CAR_Public/190225.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, February 25, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 40

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Jackson Sues Over PFAS-Contaminated Water Supply
694 ENTERPRISES: Mones Seeks  Minimum and OT Pay for Diner Staff
ADYAR ANANDA: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Ruling in Gallego Suit
ALPHA RECOVERY: Azizbayev Files FDCPA Class Action in New Jersey
AMERICAN FEDERATION: Professor Files Class Action Over Union Dues

ANNIE'S HOMEGROWN: "Natural" Claims Class Action Remains Stayed
ANTHEM INC: Sued Over Deceptive Insurance Marketing Scheme
APPLIED ANALYSIS: Boes Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay Under FLSA
ARCONIC: Faces Class Action in US Over Grenfell Tower Cladding
ATLANTIC CAR: Sapon Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages

BATON ROUGE, LA: Faces Class Action Over 2016 Flood Damage
BISON LOGISTICS: Stoute Moves to Certify Class of WT Consultants
BOP LLC: Website not  Blind-accessible, Dennis Suit Says
BRANCH BANKING: Court Approves $861K Class Action Settlement
CANADA: Faces Class Action Over VA $165MM Accounting Blunder

CASHCALL INC: MacDonald et al. Seek to Certify Class
CASTAWAYS YACHT: Thorne Sues Asserting Disabilities Act Breach
CAUSEWAY MARINE: Faces Thorne Suit Alleging ADA Violation
CELERITY SOLUTIONS: Sued by Boyer for Not Paying OT Under FLSA
CELGENE CORP: Sued over Misleading Registration Statement

CHARLOTTE SCHOOL: Final OK of Barchiesi Suit Settlement Appealed
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Beyer Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
CITIZENS EQUITY: Hurt Suit Contests Charging of Overdraft Fees
CONNECT STAFFING: Hernandez Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
CVS HEALTH: Kroessler Sues Over Glucosamine Products' False Ad

DARBY LAW: Strickland Sues over Debt Collection Practices
DBV TECHNOLOGIES: March 18 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
DELAWARE COUNTY, PA: Burford Files Civil Rights Suit v. Officials
EMBARQUE AA: Failed to Pay Prescribed Minimum Wage, Perez Says
EXPRESS SERVICES: Prelim Approval of $10M Stoddart Suit Deal Denied

FITBIT INC: Del. Court Tosses Appeal in Insider Trading Suit
FMS INC: Voeks Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification
GANNETT CO: Bandas Offers Unconditional Surrender in Edelson Row
GEICO GENERAL: Coastal Wellness Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Sheet Metal Workers Sue over Share Price Drop

GENESIS HEALTHCARE: Removes Valdez Case to C.D. California
GEORGIA: Amended Bid to Certify Class in Gumm v. Jacobs Denied
GREENSKY INC: Kaplan Fox Investigates Claims Over 2018 IPO
HOME DEPOT: Justices Hears Arguments on CAFA Removal Issue
HYATT CORPORATION: Haggar Says Website Not Blind-accessible

JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Carbajal Files FDCPA Suit in Calif.
JL WOODE: Valdes Seeks Overtime Compensation for Janitors
KIRSCHENBAUM: Faces DAngelo Suit Under Debt Collection Act
MANISTEE COUNTY, MI: Among Defendants in Property Tax Class Suit
MDL 2752: Ct. Stays Customer Data Security Breach MDL for 60 Days

MIDLAND CREDIT: Dionisio Files FDCPA Class Action
MINDBODY INC: Schall Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
MOBILE MARINE: Bishop Suit Asserts ADA Breach
NEINSTEIN & ASSOCIATES: Settles Ex-Clients' Class Action for $4MM
NEW DAY FINANCIAL: Faces Katzakian Suit for Invasion of Privacy

NEW PRIME: Can't Force Trucker Drivers' Suit Into Arbitration
NOVA LIFESTYLE: Faces Barney Securities Class Action in Calif.
ONTARIO: Koskie Minsky Disputes Order to Pay $1.5MM to Charity
OXNARD SCHOOL DISTRICT: J.R.'s Bid for Class Cert. Under Submission
PACIFIC, MO: Donoho Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA

PATRIOT NATIONAL: Judge Orders Transfer of Class Action to N.Y.
PAUL VALLAS: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Campaign Texts
PAUL VALLAS: Says Class Action Over Text Messages "Dirty Trick"
PG&E CORPORATION: Herndon, et al. Seek Damages Over Wildfire
PODS ENTERPRISES: Removes Salazar Suit to C.D. California

PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN: Jacobson Asserts Breach of Policy Agreement
PURDUE PHARMA: Faces RICO Class Action Over Opioid Prescriptions
REGAL AUTOMOTIVE: Sued Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages
RENT-A-CENTER INC: May 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
REST HAVEN: Johnson Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data

ROYAL LINKS: Seeks Dismissal of Credit Card Receipt Class Action
SABRE YACHTS: Bishop Files ADA Class Action in New York
SACHS ELECTRIC: Court Strikes Griffin's Class Certification Bid
SAL 79 ASSOCIATES: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SC DATA: Approval of Settlement Agreement Vacated

SCOTT FARMS: Ct. Grants Mondragon's Bid to Certify Class Under FLSA
SEATTLE UNIVERSITY: Ex-Adjunct Faculty Member Files Class Action
SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION:  Violates FDCPA, Azizbayev Suit Says
TIGER BRANDS: To Defend Listeriosis Outbreak Class Action
TOUR 18 GOLF: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, McCullough Says

TRANSCONTINENTAL REALTY: Berger Sues Over Daisy Chain Scheme
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Negligence at VA Hospital
UNITED STATES: Federal Employees' Lawsuits Over Shutdown Pending
UPMC: Employees Must Pay $317K After Withdrawing Wage Case
US BANK: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Johnson Alleges

VOLKSWAGEN: German Car Owners May Face Long Wait for Compensation
WAYFAIR: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in Boston
WELLS FARGO: Wins Prelim. Approval of Nakamura Suit Settlement
WESTERN DENTAL: Bulette Suit Wants to Stop Unsolicited Texts
WESTERN GAS: Sabatini Sues over Anadarko Merger Deal

WILLING HANDS: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Ayres Suit Says
WIRECARD AG: Dalpoggetto Sues over Misleading Financial Report
WISE GULL: Guerra Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing
YOGAWORKS INC: Dellinger Sues IPO, Share Price Drop

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Jackson Sues Over PFAS-Contaminated Water Supply
------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTA JACKSON, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated v. THE 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing, Co.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P., successor in interest
to THE ANSUL COMPANY; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD
INC.; and NATIONAL FOAM, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00167 (W.D. Wash.,
February 5, 2019), alleges that the Defendants have caused
significant portions of the water supply and soil on Whidbey Island
to be contaminated with PFASs, exposing residents, including the
Plaintiff, to significant health risks and devaluing their lands.

The Naval Air Station Whidbey Island ("NASWI"), as well as the
Naval Outlying Landing Field Coupeville ("NOLF"), are military
installations on the Island that have been in active use since
World War II.  Starting in the 1970s, as part of regular operations
at NASWI and NOLF, military fire fighters put out fires, and
conducted training exercises in preparation for fires, utilizing
Aqueous Film Forming Foam ("AFFF").

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to handle petroleum-based
fires.  AFFF contains synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances collectively known as "PFAS."

Ms. Jackson alleges that the Defendants collectively designed,
produced, and distributed AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and long lasting PFASs, which would inevitably reach
the water supply of, and pose a significant health risk to, humans
that consume or have other exposure to that water.

The 3M Company is a Delaware corporation having its principal place
of business located in St. Paul, Minnesota.  Tyco Fire Products
L.P., a successor in interest to The Ansul Company, is a Delaware
limited liability partnership having its principal place of
business located in Lansdale, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Company is an Ohio corporation with its
principal place of business located in Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc., is a Texas corporation having its principal place
of business in Marinette, Wisconsin.  National Foam, Inc., is a
Delaware corporation, having a principal place of business in West
Chester, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Janissa A. Strabuk, Esq.
          Kaleigh N. Powell, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
          E-mail: jstrabuk@tousley.com
                  kpowell@tousley.com

               - and -

          Robert L. Teel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. TEEL
          1425 Broadway
          Seattle, WA 98122
          Telephone: (866) 833-5529
          Facsimile: (855) 609-6911
          E-mail: lawoffice@rlteel.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


694 ENTERPRISES: Mones Seeks  Minimum and OT Pay for Diner Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR RAFAEL QUECHOTL MONES, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 694 ENTERPRISES INC. (D/B/A
ROXY DINER), JACOB BEN MOHA, SOLOMON BEN MOHA (A.K.A. SAMMY), and
MARIE BEN MOHA, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01255 (S.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 8, 2019), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a former employee of
the Defendants.  The Plaintiff was employed as a cook and worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the work hours he
rendered.  Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium.

Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day. Furthermore, the Defendants repeatedly failed to pay
the Plaintiff wages on a timely basis. The Defendants' conduct
extended beyond Plaintiff Quechotl to all other similarly situated
employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of
requiring the Plaintiff 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, thw
lawsuit says.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a diner, located at 694 8th
Avenue, New York, NY 10036 under the name "Roxy Diner".[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          Attorneys for Plaintiff
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com

ADYAR ANANDA: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Ruling in Gallego Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Adyar Ananda Bhavan Corp., Anitha Gounder and Suthan
Gounder filed an appeal from the District Court's opinion and order
dated January 8, 2019, and judgment dated January 10, 2019, entered
in the lawsuit titled Elias Sanchez Gallego, et al. v. Adyar Ananda
Bhavan Corp., et al., Case No. 16-cv-4631, 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
seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread of hours and
overtime wage, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York
Labor Laws.

The Defendants own and operate an Indian restaurant located at 1071
First Avenue, in New York City, under the name "Adyar Ananda
Bhavan" owned/managed by Anitha Gounder and Suthan Gounder.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as dishwasher and
delivery workers.  They claim to be denied overtime pay, spread of
hours premium and were not issued accurate wage notices.

The appellate case is captioned as Elias Sanchez Gallego, et al. v.
Adyar Ananda Bhavan Corp., et al., Case No. 19-341, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Miguel Elias Sanchez Gallego, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated, and Raymundo Vazquez
Angel, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Joshua S. Androphy, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          E-mail: jandrophy@faillacelaw.com

Defendants-Appellants Adyar Ananda Bhavan Corp., DBA Adyar Ananda
Bhavan, Anitha Gounder and Suthan Gounder are represented by:

          Brian L. Greben, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN L. GREBEN
          316 Great Neck Road
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 304-5357
          E-mail: brian@grebenlegal.com


ALPHA RECOVERY: Azizbayev Files FDCPA Class Action in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpha Recovery Corp.
The case is styled as Ravil Azizbayev individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alpha Recovery Corp.,
Bureaus Investment Group Portfolio No. 15 LLC, John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05402 (D. N.J., Feb. 11, 2019).

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

Alpha Recovery Corp was established in 2010 as a full service
Accounts Receivable Management (ARM) firm located in Greenwood
Village, CO. Alpha's partners have over 70 years of experience of
being a leader in different positions within the ARM industry.

Bureaus Investment Group Portfolio No. 15 is a debt buyer. They
purchase account information from credit card companies, auto
lenders, and other businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yaakov Saks, Esq.
     Stein Saks, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext 101
     Fax: (201) 282-6501
     Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


AMERICAN FEDERATION: Professor Files Class Action Over Union Dues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff
attorneys, a math professor from Ventura Country, California, is
challenging an illegal "window period" scheme to forcibly seize
union membership dues from his paycheck without his consent and in
violation of his constitutional rights.

Plaintiff Michael McCain filed a class action lawsuit on Jan. 10 in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the American Federation of Teachers (AFT); Ventura County
Federation of College Teachers, AFT Local 1828, AFL-CIO; and
Ventura County Community College School District.

A public employee who works for the Ventura County Community
College School District, plaintiff Michael McCain attempted to
exercise his First Amendment rights by resigning his union
membership following the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in
Janus v. AFSCME, a case Foundation attorneys argued and won.

The High Court ruled on June 27, 2018, that union bosses may not
forcibly seize dues from public sector workers. Instead, government
employees must knowingly waive their First Amendment right not to
subsidize a union and affirmatively authorize deductions before
union officials can collect membership dues or fees.

However, AFT union officials never informed Mr. McCain of his First
Amendment rights, making it impossible for him to have waived them.
Union officials continue seizing membership dues from Mr. McCain's
hard-earned wages, even after Mr. McCain resigned his union
membership and made it clear in a letter sent to the union just
weeks after the Janus decision that he does not consent to dues
deductions. Union officials claim that Mr. McCain can only cut off
dues deductions during a union-created 15-day "window period" each
year.

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

"Union officials have a long history of manipulating 'window
period' schemes, arbitrary union-enacted limitations trapping
workers into forced dues, and other obstacles designed to block
individuals from exercising their constitutional rights," said Mark
Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. "Despite
what union bosses say, First Amendments rights cannot be limited to
just 15 days out of the year."

"The Supreme Court affirmed the rights of public workers in the
Foundation's victory in Janus, but Michael's case shows union
bosses are determined to defy the High Court and continue their
abusive practices," Mr. Mix added.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit,
charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose
human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism
abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at
1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in more than 250
cases nationwide per year. [GN]


ANNIE'S HOMEGROWN: "Natural" Claims Class Action Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
J. R. Pegg, writing for IEG Policy, reports that a federal judge
has opted to continue a stay on a lawsuit that alleges the presence
of a widely-used food thickener and stabilizer in Annie's
Homegrown's salad dressing products undermines the company's
"natural" claims. [GN]


ANTHEM INC: Sued Over Deceptive Insurance Marketing Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------
FRANCES KIRBY and JOHN DAVID MARKS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ANTHEM, INC., BLUE CROSS AND BLUE
SHIELD OF GEORGIA, INC., ANTHEM INSURANCE COMPANIES, INC., Case No.
1:19-cv-00597-ELR (N.D. Ga., February 5, 2019), accuses the
Defendants of engaging in a health insurance coverage marketing
scheme that involved Anthem making material misrepresentations and
omissions to consumers in Georgia about the scope of its health
insurance coverage.

Anthem's scheme was designed to generate profits by misleading
Georgia consumers purchasing individual and family health insurance
policies into believing at the time of sale that Georgia's largest
healthcare provider, WellStar Health System, Inc., was an
in-network covered provider when Anthem knew that it was not going
to be during the pertinent coverage period in 2019, the Plaintiffs
allege.

Anthem, Inc., is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of
business located in Indianapolis, Indiana.  Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Georgia, Inc., is a Georgia corporation with its
principal place of business located in Indianapolis.  Anthem
Insurance Companies, Inc., is an Indiana corporation with its
principal place of business located in Indianapolis.

