Administrator at (800) 375-9070.

WHAT IS THE DEADLINE FOR APPLYING TO RECEIVE PAYMENTS?

Claims must be made no later than August 19, 2019.

WHEN WILL I RECEIVE MY MONEY?

Accurate processing takes time. Please check
www.canadianfxnationalclassaction.ca for regular updates.

WHO AM I REPRESENTED BY?

You are represented by: Siskinds LLP (London, ON), Sotos LLP
(Toronto, ON), Koskie Minsky LLP (Toronto, ON), Camp Fiorante
Matthews Mogerman LLP (Vancouver, BC) and Siskinds, Desmeules
s.e.n.c.r.l. (Quebec City, QC).

Questions? Visit www.canadianfxnationalclassaction.ca, email
info@canadianfxnationalclassaction.ca, or call (800) 375-907. [GN]


UNION BANK: Merger Gets Regulatory Approval After Suit Withdrawn
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Schwartz, writing for Richmond BizSense, reports that
Richmond's biggest bank cleared a hurdle on its path toward
acquiring a Northern Virginia peer.

Union Bank & Trust has received approval from state and federal
regulators for its pending deal to acquire Access National
Bancorp.

The all-stock deal, valued at $610 million, would bring the Access
National Bank and Middleburg Bank franchises and their $3 billion
in assets into the Union fold. The combined companies would have
$16 billion in total assets and more than 150 locations across the
state.

The deal also gives Union, which will remain headquartered downtown
in the James Center, its first significant piece of the Northern
Virginia market and further solidify its position as the largest
regional bank based in the state.

The Access deal is Union's third acquisition in five years. The
first was when it grabbed Christiansburg-based StellarOne Bank,
giving it a greater presence in the western part of the state and
putting it at about $7 billion in assets.

Then last year, Union completed its acquisition of Xenith Bank, a
Richmond peer that gave Union its desired foothold in Hampton Roads
and the beginnings of a presence in Northern Virginia.

The Access deal still needs a vote of approval from both banks'
shareholders, which is expected to take place Jan. 15.

The deal has been met with scrutiny from at least two Access
National shareholders, who filed class-action lawsuits in December
in federal court seeking, among other things, to block the deal.

But the plaintiffs promptly voluntarily withdrew the lawsuits.
Their allegations follow a trend in the M&A world by which
shareholders and packs of class-action law firms target mergers and
acquisitions, and file similarly worded lawsuits shortly after the
deals are announced.

Such cases often end with little consequence, either being
dismissed or settled after the parties agree to tweak certain
disclosures in SEC filings. Executives of companies see them as
little more than the white-collar equivalent of ambulance chasers.

One of the two suits against the Access-Union deal was filed by
plaintiff Paul Parshall, who filed a similar suit in the wake of
the announcement of the Union-Xenith deal in 2017. Mr. Parshall is
listed in federal court records as the plaintiff on dozens of
similar cases. [GN]


VALE SA: Epstein Files Securities Class Action Over Share Drop
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Epstein, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Vale S.A., Fabio Schvartsman and Luciano
Siani Pires, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00793 (E.D. N.Y.,
February 8, 2019) is a securities class action on behalf of all
persons who purchased Vale common stock between April 13, 2018 and
January 28, 2019, inclusive, seeking remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

On April 13, 2018, Vale filed a Form 20-F with the SEC, which
provided its financial results and position for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017. The 2017 20-F was signed by the Defendants
Schvartsman and Pires.

The complaint asserts that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Vale had failed to
adequately assess the risk and damage potential of a dam breach at
its Feijao iron ore mine especially in light of its experience in
2015; (2) Vale's programs to mitigate health and safety incidents
were inadequate; (3) Defendants filed to disclose that its auditor,
as required under Brazilian mining law, was not independent; (4)
Defendants failed to disclose that an internal report commissioned
by Vale last year to look into the stability of the tailings dam
raised concerns over its drainage and monitoring systems; and (5)
Defendants failed to disclose the existence of information that the
dam was at risk of "liquefaction," the same issue that led to the
2015 collapse of the Samarco dam, says the complaint.

Vale's shares plunged during intraday trading on January 28, 2019,
trading at around $11.28.

Plaintiff purchased Vale common stock during the Class Period and
was economically damaged thereby.

Defendant Vale together with its subsidiaries, produces and sells
iron ore and iron ore pellets for use as raw materials in
steelmaking in Brazil and internationally. It operates through
Ferrous Minerals, Coal, and Base Metals segments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
     Gregory Mark Nespole, Esq.
     HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
     112 Madison Ave, 10th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 213-8311
     Facsimile: (212) 779-0028
     Email: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com
            gnespole@hrsclaw.com

          - and -

     Marc S. Henzel, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL
     230 Old Lancaster Road, Suite B
     Merion Station, PA 19066
     Phone: (610) 660-8000
     Facsimile: (610) 660-8080
     Email: mhenzel@henzellaw.com


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Jasken Claims Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Adam Jasken, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00219 (S.D. Tex., January 18, 2019),
seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Waste Management provides waste disposal services in the state of
Minnesota where Jasken worked as a driver, driving waste disposal
trucks, hauling waste, recycling and other refuse to various
landfill or disposal sites throughout Colorado. Waste Management
automatically deducts 30 minutes a day for a meal-period break from
the "on-the-clock" hours, regardless of whether the driver actually
took a break or not. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
      Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
      Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
      Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq,
      George Schimmel, Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
             lauren@a2xlaw.com
             carter@a2xlaw.com
             austin@a2xlaw.com
             geordie@a2xlaw.com


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Ruemmele Seeks Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------
Erwin Ruemmele, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00220 (S.D. Tex., January 18, 2019),
seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Waste Management provides waste disposal services in the state of
Florida where Ruemmele worked as a driver, driving waste disposal
trucks, hauling waste, recycling and other refuse to various
landfill or disposal sites throughout Texas. Waste Management
automatically deducts 30 minutes a day for a meal-period break from
the "on-the-clock" hours, regardless of whether the driver actually
took a break or not, says the complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
      Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
      Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
      Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq,
      George Schimmel, Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
             lauren@a2xlaw.com
             carter@a2xlaw.com
             austin@a2xlaw.com
             geordie@a2xlaw.com


WAWA INC: Employees to Proceed with Suit Over Stock Sell-Off
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that employees of
Wawa Inc. are moving forward with another lawsuit challenging the
forced sale of their company stock under federal benefits law.

Judge Paul S. Diamond of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania declined to dismiss most of the proposed
class action, which targeted amendments to the convenience store
chain's retirement plan that forced former employees to trade in
their Wawa stock for other investments. [GN]


WETSCH ABBOTT OSBORN: Johnson Disputes Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------
Joy Johnson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Wetsch Abbott Osborn Van Vliet PLC, Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-00006, (S.D. Iowa, January 18, 2019), seeks statutory and
actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses
incurred in this action, including expert fees, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest and other and further relief under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

On or about November 9, 2017, Defendant sent a written
communication to Johnson in connection with the collection of an
alleged debt. Said letter contradicted and overshadowed the
prescribed validation notice that demanded payment by December 14,
2018, exactly 30 days after the date of the letter, yet still
within the mandatory validation window. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric S. Mail, Esq.
      PURYEAR LAW, P.C.
      3719 Bridge Ave. #6
      Davenport, IA 52807
      Tel: (563) 265-8344
      Fax: (866) 415-5032
      Email: mail@puryearlaw.com

             - and -

      Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Tel: (561) 826-5477
      Fax: (561) 961-5684
      Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
             jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com


WEYERHAEUSER CO: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Order in Esanbock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Weyerhaeuser Company filed an appeal from a District
Court order entered on January 2, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled
Dennis Esanbock, et al. v. Weyerhaeuser Company, Case No.
0:17-cv-03702-SRN, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.

The appellate case is captioned as Dennis Esanbock, et al. v.
Weyerhaeuser Company, Case No. 19-1249, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 22, 2019, Judge
Susan Richard Nelson denied Weyerhaeuser's Motion to Compel
Arbitration and Dismiss or Stay the Claims of Plaintiff Kevin
Swehla.

The matter is before the Court on the Objections of Defendant
Weyerhaeuser to Magistrate Judge David Schultz's July 30, 2018
Report and Recommendation ("R&R").  In the R&R, the Magistrate
Judge recommended that Weyerhaeuser's Motion to Compel be denied.
Plaintiff Swehla has filed a response to the Objections.

In August 2017, Plaintiffs filed the products liability putative
class action against Defendant Weyerhaeuser.  The Plaintiffs are
homeowners whose homes or properties contain construction joists
manufactured by the Defendant.  They allege that the joists are
defectively designed and manufactured, specifically with respect to
a coating on the joists that contains a formaldehyde-based resin.

The Plaintiffs contend that the resin "off-gasses" formaldehyde in
amounts exceeding acceptable levels, making their homes
uninhabitable.  They assert legal claims of breach of express and
implied warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
strict liability, negligence, and violations of Minnesota's
Unlawful Trade Practices Act and Consumer Fraud Act.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript is due on or before March 18, 2019;

   -- Appendix is due on March 28, 2019;

   -- Brief of Appellant Weyerhaeuser Company is due on March 28,
      2019;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the Court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant;

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 21 days from the date the
      Court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Dennis Esanbock, Barbara Esanbock, Christopher
Spinks and Kevin Swehla, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Shanon Jude Carson, Esq.
          Jacob Polakoff, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  jpolakoff@bm.net

               - and -

          Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: ldeutsch@bm.net

               - and -

          Eleanor Michelle Drake, Esq.
          Joseph Hashmall, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          43 S. E. Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612) 594-5933
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
                  jhashmall@bm.net

Defendant-Appellant Weyerhaeuser Company is represented by:

          Mary Rose Alexander, Esq.
          Robert C. Collins, III, Esq.
          Mark S. Mester, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 876-7700
          E-mail: mary.rose.alexander@lw.com
                  robert.collins@lw.com
                  mark.mester@lw.com

               - and -

          Jerry Blackwell, Esq.
          S. Jamal Faleel, Esq.
          Benjamin Winters Hulse, Esq.
          BLACKWELL BURKE PA
          431 S. Seventh Street, Suite 2500
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 343-3232
          E-mail: bhulse@blackwellburke.com
                  jfaleel@blackwellburke.com
                  blackwell@blackwellburke.com


WISCONSIN: Juvenile Prisons Still Need Significant Improvements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Bauer, writing for Associated Press, reports that Wisconsin's
juvenile prisons continue to use pepper spray on young inmates and
keep them in solitary confinement for longer than seven days at a
time in defiance of a federal court order, according to a report
released on Jan. 14.

While "significant improvements" have been made in how the Lincoln
Hills and Copper Lake prisons operate, "there is still more work to
do" to be in compliance with a federal court order, an independent
monitor, Teresa Abreu, contends in the report.

The report was filed in federal court in a case brought by the
American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin and the Juvenile Law
Center against the state over conditions at the prisons.

The groups represented inmates who alleged in 2016 that conditions
were so bad at the prisons they violated their constitutional
rights to live free from cruel and unusual punishment.

The groups signed a deal last year to end the class-action lawsuit.
The state agreed to submit to ongoing monitoring at the prisons as
part of the agreement and all parties agreed to have the monitoring
be done by Ms. Abreu, an attorney and prison consultant who
previously helped run a juvenile detention center in Cook County,
Illinois.

Gov. Tony Evers' spokeswoman, Melissa Baldauff, said the report
"confirms the governor's belief that much more must be done to
improve safety and wellness for the students and staff at Lincoln
Hills." She said Evers looks forward to working with Department of
Corrections staff, community advocates, legislators, and local
leaders on "bipartisan, common sense solutions."

Karen Lindell, senior attorney at the Juvenile Law Center, said in
a statement reacting to the report that while there are "some
limited improvements, many alarming and harmful conditions
remain."

The report makes clear that the state needs to proceed "quickly"
with its plans to remove all inmates from the prisons, said Karyn
Rotker, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Wisconsin.

The court order barred any punitive room confinement to no more
than seven days at a time. Ms. Abreu found that although the
majority of inmates are not confined for longer stretches, not all
of the documentation is reliable.

The court order also required a reduction in the use of pepper
spray on inmates, but Abreu found that inmates were being sprayed
when lesser means could have been used. She recommended directing
that spray only be used in life-threatening situations.

Ms. Abreu did note that no inmates in their living units were
observed in mechanical restraints, which she called a "vast
improvement" from what was observed during a visit nine months
earlier.

She said the state hasn't complied by making rooms "suicide
resistant." She also recommended a number of improvements and said
inmate safety welfare checks should be increased to a minimum of
every 15 minutes. Last year, taxpayers paid nearly $19 million to
settle a case brought by an inmate who suffered brain damage after
she tried to hang herself and wasn't checked on for 42 minutes.

Ms. Abreu cited a number of ongoing problems, including a lack of
meaningful programming for the inmates, staffing shortages that
were "serious, chronic, and dangerous," and concerns from staff
that they weren't adequately trained or prepared to use
alternatives to pepper spray, confinement and restraints as the
court order requires.

A federal investigation into Wisconsin's juvenile prisons began
more than three years ago although no charges have been announced.
There have been a number of lawsuits filed by inmates alleging
abuse by prison guards. Last year, the state agreed to pay $18.9
million under a settlement with one former juvenile inmate who
suffered brain damage after she tried to hang herself in her cell.