Anthem is the largest health insurance provider in the state of
Georgia.  Anthem holds itself out to independent agents, brokers
and to its retail partnership partners as the largest and oldest
health benefits provider in Georgia and that almost one-third of
Georgia's population carries one of Anthem's cards.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason R. Doss, Esq.
          THE DOSS FIRM, LLC
          The Brumby Building
          127 Church Street, Suite 220
          Marietta, GA 30060
          Telephone: (770) 578-1314
          E-mail: jasondoss@dossfirm.com


APPLIED ANALYSIS: Boes Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS C. BOES, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees v. APPLIED ANALYSIS CORPORATION, Case No.
5:19-cv-00505-JLS (E.D. Pa., February 4, 2019), is brought to
recover alleged unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Applied Analysis Corporation is a Florida corporation which
provides nuclear engineering and consulting services.  To provide
services to its clients, AAC hires workers (like the Plaintiff) and
staffs them to nuclear facilities, who are paid on an hourly
basis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric H. Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          1528 Walnut Street, 4th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 587-6240
          Facsimile: (215) 689-0875
          E-mail: eric.weitz@theweitzfirm.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


ARCONIC: Faces Class Action in US Over Grenfell Tower Cladding
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bond, writing for World Socialist Web Site, reports that a
class action lawsuit in the United States against Grenfell Tower
cladding manufacturer Arconic underscores how culpability for the
fire that killed 72 is an open secret. It also reveals the extent
to which the institutions of the British ruling class are going in
order to prevent any pursuit of the guilty.

The case starkly reveals capitalism's priority of profits over
lives.

The suit, first filed one month after the fire of June 14, 2017 by
shareholder Michael Brave, accuses Arconic of defrauding
shareholders over its supply of cladding panels at Grenfell Tower.
Mr. Brave is seeking to recoup "significant" shareholder losses
stemming from the company's failure to disclose its use of "highly
flammable" Reynobond PE cladding panels prior to the fire.

Between June 14 and June 27, 2017 -- when the company finally
announced it would stop selling the panels for use in high-rise
blocks -- Arconic's share price fell 21 percent, reducing its
market value by more than $2.5 billion. Prices rallied after the
company's announcement.

US shareholders commonly sue companies over unexpected stock price
falls they believe could have been avoided. The suit alleges that
the "precipitous decline" in share price after the fire cost them
money.

Arconic was created in 2016 through a division of Alcoa Inc. into
two independent companies. It makes vast profits manufacturing
cladding panels, including ones that are highly combustible --
showing revenues of $13 billion (£10.3 billion) in 2017, the year
of the fire. The suit encompasses the decisions and actions of
parent and offspring companies -- one of the claims is that an
inaccurate prospectus was provided for a $1.3 billion share issue
in 2014 -- and alleges that there is some continuity in their
boards.

Mr. Brave argued that shareholders had been deceived by inadequate
disclosures over the panels. The suit's starting point was that use
of the panels significantly increased the risk of property damage,
injury or death in buildings containing them. Brave described
Arconic's public statements as "materially false and misleading at
all relevant times."

Mr. Brave named as defendants Arconic's former Chief Executive
Klaus Kleinfeld and its current Chief Financial Officer, Kenneth
Giacobbe, insisting they should be held liable for the content of
public statements.

The suit's scope has since expanded considerably and now includes
banks alleged to have misled investors in underwriting the share
issue, including the US arm of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS),
Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and
others.

More board members have been named, including Alcoa director Ratan
Tata, head of trusts holding a 66 percent stake in the
multinational Tata group's holding company; Ernesto Zedillo, who as
Mexican president presided over privatisations and austerity
measures and has since served on the boards of multinationals like
Citigroup; Stanley O'Neal, former chairman of investment bank
Merrill Lynch; and Sir Martin Sorrell, former head of WPP, one of
advertising's global "big four" companies.

Sorrell was Britain's highest paid FTSE 100 CEO in 2016, when he
earned £48 million from WPP, and he was a non-executive director
of Alcoa/Arconic from 2012 until March 2017. He told the press he
was "greatly saddened by the horrific events at Grenfell. However,
I left the board of the company in March 2017 and I cannot comment
on the legal actions."

The lawsuit's implications are that the company's actions before
the fire did make it culpable.

The suit claims the Alcoa Inc./Arconic board "made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose" and that "Arconic
knowingly or recklessly supplied its highly flammable Reynobond
polyethylene (PE) cladding panels for use in high-rise buildings."

The suit cites a Reuters report, published in June 2017, which
revealed emails between Arconic and Harley Facades and Rydon, the
contractors responsible for the refurbishment of Grenfell Tower.
Between May and July 2014 Deborah French, Arconic's UK sales
manager, handled inquiries on the availability of samples of
different types of Reynobond aluminium-covered (ACM) panels.

Arconic manufactures Reynobond panels in three types: one with a
non-combustible core (A2), one with a fire-retardant core (FR), and
one with a polyethylene core (PE). In their brochures Arconic
described PE panels as suitable for buildings up to 10 metres high,
and FR panels as suitable for buildings up to 30 metres. Above that
height A2 panels should be used.

All five types of panel discussed in the emails were only available
in combustible PE and FR versions. Grenfell Tower was over 60
metres high.

Arconic told Reuters it had known the panels were for Grenfell
Tower, but said it was not the company's role to decide on whether
they were compliant with local building regulations or not.

Rydon and Harley had claimed their work complied with regulations.

Arconic's own brochure warned of flammability. "[I]t is crucial to
choose the adapted products in order to avoid the fire to spread to
the whole building. Especially when it comes to facades and roofs,
the fire can spread extremely rapidly."

In a statement that should damn all those responsible, it noted,
"As soon as the building is higher than the fire fighters' ladders,
it has to be conceived with an incombustible material."

Arconic declined to tell Reuters if they knew how tall the tower
was. The emails do not discuss the building's height, but do refer
to "Grenfell Tower" and mention other high-rise projects. Reuters
pointed out that Arconic knew how many panels were being supplied,
so were aware of the total coverage of the building.

A source from one company told Reuters that Arconic had "full
involvement" throughout the contract bidding. Omnis Exteriors,
which cut the tiles to shape for the cladding contractor, said it
had "fulfilled the order as directed by the design and build
team."

German and US regulators have banned some forms of plastic-filled
cladding, like the Reynobond PE, on high buildings because of the
fire risks.

The US "rules-based" approach to regulation requires specific
legislation for each example. Advocates of the UK's
"principles-based" approach argue that by placing responsibility on
companies to operate safely, based on common understanding of
risks, it avoids the emergence of loopholes by requiring companies
to take account of new information immediately.

What Grenfell demonstrates is that both systems are implemented on
behalf of corporations. When challenged on the emails, Arconic
issued its "sympathies" and pledged to "fully support the
authorities as they investigate."

The official inquiry has repaid their confidence. It was
deliberately not intended to bring the guilty to justice. The 2005
Inquiries Act, under which it was called, states categorically, "An
inquiry panel is not to rule on, and has no power to determine, any
person's civil or criminal liability." It separated discussion of
the events of that night from broader national or political
issues.

Having limited the list of issues to be covered, the inquiry then
deferred the bulk of the substantial material relating to the
actions of companies involved in Grenfell's refurbishment to its
second phase. It has now been announced that this phase will not
begin until late 2019 at the earliest.

The corporations have run rings around the inquiry to the extent
that Arconic felt able to make a bullishly hostile closing
statement. Their counsel told the final day of Phase One of the
inquiry that the spread of the fire was not due to the flammable
cladding, but to the combination of materials used in the
refurbishment, including the window frames and insulation.

He further claimed it was "impossible to argue that ACM PE was
non-compliant" with building regulations. Arconic asserted at the
beginning of the inquiry that the panels were "at most, a
contributing factor."

As we noted at the closure of Phase One, "The fact that Arconic
felt emboldened enough to deliver such a self-serving and
unremorseful denial of responsibility for the spread of the fire,
indicates that it feels safe in the knowledge that the inquiry will
do nothing to bring those who are guilty to justice."

The shareholders' lawsuit demonstrates that capitalism takes more
seriously the threat to investors' finance than the lives of the
working class. All those responsible for the decisions that cost 72
lives must be arrested and charged, not allowed to hide behind who
bears the lion's share of responsibility for social murder at
Grenfell Tower. [GN]


ATLANTIC CAR: Sapon Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
EDGAR SAPON, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ATLANTIC CAR WASH INC. (DBA ATLANTIC
CAR WASH) and EFIM ROITMAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00814
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime wage orders pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is an employee of the
Defendants. The Defendants own, operate or control a car wash
located at 571 Washington Avenue, Brooklyn NY 11238 under the name
Atlantic Car Wash. The Plaintiff primarily employed to perform
various duties at a car wash, such as driving cars through the
wash, drying cars off once the cars left the machine, and driving
cars after the wash to deliver them to the clients. The Plaintiff
worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week that they
worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of their hours worked, failed to pay the Plaintiff
appropriately for any hours worked over 40, either at the straight
rate of pay, or for any additional overtime premium, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL PC
          www.FightForUrRights.com
          42 Broadway, 12 th Floor
          New York, NY 10004

BATON ROUGE, LA: Faces Class Action Over 2016 Flood Damage
----------------------------------------------------------
Emma Kennedy, writing for The Advocate, reports that roughly two
dozen residents from around the Winbourne Avenue area of Baton
Rouge met on Jan. 16 to express their interest in joining a
class-action lawsuit against the City-Parish relating to 2016 flood
damage.

The lawsuit has been filed under lead plaintiff Bob Applegate's
name since August 2017 and currently has 158 families signed on,
but the file has remained largely dormant in court before now.

The group alleges that while the 2016 flood was historic and an act
of God, the damage to homes in their neighborhood was the result of
negligence.

The flood left more than four feet of standing water in Mr.
Applegate's home on Eaton Street. He said he learned in the
aftermath that the city-parish had been completing construction
work in the area months prior to the flood, which meant they turned
off water valves at each end of Winbourne Avenue.

If those valves had been reopened as they were supposed to be after
the public works crew was finished, he claims, the impact of the
flooding in his neighborhood would not have been so great.

"Our problem was we had homeowners insurance, but because this was
an act of God homeowners didn't cover it," Mr. Applegate said.
"Well, this wasn't an act of God, this was an act of George or Bill
or Brian, whoever left the valves closed and didn't open them."

A spokesperson for Mayor-President Sharon Weston Broome's office
said when contacted about the class action suit that they don't
comment on pending litigation.

Mr. Applegate and attorney Kwame Asante led the Jan. 16 meeting at
the Eden Park branch library, which saw roughly two dozen residents
come in and out to ask questions and sign up for a mailing list to
stay informed about the lawsuit.

Mr. Asante said the group is now raising funds to hire a
hydrologist to determine the boundaries of the area impacted
specifically by the shut-off valves, and to provide expert opinion
on water flow in the area.

"Our contention is once we have our hydrologist report then we can
go back to the city and say, 'Hey, step up,'" Mr. Applegate said.
"Really all we're asking for the city to do is accept
responsibility because then our homeowners (insurance) will cover
us."

But, it may not be that simple for the renters or those who didn't
have insurance. Many residents at the meeting spoke of damaged
vehicles left in their front yards, uninsured husks of homes
they've had to leave behind and businesses that have since closed
due to the flood damage.

Messrs. Applegate and Asante responded to those residents by saying
it's their belief, and the intent of the lawsuit, to put the onus
on the city-parish for the negligence they believe can be proven
with maintenance records.

The group plans to meet again in March at a date and time yet to be
determined. [GN]


BISON LOGISTICS: Stoute Moves to Certify Class of WT Consultants
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled DILLIAN STOUTE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BISON LOGISTICS,
LLC d/b/a SOURCE ENERGY SOLUTIONS, Case No. 7:18-cv-00228-DC-RCG
(W.D. Tex.), filed with the Court his motion for conditional
certification and for notice to putative class members.

The Putative Class consists of:

    "All water transfer consultants who worked for, or on behalf
     of, Source in the past three (3) years who were classified
     as independent contractors and paid a day-rate."

Mr. Stoute filed this collective action on behalf of water transfer
consultants classified as independent contractors and paid a
day-rate by Bison Logistics, LLC, doing business as Source Energy
Solutions, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  He
alleges that Source subjected him and numerous other water transfer
consultants like him to a common and illegal practice of
classifying them as independent contractors paying them a day-rate
for each day worked, regardless of the number of hours worked in a
single day or workweek.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


BOP LLC: Website not  Blind-accessible, Dennis Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK U DENNIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BOP LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00689 (E.D.N.Y., February 4,
2019), accuses the Defendant of failing to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Web site -- http://www.shopbop.com/--  
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people.

BOP LLC is a Wisconsin Corporation doing business in the United
States, including New York.

The Company is an apparel, footwear, and fashion accessories
retailer that operates the Web site, offering features, which
should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and
which the Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout
the United States, including New York City.

The Web site provides consumers with access to an array of goods
and services, including the ability to browse a variety of men's
and women's apparel from various designers such as, jackets, coats,
jeans, intimates, shirts, pants, short, dresses, swimwear, and
activewear for purchase and delivery. In addition, Defendant's
Website provides customers with footwear and accessories such as,
boots, sneakers, sandals, hand bags, jewelry, belts, gloves, and
hats.  The Website also provides information on promotions, as well
as related goods and services available online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
          SHALOM LAW, PLLC
          124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 971-9474
          Facsimile: (718) 865-0943
          E-mail: Jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


BRANCH BANKING: Court Approves $861K Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Buckley LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that on January
10, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia approved an $861,000 class settlement resolving
allegations that Branch Banking and Trust Company violated the West
Virginia Consumer Credit Protection Act by falsely threatening
"legal action" in the collection of foreclosure fees. According to
the complaint, the bank, in an attempt to collect foreclosure and
attorney's fees, sent letters to consumers stating "notice of
pending litigation," misrepresenting that a legal proceeding had
been filed, when no filings had occurred. The settlement covers any
West Virginia automobile or home loan consumer who received one of
three specified letters since 2012 and 2013, and awards the
plaintiffs' attorneys one-third of the cash settlement. The three
lead plaintiffs will each receive $5,000 "in recognition of service
to the class." [GN]


CANADA: Faces Class Action Over VA $165MM Accounting Blunder
------------------------------------------------------------
Murray Brewster, writing for CBC News, reports that a proposed
class-action lawsuit has been filed against the federal government
over the $165-million accounting blunder by Veterans Affairs
Canada, CBC News has learned.

The court action, which has yet to be certified, was filed on Jan.
15 by former soldier Dennis Manuge, who successfully took the
Department of National Defence to court a few years ago over the
clawback of military pensions.

The new case involves the miscalculation of disability awards and
pensions at the veterans department, a fiscal gaffe that went on
for almost eight years, starting in 2002.

In 2010, the department discovered and corrected the indexing
mistake, which affects about 272,000 elderly veterans, but quietly
fixed the issue without notifiying those affected until the former
veterans ombudsman blew the whistle last November.

CBC News revealed documents that detailed how the error happened
and some of the assumptions bureaucrats used when the issue was
buried.

The lawsuit takes aim at that aspect and said the government's
"conduct in failing to disclose the calculation error once
discovered in 2010 is public misfeasance in office which should be
censured by a damage award," said a copy of the statement of
claim.

Peter Driscoll, the lawyer representing Mr. Manuge, said the
federal government knew what it was doing and acted unlawfully.

"We say that there is a duty, among other things, upon the
government to disclose such an error, make good on that error in a
transparent way, and that's what they failed to do," he told CBC
News in an interview.

Repayments coming 2020
Mr. Manuge, who was collecting disability benefits during the
period in question, said he believes someone needs to be held
accountable for not reporting the initial mixup.

"Any Canadian can understand a mistake, but just come out and say,
'Listen, we made a mistake, this is what happened and here's what
we're doing to fix it,'" he said in an interview on Jan. 16.

The Liberal government dodged questions about whether it would
investigate.

"If Veterans Affairs is not going to hold themselves accountable,
if we cannot get a straight answer . . . then, you know, I am
really confident that the Federal Court will find some answers for
us," said Mr. Manuge.

As part of owning up to the mistake late last year, the Liberal
government promised it would reimburse those affected, but
underlined the payments wouldn't be made until 2020.

That, said Mr. Driscoll, is offensive.

"You know when a veteran owes the government money in the form of
an overpayment and VAC benefits, or assistance, or whatever the
case may be, they're immediately required to pay it back," he
said.

2007 lawsuit
Mr. Driscoll said a number of veterans, in addition to Mr. Manuge,
contacted their law office and claim that their attempts to get
information about reimbursement out of service agents at Veterans
Affairs have been met with obfuscation and the brushoff.

Mr. Driscoll said Mr. Manuge's experience and perseverance through
the previous court case involving the Service Income Security
Insurance Plan meant he was the right person to front a
class-action lawsuit.

Mr. Manuge was injured in an accident at Camp Petawawa, Ont. in
2001, just before being deployed to Bosnia. His condition forced
him to leave the military two years later, and he suffered from
lower back pain as well as bouts of depression.

At the time, his Canadian military long-term disability benefits
were reduced by the amount of money he received in disability from
Veterans Affairs.

He fought the clawback and filed a class-action lawsuit against the
federal government in March 2007, which took almost five years to
make its way through the courts.

His lawyers won a victory in 2012, when the Federal Court said it
was unfair of the federal government to treat pain and suffering
awards as income.

The former Conservative government decided not to appeal and
negotiated a $887-million settlement with the roughly 7,500
soldiers who were affected. [GN]


CASHCALL INC: MacDonald et al. Seek to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned JOHN S. MACDONALD and JESSICA
C. SPEARMAN, the Plaintiffs, vs. CASHCALL, INC.; WS FUNDING, LLC;
DELBERT SERVICES CORP.; and J. PAUL REDDAM, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-02781-MCA-LDW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court for an order to certify class on May 6, 2019.[CC]

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Patricia A. Barasch, Esq.
          Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
          Brock J. Specht, Esq.
          Robert L. Schug, Esq.
          Matthew H. Morgan, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: aprakash@nka.com
                  bspecht@nka.com
                  schug@nka.com
                  morgan@nka.com

               - and -

          Matthew Wessler, Esq.
          GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
          1735 20th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 888-1741
          Facsimile: (202) 888-7792
          E-mail: matt@guptawessler.com

               - and -

          Patricia A. Barasch, Esq.
          SCHALL & BARASCH, LLC
          Moorestown Office Center
          110 Marter Ave, Suite 302
          Moorestown, NJ 08057
          Telephone: (856) 914-9200
          Facsimile: (856) 914-9420
          E-mail: pbarasch@schallandbarasch.com

Counsel for Defendants:

          Andrew Muscato, Esq.
          Joseph L. Barloon, Esq.
          Austin K. Brown, Esq.
          Drew P. Newman, Esq.
          Jennifer Z. Gindin, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
          MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          4 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036

CASTAWAYS YACHT: Thorne Sues Asserting Disabilities Act Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Castaways Yacht Club,
Inc. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Castaways Yacht
Club, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01291 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 11,
2019).

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

Castaways Yacht Club is a boating facility; offering membership to
individuals and families at competitive rates.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAUSEWAY MARINE: Faces Thorne Suit Alleging ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Causeway Marine
Sales, LLC. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Causeway Marine
Sales, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01289 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 11,
2019).

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

Causeway Marine is a privately held company in Manahawkin, NJ and
is a business categorized under Motor Boat Dealers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CELERITY SOLUTIONS: Sued by Boyer for Not Paying OT Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
TONY BOYER v. CELERITY SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC, DARA TRIBELHORN, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00306-RBJ (D. Colo., February 4, 2019), is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated medical
transcriptionists/editors, accusing the Defendants of failing to
pay overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Celerity Solutions Group, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Parker, Colorado.
Dara Tribelhorn, a resident of Parker, Colorado, serves as
owner/member and Chief Executive Officer of Celerity.  Dana
Tribelhorn has maintained operational control of Celerity since its
inception in 2008.

Celerity is a medical transcription company employing approximately
50-100 medical transcriptionists/editors around the United States
to work from their homes reviewing, transcribing and editing
medical records for approximately 50 clients, including hospitals
and health systems that have contracted with Celerity.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin J. Dolley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC
          2726 S. Brentwood Blvd.
          St. Louis, MO 63144
          Telephone: (314) 645-4100
          Facsimile: (314) 736-8216
          E-mail: kevin@dolleylaw.com


CELGENE CORP: Sued over Misleading Registration Statement
---------------------------------------------------------
KAREN SBRIGLIO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CELGENE CORPORATION, MARK J. ALLES,
RICHARD W. BARKER, HANS BISHOP, MICHAEL W. BONNEY, MICHAEL D.
CASEY, CARRIE S. COX, MICHAEL A. FRIEDMAN, JULIE A. HALLER,
PATRICIA HEMINGWAY HALL, JAMES L. LOUGHLIN, ERNEST MARIO, JOHN H.
WEILAND, BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, and BURGUNDY MERGER SUB,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00277-UNA (D. Del., Feb. 8,
2019), stems from a proposed transaction announced on January 3,
2019 , pursuant to which Celgene Corporation will be acquired by
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Burgundy Merger Sub, Inc.

On January 2, 2019, Celgene's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger BMS. Pursuant to the
terms of the Merger Agreement, Celgene's stockholders will receive
$50.00 in cash and one share of Parent stock for each share of
Celgene common stock they own. On February 1, 2019, defendants
filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Registration Statement, which scheduled a
stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction for April 12, 2019,
omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and
misleading, the lawsuit says.

Celgene is an integrated global biopharmaceutical company engaged
primarily in the discovery, development, and commercialization of
innovative therapies for the treatment of cancer and inflammatory
diseases through next-generation solutions in protein homeostasis,
immuno-oncology, epigenetics, immunology, and
neuro-inflammation.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com

CHARLOTTE SCHOOL: Final OK of Barchiesi Suit Settlement Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Robert C. Barchiesi, et al., filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled ROBERT C. BARCHIESI, et al. v.
CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00861-GCM,
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina at Charlotte.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 4, 2019, Judge
Graham C. Mullen granted the parties' motion for final approval of
the class action settlement.

On Jan. 9, 2018, the District Court heard the motion for final
approval of the class action settlement of Settling Plaintiffs
Spencer Krebs, Morgan Switzer, Dave Wyatt, Krystal Horsley, Jacenta
Marie Price, Markisha Dobson, Raissa Levy, James Villanueva, Shanna
Rivera, and Andre McCoy, individually and in their representative
capacity on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Leah Ash,
individually, and Defendants Charlotte School of Law, LLC ("CSL"),
InfiLaw Corp., InfiLaw Holding, Chidi Ogene, Jay Conison, and Don
Lively.

The Class Members are defined as any person who enrolled in,
attended, or paid tuition or fees to CSL between Sept. 1, 2013 and
Aug. 15, 2017

The Settling Plaintiffs' Counsel are awarded 15% of the settlement
in attorneys' fees plus $35,773.82 in costs.  The Representative
Plaintiffs and Leah Ash are each awarded $500 as incentive awards.
The Claims Administrator will make such payments from the
Settlement Fund pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

The appellate case is captioned as Robert Barchiesi v. Daniel
Herrera, Case No. 19-1148, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ROBERT C. BARCHIESI, Individually and in a
Representative capacity on behalf of a class of all persons
similarly situated, and LEJLA HADZIC, Individually and in a
Representative capacity on behalf of a class of all persons
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Angelique Adams, Esq.
          Kyle J. Nutt, Esq.
          Gary K. Shipman, Esq.
          SHIPMAN & WRIGHT, LLP
          575 Military Cutoff Road
          Wilmington, NC 28405
          Telephone: (910) 762-1990
          E-mail: aadams@shipmanlaw.com
                  knutt@shipmanlaw.com
                  gshipman@shipmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Karl J. Amelchenko, Esq.
          Steven Dennis Corriveau, Esq.
          Henry Forest Horne, Jr., Esq.
          John Alan Jones, Esq.
          MARTIN & JONES, PLLC
          410 Glenwood Avenue
          Raleigh, NC 27603-0000
          Telephone: (919) 821-0005
          E-mail: kja@m-j.com
                  sdc@m-j.com
                  hfh@m-j.com
                  jaj@m-j.com

Plaintiff-Appellant RAISSA LEVY is represented by:

          Daniel Ray Francis, Esq.
          DAN FRANCIS LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
          P. O. Box 575
          Lexington, NC 27293
          Telephone: (314) 258-0259

Plaintiffs-Appellants RAISSA LEVY, JAMES VILLANUEVA, SHANNA RIVERA
and ANDRE MCCOY are represented by:

          Brian Leighton Kinsley, Esq.
          CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP
          1051 East Morehead Street
          Charlotte, NC 28204
          Telephone: (336) 333-9899
          E-mail: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com

               - and -

          Amanda Anne Mingo, Esq.
          RAWLS, SCHEER, FOSTER & MINGO, PLLC
          1011 East Morehead Street
          Charlotte, NC 28204-0000
          Telephone: (704) 376-3200
          E-mail: amingo@rsfmlaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellant LEAH ASH (17CV39 ASH) is represented by:

          Michael John Messinger, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL MESSINGER, PLLC
          6135 Park South Drive
          Charlotte, NC 28210
          Telephone: (704) 609-4277
          E-mail: MichaelMessingerLaw@gmail.com

Plaintiffs-Appellants SPENCER KREBS, MORGAN SWITZER, DAVE WYATT,
JACENTA MARIE PRICE, KRYSTAL HORSLEY and MARKISHA DOBSON (17CV190
PLAINTIFFS) are represented by:

          Douglas Breen Abrams, Esq.
          Noah Abrams, Esq.
          ABRAMS & ABRAMS, PA
          1526 Glenwood Avenue
          Raleigh, NC 27608
          Telephone: (919) 755-9166
          E-mail: dabrams@abramslawfirm.com
                  nabrams@abramslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Anthony J. Majestro, Esq.
          POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC
          405 Capitol Street
          P. O. Box 3081
          Charleston, WV 25331-0000
          Telephone: (304) 346-2889
          E-mail: amajestro@powellmajestro.com

Appellants DANIEL HERRERA, ZACHARY AIKEN, OMAR BASHI, KIMBERLEY
BEYER, STEVEN BURLESON, KABIR BUHARI, EDGAR JULIAN CABRA, KAYLA
CARMENIA, CHARLIE CARPENTER, SHERRY DUNCAN, BRENT FINNELL, PAMELA
FREEMAN, CHARLES HORNACK, JAMES A. HOWE, TALECE HUNTER, EPHRAIM
MOSELY, ANNABELLE PARDO, SUSAN PATROSKI, DAWN PATTERSON, MICHAEL
PEREZ, KARINA RAHALL, SHANELL REID and JAMAL WILLIAMS are
represented by:

          Christopher R. Bagley, Esq.
          Sydney B. Fligel, Esq.
          Gary Walker Jackson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES SCOTT FARRIN
          280 South Mangum Street
          Durham, NC 27701
          Telephone: (919) 287-5037
          E-mail: christopher.bagley@farrin.com
                  sidney.fligel@farrin.com
                  gary.jackson@farrin.com

               - and -

          Hoyt Gold Tessener, Esq.
          MARTIN & JONES, PLLC
          410 Glenwood Avenue
          Raleigh, NC 27603-0000
          Telephone: (919) 270-0175
          E-mail: email@m-j.com

Defendants-Appellees CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW, LLC, INFILAW
CORPORATION, JAY CONISON and CHIDI OGENE are represented by:

          Robert T. Cahill, Esq.
          COOLEY, LLP
          1 Freedom Square
          Reston Town Center
          11951 Freedom Drive
          Reston, VA 20190-5656
          Telephone: (703) 456-8000
          Facsimile: (703) 456-8100
          E-mail: rcahill@cooley.com

               - and -

          Michael Hays, Esq.
          David Edward Mills, Esq.
          COOLEY, LLP
          1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 842-7800
          E-mail: mhays@cooley.com
                  dmills@cooley.com

               - and -

          Rebecca Claire Fleishman, Esq.
          Johnny Morgan Loper, Esq.
          WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
          555 Fayetteville Street
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 755-2116
          E-mail: rebecca.fleishman@wbd-us.com
                  Johnny.Loper@wbd-us.com

               - and -

          Debbie Weston Harden, Esq.
          Sarah Motley Stone, Esq.
          WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
          301 South College Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202-6037
          Telephone: (704) 331-4982
          E-mail: Debbie.Harden@wbd-us.com
                  Sarah.Stone@wbd-us.com

Defendants-Appellees STERLING PARTNERS and STERLING CAPITAL
PARTNERS IV, LLC, are represented by:

          Adam Doerr, Esq.
          Robert Evans Harrington, Esq.
          ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON, PA
          101 North Tryon Street
          Charlotte, NC 28246
          Telephone: (704) 377-8114
          E-mail: adoerr@rbh.com
                  rharrington@rbh.com


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Beyer Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Beyer, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Charter Communications, Inc., Case No. 8:18-cv-03119
(M.D. Fla., December 28, 2018), is brought against the Defendant
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay overtime
compensations and misclassified the Plaintiff as FLSA exempt.

The Plaintiff is an adult and a resident of Pinellas County,
Florida. On or about December 11, 2006, Plaintiff began his
employment with Defendant (fka Bright House Networks) as an
Advanced Broadband Specialist I.  The Plaintiff has held various
positions throughout his employment. In approximately September of
2017, the Plaintiff began working as a Billing Support Analyst I.