The prisons, which are just north of Irma, are slated to close by
2021 under a restructuring of the system approved last year by the
Legislature and then-Gov. Scott Walker. Evers, who defeated Walker,
toured the prisons on Jan. 11, fulfilling a campaign promise to go
there during his first week in office. [GN]


WYNDHAM VACATION: Maree Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maiva Maree, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc.; and Doe
Individuals, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00386 (D. Colo., February 12, 2019) is an action against
the Defendant seeking to stop the Defendant's practice of making
unsolicited telemarketing calls to the telephones of consumers
nationwide and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their
conduct.

The Defendant conducted wide scale telemarketing campaigns and
repeatedly made unsolicited calls to consumers' telephones whose
numbers appear on the National Do Not Call Registry, without
consent, all in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), says the complaint.

Plaintiff Maiva Maree is a natural person and citizen of Colorado.

Defendant is a company involved in vacation resorts and
debt/recovery/collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (866) 598-5042
     Facsimile: (866) 633-0028
     Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

          - and -

     John P. Kristensen, Esq.
     KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
     12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
     Los Angeles, CA 90066
     Phone: (310) 507-7924
     Fax: (310) 507-7906
     Email: john@kristensenlaw.com

          - and -

     Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
     HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
     2700 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1120
     Houston, TX 77056
     Phone: (713) 554-2377
     Fax: (888) 995-3335
     Email: jarrett@hughesellzey.com


YALE UNIVERSITY: McNeil Suit Asserts Discrimination and Harassment
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anna McNeil, Eliana Singer, and Ry Walker, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Yale University;
Yale Chapter of Alpha Delta Phi International, Inc.; Alpha Epsilon
Pi, Epsilon Upsilon; Alpha Kappa Delta of Chi Psi; Delta Kappa
Epsilon, Phi Chapter; Leo; Sigma Chi, Theta Upsilon Chapter; Sigma
Nu Fraternity Beta Alpha Chapter; Sigma Phi Epsilon, Connecticut
Delta Chapter; Zeta Psi, Eta Chapter; Alpha Delta Phi
International, Inc.; Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity, Inc.; Chi Psi
Fraternity; Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity; Sigma Alpha Epsilon
Fraternity; Sigma Chi International Fraternity; Sigma Nu
Fraternity, Inc.; Sigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity; Zeta Psi
Fraternity, Inc.; Sig Ep Housing of Connecticut Delta, LLC; Wallace
H. Campbell & Company, Inc.; 402 Crown LLC; 340 Elm, LLC; Mother
Phi Foundation, Inc.; Connecticut Omega of Sigma Alpha Epsilon
House Corporation; House Corporation of Sigma Chi at Yale I; High
Street Housing Corporation; ZP Nutmeg Associates Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00209 (D. Conn., February 12, 2019) asserts claims
against the Fraternities for violation of the Fair Housing Act,
against Yale and the Fraternities for violating Connecticut's law
against discrimination in places of public accommodation, and
against Yale for breach of contract, violation of the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices Act, and violation of Title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972.

Yale promised Plaintiffs an educational environment free of
"discrimination against any individual on account of that
individual's sex". Yale also claimed that "sexual misconduct" was
"antithetical to the standards and ideals of our community". Yet,
as Plaintiffs have come to learn, Yale fails to honor these
principles. When Plaintiffs arrived on campus as first-year
students, they encountered a thriving all-male fraternity scene.
Yale had a drastic shortage of University run social spaces, and
the fraternities were the de facto social environment for many
students.

Plaintiffs were all groped at fraternity parties during their first
semesters at Yale. They know of other female and non-binary
students who have suffered sexual harassment and assault committed
during fraternity parties, after fraternity parties, and by
fraternity members, notes the complaint.

Plaintiffs have repeatedly petitioned Yale to intervene on their
behalf and end the discriminatory admission practices of Defendant
Fraternities. They have also sought Yale's assistance in ending the
hostile environment that exists at the Fraternities and at Yale.
They have specifically pointed out that gender-segregated Greek
life violates Yale's anti-discrimination policies. The University,
however, has refused to take meaningful steps to alter the
Fraternities' admission practices or address the hostile
environment, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are undergraduate students at Defendant Yale
University.

Yale University is a specially-chartered and tax-exempt
not-for-profit Connecticut Corporation. Yale is located in New
Haven, Connecticut.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Daniel H. Schneider, Esq.
     Schneider Law Firm, LLC
     112 Broad Street North, First Floor
     Milford, CT 06460
     Phone: (203) 874-0030
     Facsimile: (203) 878-01117
     Email: Daniel@Schneider-Law-Firm.com

          - and -

     David Sanford, Esq.
     David Tracey, Esq.
     Albert Powell, Esq.
     Scott Sullivan, Esq.
     SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
     1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (646) 402-5650
     Facsimile: (646) 402-5651
     Email: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com
            dtracey@sanfordheisler.com
            apowell@sanfordheisler.com


YUBA COUNTY, CA: Amended Consent Decree in Hedrick Suit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DERRIL HEDRICK, DALE ROBINSON, KATHY LINDSEY, MARTIN
C. CANADA, DARRY TYRONE PARKER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JAMES GRANT, as Sheriff
of Yuba County; Lieutenant FRED J. ASBY, as Yuba County Jailer;
JAMES PHARRIS, ROY LANDERMAN, DOUG WALTZ, HAROLD J. "SAM" SPERBEK,
JAMES MARTIN, as members of the YUBA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
Defendants, Case No. 2:76-CV-00162-EFB (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Edmund F. Brennan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California, Sacramento Division, granted the Parties'
stipulated Amended Consent Decree.

On March 24, 1976, the Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on their own
behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated alleging
that the conditions of confinement within the Yuba County Jail
violated rights secured by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth,
and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States
and the laws and Constitution of the State of California.  On April
14, 1976, Defendants the Sheriff of Yuba County, the Yuba County
Jailer, and members of the Yuba County Board of Supervisors served
their Answer denying material allegations of the Complaint.

In May 1979, the Court entered the Consent Decree covering certain
aspects of the Jail's operations, including medical and mental
health care, staffing, grievances, and exercise and recreation, and
providing for monitoring Jail conditions.  The Parties are
currently bound by this Consent Decree.  In July 1976, the Court
certified a class consisting of all persons incarcerated within the
Yuba County Jail.  

The Parties now wish to amend the current Consent Decree.  On May
5, 2017, June 29, 2017, Aug. 18, 2017, Nov. 8, 2017, Jan. 5, 2018,
and March 2, 2018 the parties participated in a settlement
conference and agreed to enter into the Amended Consent Decree.  In
agreeing to the issuance of the Amended Consent Decree, the
Defendants make no admission of the allegations of the Complaint
and deny that the conditions of confinement within the Yuba County
Jail are in any way illegal.  Nothing in the Amended Consent Decree
can be used to argue or attempt to establish that the Jail is
operated in violation of applicable standards, regulations or the
law. Defendants enter into this Amended Consent Decree in order to
avoid the burdens of litigation and in order to re-affirm their
commitment to full compliance with the law.

The parties have mutually agreed to entry of the Amended Consent
Decree.  It is the intent of the parties that the Amended Consent
Decree be binding among them immediately upon signature by the
attorneys for all parties.  Implementation of the Amended Consent
Decree will begin immediately and will be completed no later than
nine months from the date the Agreement is finally approved by the
Court, except as otherwise specified herein. This Agreement is
intended to terminate as set forth in section XX.

The Parties have met and conferred extensively to review and
discuss claims relating to the conditions of confinement at the
Yuba County Jail and access to its programs, services and
activities under the Americans with Disabilities Act and changes to
the existing Consent Decree.  The process has included six days of
face-to-face meetings overseen by Judge Kendall Newman.

Based on a review of the entire record, including the matters set
forth in the Stipulated Amended Consent Decree, and considering the
procedural and factual circumstances of the case, Magistrate Judge
Brennan finds good cause to accept and adopt the statements, terms,
and conditions set forth in the Parties' stipulated Amended Consent
Decree.  Under the circumstances presented in the matter, he finds
such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to
correct the violation of the Federal rights, and is the least
intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal
rights.

The case will remain open and the Court will retain jurisdiction to
enforce the terms of the Amended Consent Decree for the terms and
under the conditions set forth in section XX -- Termination of the
Amended Consent Decree.  Once the matter is terminated under that
provision, the case will be ordered dismissed, with prejudice.

The Order will apply to the Defendants, their agents, employees,
and successors in office.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 30, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/d6bnbV from Leagle.com.

David Hedrick, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn
-- bbien-kahn@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Carter
Capps White, King Hall Civil Rights Clinic UC Davis School of Law,
Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld -- ggrunfeld@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan
and Grunfeld LLP, Michael Bien -- mbien@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien
Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Devin W. Mauney -- dmauney@rbgg.com -- Rosen
Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Fred H. Altshuler, Altshuler Berzon
LLP, Ilene Janet Jacobs, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. &
Michael Louis Freedman -- mfreedman@rbgg.com --  Rosen Bien Galvan
& Grunfeld, LLPO.

Dale Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Joseph Bien-Kahn,
Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Carter Capps White, King Hall
Civil Rights Clinic UC Davis School of Law, Fred H. Altshuler,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Rosen Bien Galvan
and Grunfeld LLP, Michael Bien, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP,
Devin W. Mauney, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP & Michael Louis
Freedman, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, LLPO.

James Grant & Yuba County, Defendants, represented by Carl L.
Fessenden -- cfessenden@porterscott.com -- Porter Scott, PC, John
Riley Vacek -- jvacek@co.yuba.ca.us -- County of Yuba County
Counsel & John Robert Whitefleet -- jwhitefleet@porterscott.com --
Porter Scott, APC.

Estate of Bertram Hiscock, Unknown, represented by Lori Rifkin --
lrifkin@hadsellstormer.com -- Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP.


[*] Group Calls for Removal of Mandatory Arbitration Clauses
------------------------------------------------------------
Nitasha Tikunitasha Tiku, writing for Wired.com, reports that tech
workers may be new to labor organizing, but they're learning
quickly. When a November walkout by 20,000 Google employees
protesting the company's mishandling of sexual harassment claims
led to small changes that fell short of the organizers' demands,
some activists inside Google decided to broaden the fight.

On Jan. 15, the group, called Googlers for Ending Forced
Arbitration, will launch a public awareness campaign about
mandatory arbitration agreements, arguing that employers use them
to suppress workers facing harassment and discrimination. "Ending
forced arbitration is the gateway change needed to transparently
address inequity in the workplace," the group wrote in a blog post
on Medium.

From 9am to 6pm eastern time on Jan. 15, the group will post
information about arbitration on a dedicated Twitter account, while
a companion Instagram account will post testimonials from both
experts and survivors of sexual harassment and assault. The purpose
of the social media blitz is to bring awareness to the fine print
in arbitration clauses, mobilize workers to call on Congress to
act, and encourage employees at other companies to demand changes.

"This isn't just a Google issue. If they all have these arbitration
agreements, then there is really is no way for employees to
negotiate," says Vicki Tardif, a staff linguist on Google's search
team, who organized and spoke at the Google walkout in Cambridge,
Massachusetts. Mandatory arbitration agreements, often signed as
part of an employment contract, have come under fire during the
#MeToo movement for silencing survivors, while shielding serial
predators, because the agreements force employees to take their
claims to a private arbiter, rather than public court.

The social media campaign represents a real leap for tech's nascent
labor movement because it involves employees of several companies.
Thus far, most of the action has come from within Google. But in
December, the anti-arbitration group started soliciting copies of
employment contracts from colleagues at Facebook, Uber, and other
tech companies, as well as third-party contractors, in order to
understand how tech employers convince both workers and contractors
to sign arbitration agreements that inhibit their right to bring
sexual harassment or discrimination claims in front of a jury.

Tanuja Gupta, a Google employee and one of the organizers behind
the Google Walkout, says the group evaluated the contracts they
received against three criteria: that arbitration be optional; that
employees be allowed to bring class actions; and that employees be
allowed to speak out about their claim. "When we went through what
people sent us, no [company] was able to meet those three
criteria," she says.

Some female engineers who faced sexual harassment at Uber were
prohibited from seeking their day in court because of mandatory
arbitration agreements, which also lowered monetary settlements for
their claims.

After the November 1 walkout, CEO Sundar Pichai said Google would
no longer require arbitration, but only in cases of sexual
harassment, not discrimination, and only for individual claims, not
class-action lawsuits. Lawyers representing women who sued Google,
Uber, and Twitter called the change superficial, since harassment
and discrimination are often inextricably tied and because it
precluded class action, which has shown to be a catalyst for
industrywide change on other labor issues.

In a blog post announcing the social media blitz, the employee
group wrote, "The change yielded a win in the headlines, but
provided no meaningful gains for worker equity, nor an actual
change in employee contracts or future offer letters. (As of this
publication, we have confirmed Google is still sending out offer
letters with the old arbitration policy.)"

Google is facing two shareholder lawsuits that also demand more
transparency around its sexual harassment policies. The company
declined to comment. [GN]


[*] Panel in Europe Gives Views on Funding Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
Angela Bilbow, writing for Commercial Dispute Resolution, reports
that giving views on the funding of class actions, the use of
economists in getting claims certified and collective redress
reform in Europe, the penultimate panel of the day set forth the
key considerations when bringing claims

David Greene, senior partner at Edwin Coe and deputy vice president
of the Law Society of England and Wales chaired the panel which
included Ronnie Barnes, principal at Cornerstone Research, Hausfeld
partner Lucy Pert and Tim Mayer, senior investment officer at
Therium Capital.