The Defendant is a foreign profit corporation licensed and
authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida and doing
business within Hillsborough County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
      Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
      FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC
      16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
      Lutz, FL 33558
      Tel: (727) 254-5255
      Fax: (727) 483-7942
      E-mail: wolfgang@fgbolaw.com
              chris@fgbolaw.com


CITIZENS EQUITY: Hurt Suit Contests Charging of Overdraft Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Hurt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union, Case No.
1:19-cv-01040-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill., February 7, 2019), challenges
CEFCU's practice of charging overdraft fees on what are referred to
in this complaint as "Authorize Positive, Purportedly Settle
Negative Transactions," or "APPSN Transactions."

Mr. Hurt contends that CEFCU routinely assesses Overdraft Fees on
transactions that did not actually overdraw a checking account.  He
adds that CEFCU misleadingly and deceptively misrepresents its
practice, including its own account contracts.

CEFCU is one of the largest credit unions in Illinois.  CEFCU has
$6 billion in assets and maintains its headquarters in Peoria,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          Vess A. Miller, Esq.
          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
                  rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
                  vmiller@cohenandmalad.com
                  ltoops@cohenandmalad.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielpllc.com


CONNECT STAFFING: Hernandez Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandra P. Hernandez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Connect Staffing, Inc., Bar Bakers, LLC, and
Does 1-50, Case No. 30-2018-01040696 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.,
December 28, 2018), seeks damages, restitution and injunctive
relief for the Defendants' failure to indemnify employees for work
expenses, failure to provide wage statements and for violation of
the Business and Professional Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants require employees to wear
non-slip shoes for safety reasons, but failed to reimburse them for
the costs of purchasing the non-slip shoes. The Defendants also
failed to furnish employees any wage statements required by Labor
Code, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff Alejandra P. Hernandez was employed by the Defendants
as a non-exempt employee, and worked at Bar Bakers' facilities in
Los Alamitos, California.

The Defendant Connect Staffing, Inc. is in the business of
providing temporary employee services.

The Defendant Bar Bakers, LLC is in the business of producing and
marketing baked goods and other products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justian Jusuf, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIAN JUSUF, APC
      17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 900
      Huntington Beach, CA 92647
      Tel: (714) 274-9815
      Fax: (714) 362-3148

          - and -

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
      18250 Ventura Blvd.
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Tel: (818) 609-0807
      Fax: (818) 609-0892


CVS HEALTH: Kroessler Sues Over Glucosamine Products' False Ad
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES KROESSLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, Case No. 3:19-cv-00277-CAB-JLB
(S.D. Cal., February 7, 2019), arises out of the Defendant's
alleged false and misleading advertising of its CVS Health
glucosamine joint health products.

The Defendant markets, sells and distributes a line of joint health
dietary supplements under the "CVS Health" brand name.  The
Defendant represents and sells the CVS Health Glucosamine Products
for a single purpose, which is to provide meaningful joint health
benefits to all consumers, who ingest the Products.  The Plaintiff
contends that he and the other Class members paid for a valueless
product that is not effective at conferring the benefits promised.

CVS Health Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.  CVS
manufactures, advertises, markets, distributes, and/or sells the
CVS Health Glucosamine Products at issue to tens of thousands of
consumers in California and throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq.
          Craig W. Straub, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  toreardon@bholaw.com
                  cstraub@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 762-1910
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com


DARBY LAW: Strickland Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA STRICKLAND, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DARBY LAW FIRM, PLLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00439 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 8, 2019), seeks to recover
damages resulting from Defendant's violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act for the benefit of Texas consumers who
have been the subject of debt collection efforts by Darby Law Firm,
PLLC.

The case centers on the Defendant's failure to effectively provide
the disclosures required by 15 U.S.C. section 1692g in its initial
written communications to Texas consumers, or within five days
thereafter. The Plaintiff is obligated, or allegedly obligated, to
pay a debt owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due, a creditor
other than the Defendant.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the proposed class.

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: 512.803.1578
          Facsimile: 561.961.5684
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com
                  jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com

DBV TECHNOLOGIES: March 18 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against DBV Technologies S.A. ("DBV"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: DBVT) and certain of its officers, on
behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired DBV
securities during the period between October 22, 2018, and December
19, 2018,  inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/dbvt.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) DBV Technologies' Biologics License Application
("BLA") for Viaskin Peanut failed to provide the FDA with
sufficient data on manufacturing procedures and quality controls;
(2) consequently, DBV Technologies voluntarily withdrew the BLA for
Viaskin Peanut; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about
DBV Technologies' business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis
at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/dbvt. or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in DBV you
have until March 18, 2019 to request that the Court appoint you as
lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

DELAWARE COUNTY, PA: Burford Files Civil Rights Suit v. Officials
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against officials of Delaware
County, Pennsylvania. The case is styled as Tony Burford
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Delaware County, Pennsylvania, Angela L. Martinez,
Delaware County Prothonotary, in her individual and official
capacities, Patricia Oreskovich, Director of Court Financial
Services, in her individual and official capacities, Philip F.
Pisani, Director of Pre-Trial/Bail Services, in his individual and
official capacities, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00577-NIQA (E.D.
Penn., Feb. 8, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Delaware County, colloquially referred to as Delco, is a county
located in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania. With a population of
562,960, it is the fifth most populous county in Pennsylvania, and
the third smallest in area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alan E. Denenberg, Esq.
     ABRAMSON & DENENBERG
     1315 Walnut St. 12th Fl.
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Phone: (215) 546-1345
     Fax: (215) 546-5355
     Email: adenenberg@adlawfirm.com


EMBARQUE AA: Failed to Pay Prescribed Minimum Wage, Perez Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR ANTONIO PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. EMBARQUE AA CORP., and IRENO
ARIAS, as an individual, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00795-DLI-SMG (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2019), seeks compensatory
damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000.00,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable
remedies resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Federal
and New York State labor laws.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by the
Defendants from April 2017 until September 2018. The Plaintiff was
hired as a stock worker and performed other miscellaneous duties.
The Plaintiff was paid by the Defendants approximately $350.00 per
week from April 2017 until December 2017, and approximately $450.00
per week from January 2018 until September 2018.  The Plaintiff
worked 96 or more hours per week. The Defendants allegedly failed
to pay the Plaintiff legally prescribed minimum wage for his hours
worked from in or around April 2017 until in or around September
2018, a blatant violation of the minimum wage provisions contained
in the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: 718-263-9591

EXPRESS SERVICES: Prelim Approval of $10M Stoddart Suit Deal Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL H. STODDART, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EXPRESS
SERVICES, et al., Defendants, No. 2:12-cv-01054-KJM-CKD (E.D.
Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California denied the Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.

Stoddart brings the putative class action against Express, Phillips
& Associates, Inc., and Western Wine Services, Inc., alleging
several California Labor Code violations.  Express provides
staffing, job placement, human resource, consulting, and related
services to businesses worldwide.  Phillips is a California
corporation and franchisee of Express.  Defendant Western Wine
contracts with Express for temporary service employees.

Express formerly employed the Plaintiff in Vallejo, California, and
assigned him to work for Western Wine.  The Plaintiff alleges
Express and Phillips systematically violated employment laws by not
providing legally mandated off-duty meal periods, failing to pay
overtime at the correct rate, issuing inaccurate and non-compliant
wage statements, failing to pay meal period premiums, and failing
to provide all wages due upon separation of employment.

In early 2012, the Plaintiff brought a putative class action in
state court for damages and injunctive relief.  A month later,
Express removed the case to the Court.  The parties thereafter
attended mediation and reached a tentative class-wide settlement,
but Express' Board of Directors rejected it.

After extended litigation in federal court, the parties covered by
the proposed settlement, the Plaintiff and Defendants Express and
Phillips, scheduled another private mediation.  After a
contentious, arm's-length process, the parties to the mediation
reached a settlement agreement.  Western Wine is not a party to the
Proposed Agreement but would nonetheless be released of liability
as a client of Express, along with all the settling Defendants'
other client employers.

Under the Proposed Agreement, the Settlement Defendants, Express
and Phillips, would make a $10 million gross payment to the claims
administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc. The Settlement Parties propose
allocation of the gross settlement as follows: (1) an amount not to
exceed $2.5 million, one-fourth of the gross settlement, for class
counsel as attorneys' fees; (2) an amount not to exceed $70,000 for
the class counsel in litigation costs; (3) an amount up to $10,000
for the Plaintiff in consideration of his work as the named
Plaintiff; (4) an amount estimated to be $350,000 to the claims
administrator, Rust Consulting; (5) a $50,000 California Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") penalty, 75% ($37,500) of
which would be paid to the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency and 25% ($12,500) of which would be paid to the
class; and (6) any applicable tax withholding required, not to
include the employer's share of FICA, FUTA and SDI contributions on
the portion of the settlement payments attributed to wages.

Accounting for all proposed distributions described, the Plaintiff
estimates a net settlement amount of $7,032,500.  The Settlement
Parties propose distribution of the net settlement in payments to
the class members who do not request exclusion from the settlement
based on the number of weeks worked during the period of March 13,
2008 through Dec. 31, 2017, as 10% wages and 90% interest and
penalties.

Judge Mueller holds that she's unable to preliminarily certify the
class for settlement purposes because the Plaintiff has not
demonstrated the putative class can be certified under Rule 23.
She finds that the Plaintiff has not adequately explained the
capacity of a classwide proceeding to generate common answers in
light of the many dissimilarities within the proposed class with
the potential to impede that capacity.  In addition, the
Plaintiff's allegation that Express failed to provide inclusive
pay-range dates in wage statements identifies a time period that is
not coextensive with the employment period for the putative class.
The Plaintiff also has not shown sufficiently that common issues
predominate.

Further, the Judge also holds that the Proposed Agreement is not
fair, reasonable and adequate.  She finds that (i) the terms of the
release are broad and ambiguous; (ii) she cannot determine if the
gross settlement amount is proportionate to the approximate value
of recovery; and (iii) the Plaintiff has not explained how the
release of liability can include unnoticed PAGA claims against the
Settlement Defendants' many client employers and has failed to
justify the amount of the PAGA settlement.  This omission as well
stands in the way of approving preliminary settlement.

For these reasons, Judge Mueller denied the Plaintiff's motion.

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

Michael H. Stoddart, Plaintiff, represented by Diana Marie Khoury ,
Cohelan Khoury and Singer, Geoffrey Drew La Val --
glaval@grahamhollis.com -- Graham Hollis APC, Jeff Geraci, Cohelan
Khoury and Singer, Michael D. Singer , Cohelan Khoury & Singer,
Graham S.P. Hollis, GrahamHollis, APC & Marta Manus --
mmanus@grahamhollis.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer.

Express Services, Inc., Doing business as Express Employment
Professionals, Defendant, represented by Aaron N. Colby --
aaroncolby@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Morgan Patricia
Forsey -- mforsey@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and
Hampton, Nora K. Stiles -- nstilestein@sheppardmullin.com --
Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton, Elizabeth Scott Wood --
elizabeth.wood@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft, APC, pro hac vice,
Janet Lynn Grumer -- janetgrumer@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine
LLP, Jason W. Kearnaghan -- jkearnaghan@sheppardmullin.com --
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP & Richard J. Simmons --
rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP.

Phillips & Associates, Inc., Doing business as Express Employment
Professionals, Defendant, represented by Janet Lynn Grumer, Davis
Wright Tremaine LLP, Jason W. Kearnaghan, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter
& Hampton LLP, Morgan Patricia Forsey, Sheppard Mullin Richter and
Hampton, Nora K. Stilestein, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton,
Richard J. Simmons, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Aaron
N. Colby, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

Western Wine Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Fraser Angus
McAlpine -- McAlpine@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Scott
Christopher Lacunza -- LacunzaS@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
P.C.. & Theresa Mak, GBG LLP.

Elaine Martin, Movant, represented by Anthony Eugene Guzman ,
Sutton Hague Law Corporation, Jared Hague, Sutton Hague Law
Corporation, PC & S. Brett Sutton, Sutton Hague Law Corporation,
PC.


FITBIT INC: Del. Court Tosses Appeal in Insider Trading Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Fitbit Inc.
and its board of directors must continue fighting an investor suit
alleging board members engaged in insider trading after a Delaware
court Jan. 14 refused to allow an appeal of its decision not to
dismiss the case.

"The opinion does not decide a substantial issue of material
importance that merits appellate review before a final judgment,"
Judge Joseph R. Slights III wrote for the Delaware Court of
Chancery. [GN]


FMS INC: Voeks Files Placeholder Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned JULIE VOEKS, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FMS
INC., d/b/a OKLAHOMA FMS, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00165-LA
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying
classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as class
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir.
2017).[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

GANNETT CO: Bandas Offers Unconditional Surrender in Edelson Row
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that in the
wake of a judge's order allowing a prominent Chicago class action
law firm to dig deeper into the practices Texas-based Bandas Law
Firm P.C., which stands accused of acting as "professional" class
action settlement objectors, Bandas has offered what it calls
"unconditional surrender" in the years-long multi-jurisdictional
court fight.

On Jan. 15, an attorney for the Bandas firm filed a motion in
Chicago federal court, amending its prior answer to the lawsuit
brought against it by the firm of Edelson P.C., admitting to the
charges of practicing law in Illinois without authorization.

The motion also withdraws a counterclaim Bandas had filed against
Edelson.

"In light of Defendants' proposed Amended Answer, the withdrawal of
the Counterclaim, and their 'unconditional surrender' to
Plaintiff's request for relief on the sole remaining count . . .
what remains in dispute in this case?" Bandas' motion asserts.
"Defendants are totally capitulating to everything Plaintiff seeks
. . .

"To allow this case to proceed would undermine (Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals Judge Frank Easterbrook's) admonition that the
courts should not be used as a 'subsidized dispute-resolution
service.' More troubling, however, is that it appears that the sole
remaining purpose of this case, if it were to continue after
Defendants' capitulation, would be retribution."

The motion followed two key setbacks for Bandas in his long-running
feud with Edelson.

More than two years ago, Edelson filed suit in Chicago federal
court, accusing Bandas of masterminding a racket to use the class
action settlement objection process to extort settlements,
sometimes worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, from law firms
seeking to close out class action settlement deals.

The lawsuit centered on a $13.8 million settlement in a class
action prosecuted by Edelson lawyers against Gannett Co. over
alleged violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

As part of the settlement, a Cook County judge had awarded the
Edelson firm more than $5.3 million in attorney fees, or about 39
percent of the total settlement funds.

However, before the settlement was finalized, a man represented by
Bandas and Waukegan attorney Jeffrey Thut filed an objection,
saying he believed the attorney fee award was too high. In that
objection, court documents indicate Thut was acting as local
counsel in partnership with Bandas, who is not licensed to practice
law in Illinois.

After the Cook County judge approved the final settlement, Bandas
and Thut threatened to appeal that ruling. The dispute went to a
mediation session, where Edelson claims Bandas offered to drop the
objection in exchange for a payoff. Ultimately, Edelson agreed to
pay Bandas and his group $225,000.

However, Edelson also then filed suit in Chicago federal court,
leveling racketeering charges against Bandas.