For his part, Mr. Greene said he had been working on class actions
since the late 1980s, and, having spent time there as co-counsel on
a case, he had learned a lot about the class action process in the
United States.

"They really were somewhat of a cottage industry until the events
of the global financial crisis created a lot of financial claims,
some of which are still being litigated, and that really led to the
growth of class actions," he stated.

Firms would often fund such actions themselves, he added, through
conditional fee agreements with uplift and also securing ATE
insurance on a contingent basis. "Sir Rupert Jackson really ended
that, although there is still a little bit of a hangover on some of
those cases and that has really brought to the forefront
third-party funding in class actions," Mr. Greene said.

Why do funders like class actions? "Relatively straightforwardly,
they involve lots of passive claimants, that may individually not
have huge claims but when you sit them together the claim value
goes up commensurately," Mr. Mayer said.

"What that gives rise to, from a funder's point of view, is the
ability to be creative with your pricing," he added, such as with
percentages that apply that are inclusive of ATE or any upside the
lawyers may have.

There are also pitfalls and challenges, such as law firms
approaching funders with an idea for a group action, but after a
little testing, it becomes evident that it is just an idea and no
more than that, so "a lot more work needs to be done to annunciate
the cause of action, let alone the principal approach that they
would adopt going forward", he stated.

The ability to build a book is key, as is the firm being able to
demonstrate it can master the mechanics, such as being able to
obtain a collective proceedings order in the Competition Appeal
Tribunal (CAT) and knowing how to approach funding and ATE
insurance.

Adverse costs are also a large consideration, and the CAT is
looking at this more closely than perhaps the High Court has to
date, Mr. Mayer said.

However, the single most important thing to a funder is the budget.
"How much is this beast going to cost? There are billions of
dollars of capital in the funding market, but one doesn't invest
with a blank cheque, one needs a budget for obvious reasons," he
stated.

In terms of problems, Mr. Mayer outlined that jurisprudence in the
UK is a little underdeveloped; the court expects claimants to come
with their house in order, rather than grabbing things by the
scruff of the neck.

Providing an economist's view, Barnes quipped that a downside for
lawyers working on class and group actions "is the fact that they
have to spend a lot of time with economists". A statement that
courted laughter from the audience.

In shareholder actions, economists get involved at a very early
stage to determine whether or not a class should be certified.

"One of the key issues in terms of whether or not an action can be
brought is whether or not reliance can be proved. If you think
about a typical shareholder action, maybe there are hundreds or
thousands of potential investors, how do you provide reliance on a
particular misrepresentation or omission?" Barnes said.

This is where the concept of market efficiency comes in. Where
there is an alleged fraud in the market, if you can show that a
market is 'informationally efficient', where prices react rapidly
to new information, a claimant can essentially prove reliance by
saying 'this information was already in the price', he explained.

In certain cases, market efficiency is not a given, Barnes warned,
saying that sometimes trading is not active enough for prices to
react quickly, therefore a class may not be certified. "That is
even before we get into questions about materiality, loss causation
and the assessment of damages."

On the competition side, economists have played a role for many
years. "It is fair to say that the level of rigour that is being
applied at the class certification stage has increased
substantially over the past few years," Barnes noted, and this is
before damages are considered.

Stripping it down to bare essentials, the key issue is the question
of common impact; is there common evidence to establish that all of
the proposed class members paid an elevated price?

Courts in the US have raised the hurdle significantly in terms of
the sophistication of the analysis required at the class
certification stage. "It was hopefully taken as tongue and cheek
earlier about it being a downside in having to deal with
economists, but I think the reality is that these types of issues
can really only be dealt with from an economist's perspective."

Having recently joined Hausfeld from Harbour Litigation Funding,
Pert said she would use her time speaking to make a plea to the
legal community "to be supportive of a more robust framework for
collective redress in the UK", particularly as the European
Commission is consulting on a new directive that would see EU
member states develop their collective redress schemes on a
national level.

A recent report had found there is currently a very low level of
national enforcement action and a lack of awareness among consumers
for collective redress.

"In my view, we should really be supportive of the UK trying to
adopt and reform some of the collective redress measures we already
have," because it is the right thing to do in terms of fairness and
justice, as well as empowering consumers to challenge
anti-competitive behaviour in business and modify the behaviour of
wrongdoers.

It is an interconnected world where claimants can bring actions
where they choose to some extent, "other jurisdictions are really
trying hard to develop their collective redress schemes and the UK
does not want to be left behind", Pert asserted, before giving a
detailed overview of active class action regimes, such as those in
the US and Australia, as well as those developing in the
Netherlands, Finland and France, for example. [GN]


[*] Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Key Trends in Workplace Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article
for Lexology, reports that "The first key trend from our 15th
Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report involves rulings by
the U.S. Supreme Court. Over the past few years, the Supreme Court
has issued a number of rulings that impacted the prosecution and
defense of class actions in significant ways. We provide readers
with an outline of the most important workplace rulings issued by
the Supreme Court in 2018, as well as which upcoming decisions
employers should watch for in 2019." Read the full breakdown
below!

Over the past decade, the U.S. Supreme Court -- led by Chief
Justice John Roberts -- increasingly has shaped the contours of
complex litigation exposures through its rulings on class action
and governmental enforcement litigation issues. Many of these
decisions have elucidated the requirements for pursuing
employment-related class actions under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

The 2011 decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and the 2013
decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend are the two most significant
examples. Those rulings are at the core of class certification
issues under Rule 23.

This year saw another signal ruling in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis,
which marks a gateway device to block prosecution of class actions
in the judicial system and forces adjudication of claims on an
individual, bi-lateral basis in arbitration.

To that end, federal and state courts cited Wal-Mart in 608 rulings
in 2018; they cited Comcast in 235 cases in 2018; and despite its
issuance in May of 2018, they cited Epic Systems in 119 decisions
by year's end.

The past year also saw a change in the composition of the Supreme
Court in April of 2018, with Justice Neil Gorsuch assuming the seat
of Antonin Scalia after his passing in 2016, and Justice Brett
Kavanaugh taking the seat of Anthony Kennedy in October 2018, after
Kennedy's retirement and a bruising Senate confirmation battle.

Given the age of some of the other sitting Justices, President
Trump may have the opportunity to fill additional seats on the
Supreme Court in 2019 and beyond, and thereby influence a shift in
the ideology of the Supreme Court toward a more conservative and
strict constructionist jurisprudence. In turn, this is apt to
change legal precedents that shape and define the playing field for
workplace class action litigation.

Rulings In 2018

In terms of decisions by the Supreme Court impacting workplace
class actions, this past year was no exception. In 2018, the
Supreme Court decided seven cases -- four employment-related cases
and three class action cases -- that will influence complex
employment-related litigation in the coming years.

The employment-related rulings included two wage & hour collective
actions and two union cases, and in class actions that involved
securities and human rights. A rough scorecard of the decisions
reflects one distinct plaintiff/worker-side victory, and
defense-oriented rulings in six cases.

Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018) – Decided on
May 21, 2018, this employment case involved the interpretation of
mandatory workplace arbitration agreements between employers and
employees and whether class action waivers within such agreements
-- which require workers to arbitrate any claims on an individual,
bi-lateral basis (and waive the ability to bring or participate in
a class action or collective action) -- violate employees' rights
under the National Labor Relations Act to engage in "concerted
activities" in pursuit. In a 5 to 4 ruling, the Supreme Court held
that class action waivers in arbitration agreements are valid. The
decision is likely to have far-reaching implications for litigation
of class actions and collective actions.

Cyan, Inc., et al. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, 138
S. Ct. 1061 (2018) – Decided on March 20, 2018, this class action
case posed the issue of whether federal law bars state courts from
hearing certain securities class actions. The case turned on
interpretation of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 ("SLUSA") -- which imposes tougher standards on securities
class actions brought in federal courts -- and whether it mandated
that state courts can no longer hear class actions based on the
Securities Act of 1933. In a 9 to 0 decision, the Supreme Court
held that SLUSA did not strip state courts of jurisdiction over
class actions alleging violations of securities laws and that
defendants cannot remove such lawsuits from federal court to state
court. In this regard, it did not spell the end of what many have
viewed as a "cottage industry" of state court-based class action
filings in states such as California where class action lawyers
target public companies with securities claims over drops in stock
process.

Encino Motors, LLC v. Navarro, et al., 138 S. Ct. 1134 (2018) –
Decided on April 2, 2018, in this wage & hour case the Supreme
Court examined whether service advisors at car dealerships are
exempt under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 213(b)(10)(A) from the overtime pay
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Supreme
Court held 5 to 4 that service advisors are exempt under the FLSA.
The ruling is apt to have far-reaching implications on the legal
tests for interpretation of statutory exemptions under the FLSA, as
the broader reading of the exemption potentially could reduce the
number of workers allowed to assert wage & hour claims against
their employers.

CNH Industrial N.V. v. Reese, et al., 138 S. Ct. 761 (2018) –
Decided on February 20, 2018, in this employment case the Supreme
Court held in a per curium opinion that collective bargaining
agreements are to be interpreted according to ordinary principles
of contract law, including the rule that a contract is not
ambiguous unless it is subject to more than one reasonable
interpretation. The case involved a collective bargaining
agreement, which provided health care benefits under a group
benefit plan to certain employees who retired under the pension
plan. The agreement expired by its terms in May 2004. At that time,
a class of CNH retirees and surviving spouses filed a lawsuit
seeking a declaration that their health care benefits vested for
life. In reversing lower court rulings that determined that the
collective bargaining agreement was ambiguous and they therefore
could rely on extrinsic evidence in interpreting the contract to
favor the claims of the union members, the Supreme Court held that
the "only reasonable interpretation of the 1998 agreement was that
the health care benefits expired when the collective bargaining
agreement expired in 2004.

Janus, et al. v. AFSCME, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018) – Decided on June
27, 2018, in this employment case the Supreme Court considered
whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977),
should be overruled and public-sector "agency shop" arrangements
invalidated under the First Amendment so as to prevent
public-sector unions from collecting mandatory fees from
non-members. In ruling 5 to 4, the Supreme Court held that the
application of a mandatory public sector union fee requirement is a
violation of the First Amendment, thereby overruling Abood. This
ruling had an immediate impact on millions of workers in 22 states
that do not have right-to-work laws. Since many workers are apt to
cease paying union dues with the abolishment of the fair share fee
payments requirement, the decision will have a significant impact
on the ability of public-sector unions to conduct their business.

China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, et al., 138 S. Ct. 1800 (2018) –
Decided on June 11, 2018, in this class action case the Supreme
Court examined whether the tolling rule for class actions
established in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S.
538 (1974), tolled the statute of limitations to permit a
previously absent class member to bring a subsequent class action
outside the applicable limitations period. American Pipe had held
that the filing of a class action tolls the running of the statute
of limitations for all putative members of the class who make
timely motions to intervene after the lawsuit is deemed
inappropriate for class action status. The Supreme Court
interpreted American Pipe more narrowly, and held that it does not
permit the maintenance of a follow-on class action past the
expiration of the statute of limitations. In essence, the ruling
limits the tolling rule in American Pipe to apply only to
subsequent individual claims.

Jesner, et al. v. Arab Bank, PLC, 138 S. Ct. 1386 (2018) –
Decided on April 24, 2018, this class action posed the issue of
whether foreign-based corporations can be sued in U.S. courts for
alleged violations of the Alien Tort Statute. The Supreme Court
decided 5 to 4 that Plaintiffs may not do so. The end result will
be to bring a halt to class actions brought to hold foreign-based
corporations responsible in U.S. courts for alleged human rights
violations committed overseas.

The decisions in Epic Systems, Beaver County, Navarro, Reese,
Janus, China Agritech, and Jesner are sure to shape and influence
workplace class action litigation in a profound manner.

These cases will impact rules on American Pipe tolling and
application of statute of limitations in class actions; the ability
of foreign-based claimants to prosecute class actions based on
overseas labor and human rights abuses; the obligations of
corporations to fund lifetime retiree benefits under collective
bargaining agreements; the scope of exemptions in wage & hour
litigation; union fee litigation and membership rights; securities
fraud class action litigation in state courts; and defenses to
workplace class actions based on class waivers in mandatory
arbitration agreements.

In addition, Epic Systems may turn out to be one of the most
important workplace class action decisions over the last several
decades in terms of its ultimate impact on litigation dynamics.

Rulings Expected In 2019

Equally important for the coming year, the Supreme Court accepted
five additional cases for review in 2018 –- that will be decided
in 2019 -- that also will impact and shape class action litigation
and government enforcement lawsuits faced by employers.

Those cases include two employment lawsuits and three class action
cases.

The Supreme Court undertook oral arguments on four of these cases
in 2018; the other case underwent oral argument in early 2019.

Frank, et al. v. Gaos, No. 17-961 – Argued on October 31, 2018,
this case concerns whether and in what circumstances a cy pres
award in a class action -- that supplies no direct relief to class
members -- nonetheless comports with the Rule 23 requirement that a
settlement binding class members must be fair, reasonable, and
adequate. The ultimate ruling by the Supreme Court likely will
determine the legality of cy pres awards, and if approved, create
guidelines for the appropriateness of cy pres awards in class
action settlements.