Judge Pallmeyer tossed the racketeering charges, but allowed the
case to proceed on Edelson's assertions Bandas had improperly
practiced law in Illinois.

In September, Bandas attempted to use the ruling to end the case
quickly, asking a judge to simply prohibit him and his firm from
practicing law in Illinois.

However, Edelson argued such an injunction would be toothless, as
it would not stop Bandas from continuing his practices, including
"orchestrating objections in state courts without appearing"
personally.

In December, however, Bandas filed a counterclaim, claiming it was
Edelson who engaged in "dirty tricks" to trap him at the mediation
session, and then use the resulting lawsuit to "intimidate and ward
off" all who "stand in the… way" of Edelson's attempts to secure
multi-million-dollar paydays from companies and other defendants.

In that counterclaim, Bandas called Edelson's claims "false and
exaggerated," designed to "detract from the truly grotesque
windfall they sought to protect."

Following that filing, however, an Illinois appeals court sided
with Edelson, saying the Cook County judge was wrong to bar Edelson
from continuing to pursue sanctions against Bandas.

And on Jan. 3, Judge Pallmeyer granted Edelson's request to expand
discovery on the question of Bandas' law practices in Illinois. The
order would allow Edelson to force Bandas and his associates to
turn over a range of additional documents and other information
Edelson asserted would prove a widespread pattern of misbehavior by
Bandas, extending beyond the Gannett settlement case and beyond
Illinois.

Bandas responded to that ruling by offering his "unconditional
surrender," admitting to "unethical, improper and misleading
conduct in filing or causing to be filed objections to proposed
class action settlements."

Bandas offered to agree to permanent injunctions forbidding him and
his associates from objecting to any further class action
settlements in state or federal court, unless the objection abides
by two criteria.

First, Bandas said any objection filing "must state whether it
applies only to the objector, to a specific subset of the class, or
to the entire class, and also state with specificity the grounds
for the objection."

And secondly, Bandas said, the objection must disclose "any payment
in connection with the objection." Those payments must be "approved
by the court and, unless approved by the court after a hearing, no
payment or other consideration may be provided in connection with
forgoing or withdrawing the objection or forgoing, dismissing, or
abandoning an appeal from a judgment approving the proposal."

Bandas also agreed to accept a permanent injunction barring him and
his firm from practicing law in Illinois.

"Defendants acknowledge that their reputations before the courts of
this jurisdiction and across the country have been gravely but
justifiably tarnished," Bandas wrote in his motion. "Undoubtedly,
should Defendants continue to practice class litigation, they will
carry the tattoo of these orders with them and they greatly regret
the circumstances that bring them before this Court."

The filing said Bandas is now represented by attorney Robert P.
Cummins, of the firm of Norman, Hanson & DeTroy LLC, of Portland,
Maine. [GN]


GEICO GENERAL: Coastal Wellness Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Wellness Centers, Inc., a Florida corporation, a/a/o Manuel
St. Pierre, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
v. Geico General Insurance Company, Case No. 18-cv-63168 (S.D.
Fla., December 28, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for
breach of contract.

This action seeks monetary, declaratory and injunctive relief based
upon the Defendant's failure to properly process claims submitted
by the Plaintiff and the members of each Class for certain medical
services provided to the Defendant's insureds.

The Plaintiff Coastal Wellness Centers, Inc., is a Florida
corporation providing chiropractic services with its principal
place of business in Coral Springs, Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff Manuel St. Pierre was a patient at Plaintiff,
Coastal, who is and/or was an insured under an automobile insurance
policy providing personal injury protection ("PIP") benefits issued
by the Defendant, GEICO, and who assigned her rights and benefits
of said automobile insurance policy to Plaintiff, Coastal.

This action is brought as a result of GEICO’s breach of the terms
of said automobile insurance policies.

The Defendant GEICO is a Maryland corporation, doing business under
the laws of the State of Florida, and at all material times, sold
automobile insurance coverage subject to the "Florida Motor Vehicle
No-Fault Law" or the "PIP Statute". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tod Aronovitz, Esq.
      Barbara Perez, Esq.
      ARONOVITZ LAW
      2 South Biscayne Boulevard
      One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3700
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (305) 372-2772
      Fax: (305) 397-1886
      E-mail: ta@aonovitzlaw.com
              bp@aronovitzlaw.com

          - and -

      Theophilos Poulopoulos, Esq.
      SCHILLER, KESSLER & GOMEZ, PLC
      7501 W. Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 201
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33319
      Tel: (954) 933-3000
      Fax: (954) 667-5805
      E-mail: theo@injuredinflorida.com


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Sheet Metal Workers Sue over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL 17 TRUST FUNDS, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GENERAL
ELECTRIC COMPANY, JOHN L. FLANNERY, RUSSELL STOKES, and JAMIE S.
MILLER, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01244 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8,
2019), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

According to the complaint, in recent years, GE staked the future
of its GE Power segment on the development of a new turbine type
called the "H-Class," also known as High Efficiency, Air Cooled
("HA"), which purported to deliver improved efficiency and
reliability over prior turbines, and was expected to drive customer
demand. Indeed, GE has repeatedly publicly claimed that, of its
competitors, "none can offer the outstanding performance,
reliability, efficiency, and expertise of GE H-class gas turbine."
In reality, the H-Class turbine was disastrously defective.
Specifically, the coating used to keep the turbines' blades from
overheating was ineffective, leading to dangerous oxidation that
could cause the turbines to fail after as little as one year of
use, in turn causing power outages in the areas serviced by the
utilities using GE's turbines, and requiring months-long repairs.
Indeed, as was later revealed, data from French utilities showed
that power plants using GE's H-Class turbines suffered four times
as many outages as other plants.

At the same time GE was introducing the new H-Class turbine
product, GE Power made its largest-ever industrial acquisition in
2015, acquiring French company Alstom's power business for $10.6
billion. By the end of 2015, GE's Power segment goodwill balance
had ballooned to nearly $23 billion, increasing to $26.4 billion at
the end of 2016. The Alstom acquisition turned out to be a disaster
and GE overpaid at the top of the market, right at the time that
demand was beginning to wane in what had become an oversupplied
global power market. Despite GE Power's earnings and outlook
deteriorating substantially throughout 2017, the Company's Power
segment goodwill remained valued at over $25 billion as of December
31, 2017.

Early in the Class Period, signs of trouble were emerging with GE's
H-Class turbines, but the defendants assured the public that the
problems were minor, easily fixable, and in no way widespread or
systemic. For example, on December 27, 2017, Reuters published an
article titled, "In Pakistan, Questions Raised over GE's Flagship
Power Turbines," reporting that GE's "flagship gas turbines ran
into problems in Pakistan earlier this year, leading to delays and
lengthy outages at three newly built power stations." According to
the article, the GE H-Class turbines that began running in the
beginning of 2017 in Pakistan were "producing at levels well below
their capacity and the problem was acute in the crucial summer
months, when temperatures in the country frequently exceed 40
degrees Celsius."

However, in a statement to Reuters, GE denied there were any issues
with the H-class turbines, assuring the public that "every
commercial HA site today is demonstrating exceptional performance
levels for both output and efficiency." Specific to GE Power's gas
turbines running in Pakistan, GE represented, "We've encountered
and communicated openly about launch challenges and readily
resolved issues during this time."

Indeed, during the Class Period, the Defendants represented that GE
Power "is a fundamentally strong franchise with leading technology"
and GE was "proud of the HA gas turbine technology." Further, GE
assured investors that the Company's installed turbines units were
"performing to specifications and guarantees." When GE Power began
to experience "softening demand" for its turbines in the first
quarter of 2018, GE falsely attributed this reduction entirely to
external factors, such as "excess capacity in developed markets,"
and "continued pressure in oil and gas applications and
macroeconomic and geopolitical environment energy efficiency,
renewable energy penetration and delays in expected orders," rather
than any performance issues with the turbines.

In late September 2018, investors began to learn the truth about
GE's "flagship" H-Class turbines. On September 19, 2018, the
Defendants disclosed by a LinkedIn post that four H-Class turbines
were shut down due to blade problems that were discovered at power
plants in Texas owned by Exelon. The Company also admitted that a
series of delays had impacted " the completion of the three
HA-equipped power plants in Pakistan" which GE said "were caused by
a mix of factors -- some in our control and others that were out of
our hands." Through the LinkedIn post, the Defendants revealed that
the Company had "identified an issue that we expect to impact our
HA units" involving "an oxidation issue that affects the lifespan
of a single blade component." GE further warned that the same
oxidation issue was likely to lead to additional turbine shutdowns
at other plants. However, the Defendants again downplayed the
issue, assuring investors that "[t]he minor adjustments that we
need to make do not make the HA any less of a record setting
turbine -- they are meeting -- and in many cases exceeding -- their
performance goals at every customer site today."

Analysts were incredulous. In a note to investors, JPMorgan analyst
Stephen Tusa warned that the issue with some gas-turbine blades
threatened to hurt GE Power's earnings and damage its reputation
when it was already losing market share. Contrary to the
Defendants' prior claims that reduced demand was purely a result of
the market, Tusa stated that there could no longer be any doubt
that GE Power's turbine issues were "company-specific" and
"structural," and not due to the "cyclical nature of the power
industry downturn." Tusa also explained that the blade issue was
not a simple or minor problem to fix, as repairs to the faulty
turbines would require "close to perfection [on] a microscopic
level." Over the next four trading days, in response to fallout
from the turbine issues, GE's stock price dropped $1.59 per share
or from $12.86 per share on September 19, 2018 to $11.27 per share
on September 25, 2018 -- wiping out over $13 billon in the
Company's market cap.

Shortly thereafter, on October 1, 2018, the Company unexpectedly
announced that it had removed Defendant John L. Flannery as
chairman and CEO after only a year on the job and had replaced him
with Lawrence Culp. GE also announced that it would likely have to
take a $23 billion goodwill impairment charge for its ailing Power
business, eliminating almost all of the goodwill it recorded on its
balance sheet for its Power business.

On October 30, 2018, GE made several stunning announcements. In
Culp's first quarterly report with the Company since taking over as
CEO, GE confirmed:

     -- a massive goodwill impairment charge of $22 billion related
to GE Power;

     -- disclosed that the Securities and Exchange Commission and
the Department of Justice had launched civil and criminal
investigations into the goodwill charge;

     -- slashed its dividend to 1 cent; and

     -- announced that it would be forced to reorganize its Power
business, separating the floundering Gas Power Systems business
from the rest of the segment, with Defendant Russell Stokes no
longer in charge of that part of the business.

Moreover, the Company's third quarter 2018 results revealed that
structural flaws in GE Power's H-Class turbines had caused demand
to plummet and costs to skyrocket, as utilities around the globe
halted their orders for new turbines and demanded costly repairs
under warranty for their existing turbines.  By the end of Q3 2018,
GE had sold a mere 28 turbines in the first nine months of the
year, compared to 63 in the prior year -- a decline of 56%.
Significantly, after a mere month on the job, CEO Culp admitted
that the Defendants had misrepresented the state of GE's Power
segment. Indeed, Culp stated during the Company's conference call
that "what we need to do at Power is wring out a little bit of the
undue optimism."

The market reacted in astonishment. Discussing the gravity of GE's
announcement, former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt, stated: "Companies
don't write down this amount of money and not get held
accountable." Pitt further added: "You have to get it right, and
you start behind the eight-ball when the number is $22 billion."

In reaction to GE's disclosures, the Company's stock plummeted an
additional $0.98 per share from $11.16 per share on October 29,
2018, to $10.18 per share on October 30, 2018 -- a significant
decline of over 9% wiping out $8.5 billion more of the Company's
market capitalization in one trading day. As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's common stock,
Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered significant
losses and damages, the lawsuit says.

GE is a 126-year old industrial conglomerate with a number of
primary business units, including Lighting, Aviation, Healthcare,
Power, and Capital. GE's largest and most important segment, by
far, is GE Power, which earned $36 billion in revenue in 2017
--nearly 30% of the Company's revenue for the year. The vast
majority of GE Power's revenue comes from the sale and servicing of
its Gas Power Systems -- large gas turbines that the Company sells
to power utilities across the globe.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

          Steven B. Singer, Esq.
          Rhonda Cavagnaro, Esq.
          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          10 Bank Street, 8th Floor
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 437-8551
          E-mail: ssinger@saxenawhite.com
                  jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                  lhooker@saxenawhite.com

GENESIS HEALTHCARE: Removes Valdez Case to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant removed the case captioned as, JUANA OLIVOS VALDEZ,
an individual, DANILLIE WILLIE, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, and as aggrieved
employees under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of
2004, the Plaintiffs, vs. GENESIS HEALTHCARE LLC, a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00976 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 8, 2019), from the Superior
Court of the State of California, to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 8, 2019. The
Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00976 to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs seeks payment for meal period premiums, rest period
premiums, unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, wage statement
penalties, unreimbursed business expenses, and waiting time
penalties, combined with attorneys'fees. The amount in controversy
is approximately at least $9,852,393.[BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

          Curtis A. Graham, Esq.
          James E. Payer, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213.443.4300
          Facsimile: 213.443.4299
          E-mail: cagraham@littler.com
                  jpayer@littler.com

GEORGIA: Amended Bid to Certify Class in Gumm v. Jacobs Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Marc T. Treadwell denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
motion for a preliminary injunction and amended motion to certify
class in the lawsuit styled TIMOTHY GUMM, et al. v. RICK JACOBS, et
al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW (M.D. Ga.).

Rick Jacobs is the Former Director of Facilities Operations of the
Georgia Department of Corrections.

On January 17, 2019, the Court granted the parties' joint motion
for preliminary approval of class action settlement.  The January
17 Order granting that motion noted that a fairness hearing is set
for April 30, 2019, at which time the Court will hear any
objections and comments raised by class members.  The January 17
Order also noted that if the settlement is approved, the Court will
certify a settlement class, and all claims for injunctive and
declaratory relief will be resolved.

Final approval of the settlement would also moot the Plaintiffs'
pending motion for a preliminary injunction and the Plaintiffs'
pending amended motion to certify class, according to the Order.
Because the proposed settlement would moot both motions, they are
denied without prejudice, Judge Treadwell rules.

In the event the settlement agreement is not approved, the
Plaintiffs may reinstate those motions by providing notice, Judge
Treadwell notes.[CC]


GREENSKY INC: Kaplan Fox Investigates Claims Over 2018 IPO
----------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (www.kaplanfox.com) is investigating
claims on behalf of investors of GreenSky, Inc. ("GreenSky" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: GSKY).  GreenSky is a financial technology
company that runs an online platform for processing loan
applications at the point of sale.

A class action complaint has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
investors who purchased GreenSky Class A common stock pursuant or
traceable to the Company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO") that
closed on or about May 29, 2018.  In the IPO, GreenSky sold 43.7
million shares of Class A common stock at $23 per share for gross
proceeds of $874 million.

According to the complaint, GreenSky has two principal sources of
revenue:  (1) "transaction fees" that the Company receives upfront
when a consumer secures a loan through the GreenSky platform and
makes a purchase; and (2) recurring fees generated from banks over
the lives of loans the Company facilitates.  Further, according to
the complaint, transaction fees accounted for 87% of the Company's
revenue in 2017.  The complaint also alleges that GreenSky
typically charges a 14% fee to solar panel merchants compared to
its average transaction fee of 7%.

On August 7, 2018, GreenSky announced its financial results for the
second quarter ended June 30, 2018.  The press release indicated
that the Company's transaction fees as a percentage of its total
revenue had declined below the rate achieved in the second quarter
of 2017.  According to the complaint, the Company acknowledged
during the conference call to discuss its quarterly results that
the rapid reduction in the transaction fee rate was attributable to
the transition away from solar panel merchants and towards
healthcare companies. On August 7, 2018, GreenSky's shares declined
$2.32 per share, nearly 11%, to close at $18.91 per share.

Then, on November 6, 2018, in connection with reporting its third
quarter financial results, GreenSky lowered its full year 2018
transaction volume guidance from between $5.1 and $5.3 billion to
between $4.9 and $5.1 billion.  During the conference call to
discuss its quarterly results, GreenSky's CEO and Chairman
reportedly stated that "the transaction fee take rate is down about
70 basis points year-over-year, driven by the reduction in solar."
On November 6, 2018, GreenSky's shares declined by $5.38 per share,
or 36.7%, to close at $9.28 per share.

The complaint alleges that the offering documents for the Company's
IPO touted GreenSky's growth and financial performance while
failing to disclose that (i) GreenSky was transitioning away from
the solar power market in favor of the elective healthcare market,
and (ii) the foreseeable negative effects on GreenSky's profits
because of significant differences in transaction fees GreenSky
charged to different classes of merchants.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than January 28, 2019 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the
purported class.  You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in
order to share in any possible recovery.  If you would like to
discuss the complaint or our investigation, please contact us by
emailing pmayer@kaplanfox.com or by calling 800-290-1952.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, with offices in New York, San
Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New Jersey, has many years of
experience in prosecuting investor class actions. For more
information about Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, you may visit our
website at www.kaplanfox.com.  If you have any questions about this
Notice, the action, your rights, or your interests, please
contact:

         Jeffrey P. Campisi
         KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
         850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
         New York, New York 10022
         (800) 290-1952
         (212) 687-1980
         Fax: (212) 687-7714
         E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com

         Laurence D. King
         KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
         350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
         San Francisco, California  94104
         (415) 772-4700
         Fax:  (415) 772-4707
         E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com [GN]


HOME DEPOT: Justices Hears Arguments on CAFA Removal Issue
----------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Mann, writing for SCOTUSblog, reports that on Jan. 15
argument in Home Depot U.S.A. v. Jackson was a notable one, as
Justice Elena Kagan brought a strong view of the case to the bench
and proceeded to dominate the argument.

The case involves the removal of litigation from state court to
federal court. Under Section 1441 (and predecessor provisions
dating back to the 18th century), "the defendant or the defendants"
generally has a right to remove "any civil action brought in a
State court of which the [federal] district courts have original
jurisdiction." In 2005, responding to concerns that state courts
have been unduly receptive to class actions, Congress adopted the
Class Action Fairness Act (often called the CAFA), which included a
variety of provisions designed to make it easier for class-action
defendants to remove those cases to federal court. One provision,
in Section 1332, granted original federal jurisdiction over most
class actions seeking a recovery of more than $5 million. Another
provision, in Section 1453, provided that "any defendant" can
remove a "class action" as defined in Section 1332.

Together, those provisions make it clear that if a plaintiff
initiates a large class action in state court, any of the
defendants can remove the case to federal court. Home Depot
presents an odd twist on that framework. In this case, the initial
litigation was between Citibank and respondent George Jackson:
Citibank sued Jackson in state court to collect a debt arising out
of a purchase Jackson made that was connected to Home Depot. All
agree that the Citibank action could not have been brought in (or
removed to) federal court. The next step, though, is what makes the
case interesting: Jackson responded by asserting both defensive
claims against Citibank and a class action against Home Depot,
alleging a variety of consumer-protection claims. Citibank then
withdrew its claim against Jackson, leaving Home Depot alone in the
litigation against Jackson. Home Depot responded by filing a
petition seeking to remove the matter to federal court under the
CAFA. The lower courts rejected Home Depot's petition and concluded
the case should return to state court.

As Mr. Mann explained in his preview, the parties for the most part
briefed the case on the question whether Home Depot qualifies as a
"defendant" under Section 1441 and 1453, with Home Depot arguing
that as a literal matter it plainly is a defendant and Jackson
arguing that the history of Section 1441 shows that the term
"defendant" refers only to the party against whom an action
initially is filed.

Justice Kagan came to the bench with a somewhat different take on
the matter, appearing strongly predisposed to rule against Home
Depot because the initial complaint in this case (filed by
Citibank) did not institute a "civil action" over which federal
courts would "have original jurisdiction." For her, the key to the
case isn't whether Home Depot is or is not a defendant, it is
whether the "civil action" at issue here could have been brought in
federal court -- and it plainly could not have been. That view
squarely collided with the presentation on behalf of Home Depot,
represented by William Barnette.

Early on Justice Kagan pointed out that Section "1441(a), which is
the principal removal statute, says that a civil action, not
claims, but a civil action can be removed where the district courts
have original jurisdiction. And what I've always taken that to mean
is that to look for original jurisdiction, you look to the
plaintiff's complaint, the original plaintiff." She could agree
with Mr. Barnette that:

[Y]our claim might be under the original jurisdiction of the
district courts if . . . that had started the lawsuit. But that
didn't start the lawsuit. The lawsuit, the civil action, was
started by a claim that's completely non-federal in nature. And you
look to the original claim to decide whether the courts have
original jurisdiction, don't you?

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer saw the case much the
same way. Justice Sotomayor, for example, asked Mr. Barnette
whether his case would "fall apart if we don't accept your
claim-by-claim analysis? You approach this claim by claim. I'm not
quite sure how we can . . . do that since the statute speaks about
a civil action and it talks about removal of an action, not a
removal of a claim."

Justice Breyer emphasized Section 1332, which "says the term 'class
action' means any civil action . . . filed under Rule 23 [or
analogous state law]. Did [Jackson], the one who sued you, . . .
did he file a civil action?" When Mr. Barnette suggested that
Jackson had filed such an action, Justice Breyer disagreed
forcefully: "I don't think he did, did he? Where does it say he
did? . . . What he did was he filed a . . . [counter]claim."

Mr. Barnette continued to press his point that Home Depot should be
regarded as a defendant, but Breyer kept taking the discussion back
to the filing of the complaint against Home Depot by the defendant
on the original complaint: "Where does it say that . . . when a
defendant files a class action, . . .that is an action filed, a
civil action, because civil actions are usually filed by
plaintiffs." Indeed, when Mr. Barnette persistently redirected the
discussion back to his baseline position, Justice Breyer seemed to
lose patience, commenting that he was only asking "a simple
question" and asking: "Why are you still not giving direct
answers?"

By the end of the discussion, Justice Breyer seemed as settled in
his view as Justice Kagan, explaining at one point: "Now I'm over
with Justice Kagan. A civil action is an action brought by a
plaintiff. And, therefore, since this isn't a civil action . . .
filed under Rule 23 [or analogous state law], they can't take
advantage of 1453 because they don't fit within the definition."

Justice Kagan summarized the discussion near the end of Mr.
Barnette's presentation, explaining:

Mr. Barnette, under your theory, every time one party joins another
party, we would have a new civil action. . . . But we don't. We
only have one civil action, and the civil action includes a
multitude of claims, or can, between and among a wide range of
parties. But it's only one civil action. . . .

[Y]ou're suggesting that we should look at this case as though the
original claim never occurred and we should pretend that the claim
started with the original defendant. But the case did not start
with the original defendant. The civil action started with the
original plaintiff, who brought a claim against a defendant who
then brought a claim against you.

That is not to say that Paul Bland's argument on behalf of Jackson
was entirely stress-free. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice
Samuel Alito probed closely on the textual support for and policy
implications of Mr. Bland's position. When Alito started to press
Bland closely, Justice Kagan repeatedly interrupted to explain how
she would analyze the problem. At one point, she engaged Alito so
directly that he asked Bland whether he "agree[d] with Justice
Kagan's answer to my question."

Mr. Bland was reluctant to embrace the position that Justice  Kagan
had articulated that it is irrelevant whether Home Depot was or was
not a defendant because Jackson had not filed a "civil action"
against Home Depot. Bland spent much of his argument trying to
resist comments by Alito and Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggesting
that Home Depot must be accepted as a defendant. Justice Alito, for
example, commented at one point that if "we look at the text, we
have a reference to the defendant or the defendants. So Home Depot
would qualify there, would it not?" When Bland suggested that the
traditional understanding of Section 1441 meant that Home Depot was
not a defendant, Justice Alito was wholly unpersuaded: "You're
reading things into it. . . [I]n the ordinary sense of the term,
are they not defendants? . . . They are some kind of defendants."

Justice Alito also seemed to think affirming the decision in this
case would fly in the face of Congress' intent in adopting the
CAFA, as he asked Mr. Bland rhetorically:

[I]s there any good reason why a claim like this . . .should not be
removable to federal court?  . . . If a claim like this is filed
originally in . . . state court, it can be removed, but if it comes
into the state court in this strange sort of back-door way, then it
has to stay in state court. You really think that that's a possible
decision Congress would make?

At the end of the day, it is not at all clear from the argument how
the court will resolve this one. We should find out by the end of
June. [GN]


HYATT CORPORATION: Haggar Says Website Not Blind-accessible
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elia Haggar, Kyo Hak Chu and Valerie Brooks, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. Hyatt Corporation and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-01090 (C.D. Cal., February 13, 2019) seeks to secure
redress against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website to be fully and equally
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiffs and other
blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiffs' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA") and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act ("UCRA"), says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs are visually-impaired and legally blind people who are
residents of California, County of Los Angeles and County of
Sacramento.

Defendant is a Delaware corporation, with its headquarters in
Illinois. Defendant's servers for the website are in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Carbajal Files FDCPA Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC. The case is styled as Esmerelda Carbajal,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-at-00117 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 10, 2019).

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

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC provides payment rewards, bankruptcy
collection, and debt collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
     Law Office of Jonathan A. Stieglitz
     11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800
     Los Angeles, CA 90064
     Phone: (323) 979-2063
     Fax: (323) 488-6748
     Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


JL WOODE: Valdes Seeks Overtime Compensation for Janitors
---------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO VALDES , on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, vs. JL WOODE
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, AN ILLINOIS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY , JL
WOODE LTD, LLC, AN ILLINOIS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00829 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 8, 2019), seeks
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance.

The Plaintiff is a current employee of the Defendants who performs
maintenance and janitorial services for the Defendants at the condo
building the Defendants' manage, who worked over 40 hours per week
without any compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a work
week, including at a rate of 1-1/2 his regular rate of pay. The
Plaintiff was compensated only for hours worked up to 40 in a work
week at his regular hourly rates of pay, but received no
compensation, at either his straight time or overtime rates of pay,
for such hours worked in excess of 40 per week, the lawsuit says.

JL Woode owns and operates a condominium building located at 3415
N. Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60657.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class, known
and unknown:

          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450

KIRSCHENBAUM: Faces DAngelo Suit Under Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kirschenbaum &
Phillips, P.C. The case is styled as Paul DAngelo on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C. and John Doe 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00807 (E.D. N.Y., Feb. 8, 2019).

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

Kirschenbaum & Phillips, P.C. was founded in 1950. The company's
line of business includes providing full service legal advice.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MANISTEE COUNTY, MI: Among Defendants in Property Tax Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Bond, writing for Manistee News Advocate, reports that
Manistee County was recently named, among 59 counties statewide, in
a class action lawsuit regarding collection of overdue property
taxes.

As it stands, foreclosure proceedings in the majority of Michigan
counties allow county treasurers to keep any difference between the
amount of delinquent property taxes owed and the amount the
property sells for at auction.

Attorney Philip Ellison claims in the suit that, while it's fair
for governments to foreclose on a property if its owner cannot pay
taxes, treasurers should not be allowed to keep the excess amount
if the property sells for more than what is owed.

"If they're able to make more than what the tax debt is, they need
to make a process available for the property owner to get that
money back," said Mr. Ellison. "It's identical to what happens when
you don't pay a mortgage. If the bank forecloses because you don't
pay a mortgage and they sell your house for more than what the note
is, the mortgage company has to refund the difference."

Mr. Ellison is representing Ronald Maynard, who is the plaintiff
both individually and as a class representative.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Maynard owed $7,000 in taxes, plus
penalties and other costs. In 2016, Newaygo County Treasurer Holly
Moon foreclosed on the property, selling it to a land speculator at
a tax auction for $70,000.

Per protocol for tax foreclosures, Newaygo County did not return
the $63,000 difference between the tax auction price and the total
tax delinquency. Mr. Maynard is seeking damages, as well as an
order declaring the foreclosure process unconstitutional.

Russell Pomeroy, Manistee County treasurer, spoke about the lawsuit
during the Manistee County Board of Commissioners meeting on Jan.
15.

"The county board of commissioners, myself in my official capacity
and myself as an individual have been sued as part of a class
action suit," he said. "We have been served, and our group of
counties was filed in Newaygo County."

Fifty-nine of Michigan's 83 counties, divided separately based on
geography, are facing lawsuits. The counties that will be heard in
Newaygo County include Benzie, Manistee, Wexford, Missaukee, Mason,
Lake, Osceola, Oceana and Newaygo. The treasurer and board of
commissioners were named in the suit for each county.

For several counties, the foreclosure process is handled by the
state and are therefore not named in the lawsuit. Mr. Ellison
intends to file suit against the state in regard to those
counties.

"There's basically two ways to look at this, we assert,"
Mr. Ellison said. "Our first and main claim is called a takings
claim. If the government takes something that doesn't belong to the
government, it's a taking and under the constitution, they have to
pay just compensation. . .  Our argument is money above the taxes
that are owed is a taking. What some of the counties have come back
and said is that it's not a taking -- by you not paying your taxes,
you forfeited your property to the government.

"If the judge agrees that is what happened, our second argument
comes into play -- an excessive fines clause violation. Governments
cannot impose excessive fines, and courts have ruled forfeiture is
a type of fine. Our argument is when you take 10, 20, 30, in some
cases 90 times the value of the debt that is imposed, that itself
is an excessive fine and requires the government not to be allowed
to keep the money," he continued.

Treasurers have argued that counties are following Michigan law,
and multiple notices are given before a property is foreclosed.
Some feel that the properties where excess money is accumulated
offset the many properties that sell for less than what is owed.