Home Depot U.S.A. v. Jackson, et al., No. 17-1471 – Argued on
January 15, 2019, this case involves the Class Action Fairness Act
and the circumstances under which Defendants may remove a class
action to federal court where Defendants file a counter-claim. The
ultimate decision likely will determine if the Supreme Court's
earlier ruling in Shamrock Oil & Gas Co. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100
(1941) -- that a Plaintiff may not remove a counter-claim against
it –- extends to third-party Defendants bringing counter-claims.

Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, et al., No. 17-988 – Argued on
October 29, 2018, this case poses the issue of whether the Federal
Arbitration Act ("FAA") forecloses a broad interpretation of an
arbitration agreement that allows prosecution of a class
arbitration based solely on general language commonly used in
arbitration agreements. Given the ruling in Epic Systems in 2018,
the upcoming decision in this case will be of critical significance
to employers involved in arbitration of workplace disputes.

New Prime Inc. v. Oliveria, et al., No. 17-340 – Argued on
October 29, 2018, this case presents the issue of whether a court
or an arbitrator must determine the applicability of Sec. 1 of the
FAA -- which applies only to "contracts of employment" -- to
independent contractor agreements. The future decision in this case
will be important to employers seeking to use class action waivers
in workplace arbitration agreements used with independent
contractors.

Mount Lemon Fire District v. Guido, No. 17-587 – Argued on
October 1, 2018, this case raises the issue of whether the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") applies to state and
local governmental entities. A future decision will determine the
coverage of the ADEA relative to the public sector employees.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue decisions in these five
cases by the end of the 2018/2019 term in June of 2019.

Rulings in these cases will have significance for employers in
complying with employment discrimination laws, structuring
arbitration proceedings, and defending class action litigation.

Implications For Employers

Each decision outlined above may have significant implications for
employers and for the defense of high-stakes class action
litigation. [GN]


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ga. Ct. App. Says Insurers Must Indemnify Scapa
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. purchased annual liability insurance
policies from National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh,
PA and New Hampshire Insurance Company for coverage for claims of
injurious exposure to Scapa's asbestos-containing dryer felts.
Scapa sued both companies, seeking a declaratory judgment and
asserting breach of contract claims after disputes as to coverage
limits and inclusion of litigation costs in those limits. The
parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment, and the
trial court granted the motions in part and denied them in part.

In the consolidated appealed cases entitled as National Union Fire
Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA et al., v. Scapa Dryer Fabrics,
Inc.; Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc., v. National Union Fire Insurance
Company of Pittsburgh, PA et al., A18A1173, A18A1174, (Ga. Ct. App.
4d), the Court of Appeals of Georgia for the Fourth Division
affirms the Judgment in Case No. A18A1173, and reverses the
Judgment in Case No. A18A1174.

In Case No. A18A1173, the defendants appeal, arguing that the trial
court erred by ruling that: (1) the non-cumulation provisions in
certain National Union policies are ambiguous, and therefore, Scapa
can "stack" the limits of each primary policy; and (2) the New
Hampshire excess policy is obligated to defend and indemnify Scapa
upon exhaustion of all primary policies that overlapped in time
with the excess policy periods, as opposed to until after
exhaustion of every primary policy issued to Scapa for any time
period.

The defendants contend that the trial court erred by ruling in
favor of Scapa on its claim that the limits of the 1983-1987
National Union primary policies can be stacked because the
non-cumulation provision in the 1986 and 1987 policies upon which
National Union relies is ambiguous. The Court finds this contention
without merit.

The Court determines that Endorsement #10 in the 1986 and 1987
National Union policies provides, in relevant part: "If . . . for
any reason Scapa has been provided with more than one policy by
National Union covering the same loss/losses, the limit of
liability stated in the schedule of this endorsement is the total
limit of National Union's liability for all damages which are
payable under such policies. Any loss incurred under this policy
shall serve to reduce and shall therefore be deducted from the
total limit of National Union's liability."

National Union argued on summary judgment that this endorsement,
which appears only in the last two renewal policies, amends all
five policies and limits coverage to the $7.2 million policy limit
specified in the final policy period, rather than the total $17.4
million coverage provided by the policies. But the non-cumulation
provision does not indicate whether the limit applies to the policy
period only or to the aggregate period under the original and
renewed policies. And as the trial court properly concluded, the
Court must construe this ambiguity in favor of the insured. Thus,
the Court concludes that the trial court properly ruled in favor of
Scapa on this issue.

The defendants also argue that the trial court erred by concluding
that New Hampshire's obligations under its policies are triggered
by exhaustion of the National Union primary policies issued during
the same periods.

The Insuring Agreement of the 1983 policy required New Hampshire to
"indemnify Scapa for all sums which Scapa shall become legally
liable to pay as damages or compensation . . . caused by an
occurrence, on account of personal injury . . . or property
damage." Paragraph (c) of the "other insurance" clause of the 1983
New Hampshire policy requires Scapa to "maintain the underlying
policies which are in force at the commencement of this insurance,
and any reduction in the coverage provided by same should be
advised to New Hampshire as soon as practicable."

Scapa maintains that upon exhaustion of the National Union policies
for the same years, New Hampshire, as the excess carrier, is
obligated to "drop down" and defend Scapa. New Hampshire, however,
contends that pursuant to the "other insurance" clause, it has no
obligation to defend or indemnify Scapa until every other policy
issued to Scapa for any time period is exhausted.

The Court finds, however, that the policy language does not state
that Scapa must exhaust all other policies issued at any other time
before New Hampshire's duties to defend and indemnify are
triggered. Instead, taking into consideration the requirement in
paragraph (c) of the "other insurance" clause, New Hampshire is
obligated to defend and indemnify Scapa upon exhaustion of all
primary coverage that overlapped in time with the excess policy
periods. Thus, the Court determines that the trial court did not
err by ruling in favor of Scapa and against New Hampshire on this
issue.

In Case No. A18A1174, Scapa appeals, arguing that the trial court
erred by concluding that defense costs erode the policy limits of
the 1986 and 1987 National Union policies.

National Union argues that pursuant to Endorsement #4 in the 1986
and 1987 policies, defense costs erode the total liability limits
of those policies. Endorsement #4 states that the total liability
limit for Ultimate Net Loss resulting from any one occurrence is
$7.2 million. Ultimate Net Loss is defined in the 1986 policy as
the total sum which Scapa or National Union as its insurer, or
both, become obligated to pay due to any bodily injury . . .
including all expenses incurred by National Union, all costs taxed
against Scapa in any claim, suit, or other action defended by
National Union and all interest on the entire amount of any
judgment. . . Ultimate Net Loss is defined the same in the 1987
policy except that it states "become obligated to pay due to any
bodily injury and/or property damage including all expenses
incurred by National Union. . ."