Michelle Thompson, Benzie County treasurer, said Public Act 123 of
1999 governs how treasurers conduct the foreclosure process, which
she said could take up to three years.

"I think the most important thing for people to understand is
county treasurers are passionate about preventing foreclosure and
keeping people in their homes," Ms. Thompson said. "We're not in
the business of owning and selling property. If I had my perfect
tax scenario, I'd have zero tax foreclosures every year. However,
I've got to collect taxes; that's my job. Some of the ways we do
that includes the sale of property."

She also said that from 1999, up until 2013, the county's tax
foreclosure fund was "underwater," and that obtaining a surplus was
rare. Several years ago, the county sold a house on the north side
of Crystal Lake for $300,000, which was then used as one-time
funding for infrastructure improvements and the purchase of some
items.

"We're not asking the courts to preclude governments from
collecting taxes. But they should not be allowed to collect beyond
what is owed," Mr. Ellison said. "Just because someone owns a more
valuable property doesn't mean the government can look at the
bottom line and tell you it all balances out. We don't rob Peter to
pay Paul in our system of government."

A similar case, unrelated to the class action suit, is also pending
before the Michigan Supreme Court, Rafaeli v. Oakland County.

Uri Rafaeli, who owned a rental property in Oakland County,
miscalculated the amount of interest he owed on 2011 property taxes
by $8.41. The property was foreclosed and sold for $24,500. The
Supreme Court case makes similar legal arguments as the class
action lawsuit.

"When (Ellison) filed the lawsuit, he wanted to get it filed
quickly to avoid the statute of limitations, but at the same time
he is asking that it be stayed until there is a decision in the
case of Oakland County v. Rafaeli, which has gone to the state
Supreme Court," said Pomeroy.

The Maynard case will be heard in Newaygo County at 2:15 p.m. on
Jan. 29. The Michigan Supreme Court case, however, will be a slower
process.

"It's probably going to take quite some time before the (Supreme
Court) case has been decided, they haven't even set up a time for
oral arguments or briefs or anything like that at this point," said
Pomeroy. "Our state treasurer association has retained four of the
best foreclosure attorneys in the state to write an amicus brief
for the Supreme Court hearing."

Calls to the attorney representing Manistee County were not
answered by press time.

Tim Rath, of the Pioneer News Network, and Colin Merry, Benzie
County Record Patriot staff writer, contributed to this report.
[GN]


MDL 2752: Ct. Stays Customer Data Security Breach MDL for 60 Days
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lucy H. Koh issued an order in the multidistrict
litigation styled IN RE: YAHOO! INC. CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH
LITIGATION, MDL No. 5:16-md-02752-LHK (N.D. Cal.), staying the case
and denying without prejudice pending motions.

The Order is issued on Case Nos. 5:16-md-02752-LHK,
5:16-cv-05456-LHK, 5:16-cv-05634-LHK, 5:16-cv-05609-LHK,
5:16-cv-05643-LHK, 5:16-cv-05466-LHK, 5:16-cv-05463-LHK,
5:16-cv-05911-LHK, 5:16-cv-05540-LHK, 5:16-cv-05811-LHK,
5:16-cv-07031-LHK, 5:16-cv-07030-LHK, 5:16-cv-06990-LHK,
5:16-cv-06635-LHK, 5:16-cv-06152-LHK, 5:16-cv-06733-LHK,
5:16-cv-06590-LHK, 5:16-cv-07228-LHK, 5:16-cv-07228-LHK,
5:16-cv-07154-LHK, 5:16-cv-07206-LHK, 5:16-cv-07246-LHK,
5:16-cv-07182-LHK, 5:16-cv-07227-LHK, 5:16-cv-07261-LHK,
5:17-cv-00619-LHK, 5:17-cv-00135-LHK, 5:17-cv-00641-LHK,
5:17-cv-00037-LHK, 5:16-cv-07291-LHK, 5:16-cv-07354-LHK and
5:16-cv-07264-LHK.

On January 28, 2019, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.  On January 29,
2019, the Court ordered the parties to file a joint status report
indicating how they wish to proceed.  The Court stated that "[i]f
the parties wish to engage in further settlement negations, the
Court will likely stay the instant MDL case for 60 days."  On
January 30, 2019, the Court amended the order denying the motion
for preliminary approval of class action settlement.

On February 7, 2019, the parties filed a joint status report
"request[ing] the Court stay this action for 60 days so they can
engage in further settlement negotiations to address the issues
raised by the Court."

Accordingly, the Court stays this action for 60 days.

The parties shall file a new settlement agreement and a new motion
for preliminary approval of class action settlement by April 8,
2019.

According to the Order, currently pending before the Court are the
motion for class certification, motions to seal, and motions to
exclude expert report, declarations, and testimony.  All pending
motions are denied without prejudice.  If the parties are unable to
resolve their dispute, Judge Koh rules that they may refile these
motions.

Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(2) provides that if a motion to seal is
denied in its entirety, the document sought to be sealed will not
be considered by the Court unless the submitting party files an
unredacted version of the document within 7 days after the motion
is denied.  Because these motions are denied without prejudice, the
parties need not refile unredacted versions of these documents at
this time, Judge Koh notes.

If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute and they refile
these motions, the Court at that time will apply the appropriate
standard for sealing and rule on the renewed sealing motions.

Judge Koh also states that the Clerk shall administratively close
the case file.  This is an internal administrative procedure that
does not affect the rights of the parties.[CC]


MIDLAND CREDIT: Dionisio Files FDCPA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC. The case is styled as Virginia Dionisio, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, and John
Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-at-00109 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 10,
2019).

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

Midland Credit Management, Inc., a licensed debt collector, assists
customers in resolving past-due financial obligations through
various education and payment plans.

Midland Funding LLC provides debt collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
     Law Office of Jonathan A. Stieglitz
     11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800
     Los Angeles, CA 90064
     Phone: (323) 979-2063
     Fax: (323) 488-6748
     Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com


MINDBODY INC: Schall Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Jan. 15 disclosed that it is investigating claims on behalf of
investors of MINDBODY, Inc. ("MINDBODY" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:
MB) for potential breaches of fiduciary duty by both officers and
the Company and potential violations of law.

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

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

The Schall Law Firm -- http://www.schallfirm.com-- represents
investors around the world and specializes in securities class
action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. [GN]


MOBILE MARINE: Bishop Suit Asserts ADA Breach
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mobile Marine
Technicians, Inc. d/b/a Tom's River Marine and Motorsports. The
case is styled as Cedric Bishop and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mobile Marine Technicians, Inc.
d/b/a Tom's River Marine and Motorsports, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01311 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 11, 2019).

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

Mobile Marine technicians, or motorboat mechanics, maintain and
repair the mechanical and electrical equipment found on
recreational boats and small commercial vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEINSTEIN & ASSOCIATES: Settles Ex-Clients' Class Action for $4MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michele Henry and Kenyon Wallace, writing for Toronto Star, report
that a personal injury law firm has agreed to pay an estimated $4
million to settle claims that the firm double-dipped from the
settlements of nearly 1,800 accident victims it represented.

The settlement between Neinstein & Associates LLP, a prominent
personal injury law firm, and its clients was approved on Jan. 16
by Justice Paul Perell.

Justice Perell's sign-off on the settlement effectively ends a
class-action lawsuit that was certified in June 2017 but never made
it to trial.

At the time the class-action commenced, lawyers working on
contingency — "you don't pay unless we win" — were not allowed
to take a sum of money called "costs" in addition to a percentage
of the settlement, according to the Solicitor's Act governing
lawyers.

In 2012, the roughly 1,800 class members alleged that Gary
Neinstein and the law firm breached provincial law and their
"fiduciary duties because they charged an amount for costs" in
addition to the fee spelled out in their contingency fee agreement,
according to Justice Perell's settlement approval decision. The
firm denied the allegations.

Jeff Neinstein, managing partner of Neinstein Personal Injury
Lawyers, told the Star in an email his firm is "pleased that this
issue has been resolved."

"We appreciate the trust and confidence that our clients have
continued to place in us and we remain dedicated to providing
compassionate legal representation for all victims across
Ontario."

During a brief hearing in a second-floor courtroom at downtown
Toronto's Osgoode Hall, Justice Perell additionally approved $1
million in legal fees and assorted charges incurred during the
litigation for plaintiff lawyers Peter Waldmann and Andrew Stein,
plus a $10,000 honorarium to accident victim Cassie Hodge, the
46-year-old mother of two at the heart of the case.

Waldmann, who represented Hodge and the other class members, said
the settlement is "a compromise," but he is pleased the accident
victims are getting some remedy.

A Star investigation that began in 2016 found personal injury
lawyers in Ontario had routinely taken their fees then also taken
the "costs," which a Divisional Court judge had called "double
dipping." As a result, the Star story said, many Ontario residents
had been overcharged thousands of dollars and likely did not know
it.

On the heels of the Star's findings, the Law Society of Ontario
decided to make changes to the way personal injury lawyers can
advertise their services, bill their clients and charge and collect
referral fees.

"When this issue was first raised, it became clear that there was
confusion regarding the interpretation of the Solicitors Act," Jeff
Neinstein said on Jan. 16. "We took these concerns very seriously.
We worked collaboratively to ensure that these issues were
responsibly addressed. We are proud of the work that we do and
continue to promote access to justice."

In his settlement approval order, Justice Perell said negotiations
between both sides were "intensive." He said the settlement is "a
good result for the class particularly having regard to the
litigation risks and the long litigation road that would await
them."

As part of the settlement, a class member could get 30 per cent of
what Neinstein referred to on his accounts as costs, the court
said, provided she or he signed or amended a contingency fee
agreement with the firm after October 1, 2004 and paid their fees
before December 9, 2015.

Their cases must also have settled for at least $40,000 and their
bills included at least $15,000 for an amount the firm called
"party and party costs," "partial indemnity costs" or another term
using equivalent language.

Justice Perell said that he awarded Hodge the honorarium to pay her
personal expenses during the case and "to acknowledge her
extraordinary contribution."

Ms. Hodge's battle against Neinstein began in 2010 after the law
firm settled her car accident case for $150,000, sending her a
final account that included charges for "legal fees" of $30,326 and
"costs" of $30,000. She was also charged for $48,924 of
"disbursements," charges incurred by the lawyer in the course of
litigation, which included $4,008 for photocopies, $2,791 for
"laser copies," and $1,372 for "interest recovery," according to an
earlier appeal court ruling that upheld the certification of the
class.

Ms. Hodge alleges she was left with a fraction of her settlement.

Ms. Hodge had retained the Neinstein firm after a 2002 accident
that left her with a concussion, whiplash, a retinal tear, soft
tissue injuries and chronic pain.

"Justice is served," Ms. Hodge said outside the courtroom after the
hearing. "Now people are aware of what was happening at law firms,
and they know that they do have recourse." [GN]


NEW DAY FINANCIAL: Faces Katzakian Suit for Invasion of Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN KATZAKIAN individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NEW DAY FINANCIAL, LLC D/B/A NEWDAY USA and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 1:19-at-00101
(E.D. Cal., February 7, 2019), alleges that the Defendants
contacted the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading her
privacy.

New Day Financial, LLC, doing business as NewDay USA, is a mortgage
company.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are
currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW PRIME: Can't Force Trucker Drivers' Suit Into Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Lockridge, writing for Trucking Info, reports that trucking
companies that use owner-operator independent contractors may not
be able to rely on arbitration clauses to avoid lawsuits from those
drivers in the wake of a new U.S. Supreme Court decision. The court
ruled Jan. 15 that Missouri-based trucking company New Prime Inc.
(known as Prime) cannot force arbitration in a class action lawsuit
alleging it failed to pay independent contractor truck-driver
apprentices minimum wage.

In 2015, Dominic Oliveira sued Prime in a class action, alleging
that he and other drivers whom the company classified as
independent contractors were in reality employees, and thus were
underpaid during their onboarding and training periods. Prime
argued that the drivers couldn't sue, because the agreement the
contractors signed contains an arbitration clause, saying the
drivers agreed not to sue the company but instead submit any such
claims to arbitration.

However, the drivers' attorneys argued that the Federal Arbitration
Act does not apply to the "contracts of employment" of
transportation workers. The First Circuit Court agreed, finding
that the term "workers" under Section 1(a) of the FAA includes not
only traditional employees, but also independent contractors.

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling in a unanimous
8-0 decision (Justice Kavanaugh was not appointed before last
October's arguments.)

Justice Gorsuch wrote in the court opinion, "The Federal
Arbitration Act requires courts to enforce private arbitration
agreements. But like most laws, this one bears its qualifications,"
specifically citing a passage that the law may not be use to compel
arbitration in disputes involving the "contracts of employment" of
certain transportation workers. And that qualification, he
explained, had sparked the question, among others: Does the term
"contracts of employment" refer only to contracts between employers
and employees, or does it also reach contracts with independent
contractors?

The court's decision looked at the meaning of the term "contracts
of employment" when the law was written in 1925. "At that time, a
'contract of employment' usually meant nothing more than an
agreement to perform work," Justice Gorsuch writes. "As a result,
most people then would have understood [the wording in the FAA
section] to exclude not only agreements between employers and
employees but also agreements that require independent contractors
to perform work… the dictionaries of the era consistently
afforded the word 'employment' a broad construction, broader than
may be often found in dictionaries today. Back then, dictionaries
tended to treat 'employment' more or less as a synonym for
'work.'"

Prime General Counsel Steve Crawford told HDT in an email, "It is a
disappointing loss. As is evident, the high court held onto
principles first laid out nearly 100 years ago. We obviously felt
that the court's ruling should have evolved with the law of
business and culture. However, when they can hang on to something
tied closer to our founding tenets, they tend to do so. We will
return to the First Circuit optimistic and prepared to address
these allegations on their merits."

Industry Reaction
The American Trucking Associations, which filed an amicus brief in
the case, told HDT in an email, "ATA is disappointed by the
decision, which will make it harder for motor carriers and
independent owner-operators alike to rely on agreements to resolve
their disputes through arbitration. Congress enacted the Federal
Arbitration Act to promote arbitration as a fair, cheaper, and more
efficient alternative to litigation, and the decision deprives the
trucking industry of the benefits of that Congressional policy.
This will make dispute resolution in the trucking industry more
costly than it is in other industries, which in turn will mean
unnecessary costs passed on to the supply chain. It will also mean
that many small-dollar disputes that commonly arise between
owner-operators and motor carriers will go unresolved, because
while they could be cost-effectively addressed in arbitration, are
not significant enough to justify the expense of litigation."

On the other hand, the decision was praised by the Teamsters Port
Division, which has been active in pushing for "misclassified"
owner-operators at the nation's port facilities to be declared
employees. "This is a great victory for all workers in the
transportation industry, including employees, legitimate
independent contractors, and drivers misclassified as independent
contractors who are suffering egregious wage theft," said Fred
Potter, director of the Teamsters Port Division, in a press
release. "Although we have consistently challenged employers'
attempts to compel private arbitration to avoid a public legal
battle, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling makes it clear that employers
cannot and should not require drivers to waive their right to their
day in court through binding arbitration agreements."