National Union contends that the phrase "all expenses incurred by
National Union" includes defense costs. Even assuming this
contention is correct, the Court declares that this $7.2 million
limit is eroded only by the total sums that National Union "becomes
obligated to pay due to" any bodily injury or, in the case of the
1987 policy, due to any bodily injury or property damage. The
endorsement is, as the trial court concluded, ambiguous as to
whether such expenses include defense costs National Union is
obligated to pay solely as part of its contractual duty to defend
(as opposed to those sums it is legally obligated to pay by reason
of the liability imposed upon Scapa by law for damages).

Again, the Court sustains that any ambiguity must be construed in
favor of Scapa as the insured. Accordingly, the Court concludes the
trial court erred by concluding that the policy limits for the 1986
and 1987 National Union policies were eroded by defense costs.

A copy of the Decision, is available at http://tinyurl.com/y5bnlveo
from Leagle.com.

Robert B. Remar -- rremar@rh-law.com -- for Appellant.

Michael Leonard Eber -- meber@rh-law.com -- for Appellant.

Patrick T. Walsh , for Appellant.

Donald Paul Boyle, Jr. -- dboyle@taylorenglish.com -- for
Appellee.

Foy R. Devine -- fdevine@taylorenglish.com -- for Appellee.

Charles K. McKnight, Jr. -- cmcknight@taylorenglish.com -- for
Appellee.

Gregory George Schultz -- gschultz@taylorenglish.com -- for
Appellee.

J. D. Smith , for Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jenkins Bros. Appeal of Idell Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of New York, sua sponte, has dismissed the
appealed case styled as In The Matter Of New York City Asbestos
Litigation. Ann Marie Idell, etc., Respondent, v. Aerco
International, Inc., et al., Defendants, Crane Co., et al.,
Respondents, Jenkins Bros., Appellant, (N.Y. App. Div.), on the
ground that the Appellate Division order appealed from does not
finally determine the action within the meaning of the
Constitution.

A copy of the Order, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2kxfxl7
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judgment Favors Pneumo Abex, et al., in Dove
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika has issued an Order adopting
Magistrate Judge Fallon's Jan. 30, 2019 Report and Recommendation
and granting the unopposed motions for summary judgment of
Defendants Pneumo Abex, LLC, BorgWarner Morse TEC LLC as
successor-by-merger to Borg-Warner Corporation, and Ford Motor
Company in the case entitled Elizabeth Alice Dove, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Gus Dove, Plaintiff, v. Boeing
Company, et al., Defendants, C.A. No. 17-056 (MN) (SRF), (D. Del.).
Moreover, the Court dismissed all claims and cross-claims against
Union Carbide Corporation pursuant to Rule 41(b) because the Report
also recommends that the Court grant Union Carbide's unopposed
motion to dismiss.

A copy of the Order, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3w5trt4
from Leagle.com.

Elizabeth Alice Dove, as personal presentative of the Estate of Gus
Dove, Plaintiff, represented by R. Joseph Hrubiec , Napoli
Shkolnik, LLC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Sally J. Daugherty -- sdaugherty@srstlaw.com -- Salmon Ricchezza
Singer & Turchi LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Sally J. Daugherty -- sdaugherty@srstlaw.com -- Salmon Ricchezza
Singer & Turchi LLP.

Elizabeth Alice Dove, as personal presentative of the Estate of Gus
Dove, Cross Defendant, represented by R. Joseph Hrubiec , Napoli
Shkolnik, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WCB Ruling of Hall's Exposure Affirmed on Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the appealed case Letcher County Board of Education, Appellant,
v. Roger Hall; Hon. Christina Hajjar, Administrative Law Judge; and
Workers' Compensation Board, Appellees, No. 2018-CA-000788-WC, (Ky.
Ct. App.), the Letcher County Board of Education appeals from a
decision of the Workers' Compensation Board which reversed a
decision of Administrative Law Judge Christina Hajjar, dismissing
Roger Hall's claim for occupational disability as time-barred
pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 342.316(4)(a).

In the appealed decision, the Board held that Hall was injuriously
exposed to asbestos until 2003. Dr. Fred Rosenblum, a pulmonary
specialist who examined Hall on Dec. 16, 2016, concluded that
Hall's mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos during his
time at the high school. The Board found that Dr. Rosenblum
"unequivocally noted" that asbestos insulation was not repaired
until 1990, that the heating pipes in the classrooms were insulated
with asbestos, and that the floor tiles in the school were made
with asbestos and not removed until after Hall's retirement. In
essence, Dr. Rosenblum indicated that all the building materials in
the school which contained asbestos contributed to Hall's
mesothelioma.

In addition, the Board held that the ALJ erroneously relied on the
testimony of Marion Whitaker -- maintenance supervisor for
Appellant -- that Hall's last exposure was in 1990. The Board found
that Whitaker was not a doctor nor was there any showing that he
had any expertise regarding the degree or quantity of exposure to
asbestos needed to cause mesothelioma. Furthermore, Whitaker and
Hall both testified that the tiles in the boiler room contained
asbestos and were present the entire time Hall worked for
Appellant. The Board ultimately held that Whitaker's testimony was
not substantial evidence that Hall's last injurious exposure to
asbestos occurred in 1990.

Appellant argues on appeal that the Board exceeded its statutory
authority and scope of review when it reversed the decision of the
ALJ. Specifically, Appellant claims the Board reevaluated the
evidence presented to the ALJ in full, substituting its own
findings of fact for those of the ALJ. Roger Hall, the injured
worker in this case, argues that the Board acted correctly and that
a decision in his favor was compelled by the evidence.

The Court of Appeals of Kentucky finds that the Board did not err
in reversing the decision of the ALJ after considering the evidence
in the record which indicates that Hall was exposed to asbestos
until his retirement in 2003. The evidence was so overwhelming as
to compel the Board to find in Hall's favor and the Board did not
exceed its statutory authority.

The Court affirms the ALJ's conclusion, which the record supports,
that Hall's mesothelioma was caused by his exposure to asbestos
while working for Appellant. The Court points out to the medical
records from Dr. Rosenblum which indicated that Hall's exposure to
the asbestos in the boiler insulation and in the floor tiles caused
his mesothelioma. While Whitaker testified that the asbestos in the
boiler room was removed in 1990, additional testimonial and
documentary evidence indicates that Hall's exposure to asbestos
continued thereafter. Although Whitaker believed the tiles only
posed a minimal risk of asbestos exposure so long as they were
waxed and sealed, this does not mean they posed no risk. Further,
as these tiles would wear down and break, they were no longer
sealed and exposure to asbestos continued.

A copy of the Opinion, is available at http://tinyurl.com/y6rk6f6h
from Leagle.com.

W. Barry Lewis , Hazard, Kentucky, Brief for Appellant.

Daniel F. Dotson , Whitesburg, Kentucky, Brief for Appellee Roger
Hall.



                            *********

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 ***