The Takeaway for Motor Carriers
"This issue has been litigated for years," Braden Core --
bcore@scopelitis.com -- partner with transportation law firm
Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary, told HDT in an
interview. He was present at the oral arguments last October, and
his firm predicted the court would rule in Mr. Oliveira's favor.

"Going back now probably a decade, Scoplitis has been advising
clients that this is a risk they run in requiring arbitration with
their owner-operators," Mr. Core said. "What we now know is that
you're not even going to get to argue that your owner-operators
fall outside the exemption. That argument is off the table. The FAA
just isn't going to apply."

However, he said, the court's decision does leave a few issues
open:

   * Carriers may still be able to use state law. "That's good
news, although it raises a number of its own questions, because
state law varies," Mr. Core said. "Some states have better
arbitration laws than others. So every carrier is going to have to
look at their agreements and ask themselves, 'How do I shake out
under state law?'"

   * Arbitration agreements may still be an option for contracts
with carriers that are not a one-man/one-truck driving operation.
During the oral argument, several justices probed whether an
owner-operator who did not personally perform services or who
operated multiple trucks would be subject to the exemption. The
court did not address these issues in its opinion, arguably leaving
them open for future litigation.

Mr. Core's advice to fleets? "Any time there's an opinion like this
that affects the industry, it is a good idea for a carrier to take
the agreement off the shelf, dust it off and revisit it." [GN]


NOVA LIFESTYLE: Faces Barney Securities Class Action in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
George Barney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nova Lifestyle, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-10725
(C.D. Calif., December 28, 2018), seeks to recover compensable
damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than the Defendants
who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities
of Nova Lifestyle from December 3, 2015 through December 20, 2018,
both dates inclusive.

The Plaintiff claims that on December 21, 2018, Andri Capital
issued a report on Seeking Alpha stating Nova Lifestyle's revenues
in 2016 and 2017 were overstated because the Company booked sales
to a dissolved and nonexistent company. The report further stated
that Nova Lifestyle's purported strategic alliance with Shanxi
Wanqing was meant to deceive investors as Shanxi Wanqing was a sham
company.

The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

The Defendant Nova Lifestyle purports to design, manufacture, and
sell residential and commercial furniture to middle and upper
middle-income consumers worldwide. The Company is incorporated in
Nevada and its principal executive offices are located in Commerce,
California. The Company's securities are traded on the NASDAQ under
the ticker symbol "NVFY."

The Individual Defendants are present and former chief executive
officers and chief financial officers of Nova Lifestyle. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ONTARIO: Koskie Minsky Disputes Order to Pay $1.5MM to Charity
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Fine, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that a prominent
law firm is fighting back after a judge criticized its settlement
for deaf children who had been beaten and abused in Ontario
schools, and ordered it to pay $1.5-million to charity in return
for collecting its fee.

The Toronto firm of Koskie Minsky LLP, which specializes in
class-action lawsuits, was set to tell the Ontario Court of Appeal
at a hearing on Jan. 17 that the order is unprecedented, and that
Superior Court Justice Paul Perell had no authority to make it.

The hearing will shine a light on what Justice Perell called an
inherent conflict of interest for lawyers in class actions: If they
settle a case for less than an optimal amount, they receive a large
contingency fee, while if they fight on, they risk losing and not
being paid at all.

Koskie Minsky sued the Ontario government four years ago for
$325-million on behalf of 4,500 students at three schools for the
deaf, and their families, alleging sexual, physical and emotional
abuse between 1938 and 2016. The firm settled with the government
for $15-million, but 90 per cent of the students, and all of the
families, are entitled to nothing -- not even an apology.

Only children who were sexually or physically abused are entitled
to payouts, to a maximum of $45,000.

Justice Perell called it a "poor settlement," and made the
charitable order, he explained in a ruling last May, so that those
who receive no settlement monies will still benefit through the
charities. Koskie Minsky appealed.

While in a narrow sense, the appeal hearing in Welsh v. Ontario is
about whether Justice Perell had the authority to order the
charitable donation. But the case has far-reaching implications,
says Toronto lawyer Michael Rosenberg, who specializes in class
actions, and was not involved in the case.

At its heart, he said, the case is about how courts maintain the
balance in class actions between giving lawyers financial incentive
to take on risky public-interest cases, and guarding against the
approval of "windfall" sums taken from the pockets of vulnerable
groups.

Of the $15 -- million, after the $3.75 -- million fee and $487,500
in HST, $500,000 in disbursements and other costs, and a $1-million
payment to a fund for class actions, just $9.2-million remains to
be split by those who were sexually or physically abused. And there
is no guarantee that all of the $9.2-million will be paid out; it
depends on how many of those who are eligible put in claims. Unpaid
monies revert to the province. (In another unusual move, Justice
Perell ordered that the $3.75-million fee be reduced by the same
proportion as that of the unpaid settlement monies. Koskie Minsky
is also challenging that order.)

Justice Perell said the outcome, after his charitable order,
"maintains the honour of the [legal] profession."

Kirk Baert, a partner at Koskie Minsky, declined to comment before
the appeal is heard. But in a document filed with the appeal court,
the firm said Justice Perell erred by rejecting the "best evidence"
that the settlement was fair -- comparison to similar settlements
that had been approved by other judges.

For the deaf community, the class action was of keen interest in
its claims of discrimination and substandard teaching that left
people grossly impaired later in life, said Stephanie DiGiuseppe, a
lawyer who represented a former student who fought the legal fees.

"I think there's a sense of betrayal that those claims were not
pursued vigorously," she said in an interview.

The children and families who received nothing in the settlement 13
months ago permanently lose their right to sue the Ontario
government over the schools, unless they signed documents opting
out of the class action. (Class actions end the right to sue, for
members of the "class" or group certified by a court, whether those
members were aware of the litigation or not.) Four members of the
group objected formally to the fees requested by Koskie Minsky.

The representative plaintiff in the case is Christopher Welsh, who
lived in residence at Ernest C. Drury School for the Deaf in
Milton, beginning at age five, from 1964 to 1971, and then attended
the Robarts School for the Deaf in London for five years. Sir James
Whitney School for the Deaf in Belleville was also part of the
claim.

Mr. Welsh alleged in a legal document that he was regularly hit in
the mouth at Ernest Drury for using American Sign Language, rather
than speaking. In its statement of defence, Ontario denied the
abuses occurred and said that, if they did, it was not legally
responsible for them.

Koskie Minsky had argued that the risks of fighting the case in
court and losing were high, and that the proceedings could take
years to conclude. But Justice Perell said the firm was aware of
the litigation risks when it set out; it could have certified a
smaller group, thus preserving the legal rights of the larger one.

He said the settlement "failed to respect the dignity of the
overwhelming majority" of the group. In the end, though, he
reluctantly approved the settlement, he said, so that a small
number would receive compensation.

Koskie Minsky provided no breakdown of what work it did, who did it
or its hourly rate, Justice Perell said in his ruling. [GN]


OXNARD SCHOOL DISTRICT: J.R.'s Bid for Class Cert. Under Submission
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John A. Kronstadt has taken under submission the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint
and the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification in the
lawsuit entitled J.R. v. Oxnard School District, et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-04304-JAK-FFM (C.D. Cal.).

According to the Court's civil minutes, the motion hearing is held.
The Court states its tentative views that it is inclined to grant
without prejudice the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Third Amended Complaint and deny the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for
Class Certification (the "Motions").  The Court takes the Motions
under submission and a ruling will be issued.

The hearing is held on the Administrative Appeals of I.G. and M.B.
The Court states its tentative view that it is inclined to affirm
the administrative decision as to I.G.  The Court states its
tentative view that it is inclined to require a settlement
conference between the parties as to M.B. and remand the matter to
the Office of Administrative Hearings for a further hearing.  The
Court takes the administrative appeal of I.G. under submission and
a ruling will be issued.

The Court adheres to its tentative view as to the appeal of M.B.
and grants the Plaintiff's request.  The parties shall participate
in a settlement process as to M.B.  If they do not resolve the
matter, it is remanded to the Office of Administrative Hearings for
a further hearing on any remaining issues.

The Court and Counsel discuss the status of settlement efforts as
to both the I.G. and the J.R. class action matters.  The parties
agree that a further settlement effort would be useful at this
time, and discuss potential neutrals, who could assist them.  The
parties are directed to continue to confer about a settlement
process, and submit a joint report with their respective and/or
collective positions as to the proposed process, including the
neutral, and a deadline for conducting the settlement conference.
Upon reviewing the joint report, an order will issue as to the
process and schedule.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shawna L. Parks, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SHAWNA L. PARKS
          4470 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 107-347
          Los Angeles, CA 90027
          Telephone: (323) 389-9239
          E-mail: sparks@parks-law-office.com

               - and -

          Janeen Steel, Esq.
          LEARNING RIGHTS LAW CENTER
          205 S. Broadway, Suite 808
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 489-4035
          Facsimile: (213) 489-4033
          E-mail: Janeen@learningrights.org

               - and -

          Jessica Catherine Agatstein, Esq.
          Melissa Riess, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 665-8644
          E-mail: jagatstein@dralegal.org
                  mriess@dralegal.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Albert A. Erkel, Esq.
          April E. Navarro, Esq.
          Janet Ly, Esq.
          Norma N. Franklin, Esq.
          GARCIA HERNANDEZ SAWHNEY, LLP
          2490 Mariner Square Loop, Suite 140
          Alameda, CA 94501
          Telephone: (510) 695-2802
          Facsimile: (510) 380-7704
          E-mail: aerkel@ghslaw.com
                  anavarro@ghslaw.com
                  jly@ghslaw.com
                  nnava@ghslaw.com


PACIFIC, MO: Donoho Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled DEBORAH DONOHO, et al. v.
THE CITY OF PACIFIC, MISSOURI, Case No. 4:19-cv-00186-NAB (E.D.
Mo.), ask the Court to grant conditional class certification under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Deborah Donoho, et al., also ask the Court to approve their
proposed Notice and Consent Form for dissemination to potential
opt-in plaintiffs, and to order the Defendant to produce to the
Plaintiffs in a readable electronic data file format the Pacific
Police Department dispatchers' full names, addresses, phone
numbers, e-mail addresses, and dates of service within 14 days of
the date of this Court's Order.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin J. Dolley, Esq.
          Michael G. Mueth, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC
          2726 S. Brentwood Blvd.
          St. Louis, MO 63144
          Telephone: (314) 645-4100
          Facsimile: (314) 736-6216
          E-mail: kevin@dolleylaw.com
                  michael.mueth@dolleylaw.com


PATRIOT NATIONAL: Judge Orders Transfer of Class Action to N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd, writing for Florida Record, reports that the U.S.
District court for the Southern District of Florida recently
ordered that a Florida class action on behalf of shareholders in a
Florida-based outsourcing company that emerged from Chapter 11 last
year be transferred to a federal court in New York.

In her 17-page order filed Jan. 2, U.S. District Court Judge Beth
Bloom transferred the case, McIntire et al. v Mariano et al., to
U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York.

The transfer was part of Judge Bloom's decision to grant a motion
by ODS Capital LLC, Barry A. Smith and Sunil Shah in the class
action. The motion was filed by co-lead plaintiffs in a similar
federal case filed in New York on behalf of shareholders of Patriot
National Inc., a Fort Lauderdale-based insurance technology and
outsourcing firm that ended up in bankruptcy and reorganized last
year.

"The court finds that all required conditions have been met for ODS
Capital LLC, Barry A. Smith and Sunil Shah to intervene in this
action," judge Bloom said in her order.

The class action is rooted in the March 2017 class action filed by
Anthony L. Gingello against Patriot National, Steven M. Mariano and
Thomas Shields in New York' alleging violations of the Exchange
Act. The case alleged claims on behalf of investors who purchased
Patriot National securities between August 2016 and March 2017.

The suit alleged that Patriot National executives "failed to
disclose that Patriot National was being run primarily for
defendant Mariano's benefit rather than for the benefit of
shareholders," the background portion of Bloom's order said.

The Gingello case preceded Patriot National's filing for bankruptcy
protection in January 2018. The bankruptcy and reorganization was
approved by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware
the following May to allow Patriot National's transition of
ownership from its public shareholders to Cerberus Business
Finance, based in New York, and TCW Asset Management Company, based
in Los Angeles, to move forward.

Patriot National successfully emerged from bankruptcy last summer
under its new owners with John Rearer staying on as CEO. Patriot
Nation continues to be headquartered in Fort Lauderdale and its 250
employees laid off from headquarters and six divisions across the
nation the day before Thanksgiving in 2017 didn't receive severance
pay.

In January 2018, Aric McIntire and Henry Wasik filed their own
lawsuit in Florida's Southern District on behalf of Patriot
National common stock purchasers from January 2015 and November
2017 alleging Mariano and Shields violated federal securities laws

In their motion to intervene, ODS Capital, Smith and Shah argued
that McIntire case, like the Gingello case, focuses in part on
misconduct in Patriot National's dealings with Guarantee Insurance
Group.

In her order, Bloom said she found "an identical factual nexus" in
the McIntire and Gingello class actions.  

"If the issues in this case were to be litigated in two separate
courts, there would be an unnecessary waste of time, energy, and
money," the order said. "Given the substantial concerns with the
same issues, facts and parties simultaneously pending before two
district courts, the court will exercise its broad discretion and
transfer the instant action to the Southern District of New York."
[GN]


PAUL VALLAS: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Campaign Texts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been lodged against Chicago mayoral candidate
Paul Vallas, alleging Vallas' campaign committee violated consumer
protection law by sending automated text messages, which urged
recipients to cast votes for Vallas.

The suit was filed Jan. 11 in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, which is based in Chicago, against the Paul
Vallas for All Chicago election committee. Plaintiffs are Chicago
residents Jeff Klueh and Jake Campbell.

The 65-year-old Vallas is former budget director for the City of
Chicago and was chief executive officer of the Chicago public
school system. Mr. Vallas has held other school administration
posts in Louisiana and Pennsylvania. He also ran unsuccessfully as
a Democrat for Illinois lieutenant governor in 2014.

Mr. Vallas, who threw his hat in the ring for Chicago mayor in
March 2018, is facing 13 other candidates in the Feb. 26 election.

Messrs. Klueh and Campbell alleged Mr. Vallas breached the U.S.
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits automated and
unsolicited calls or text messages to cellular phones. They alleged
Mr. Vallas' campaign sent such texts to thousands of Chicago
residents, promoting Mr. Vallas' candidacy.

Mr. Klueh said he received Vallas texts the evenings of Wednesday
Dec. 5 and Thursday, Dec. 20, 2018 with Mr. Campbell saying he
received one the evening of Wednesday, Jan. 2. Each message was
different, but contained about 20 words, as well as a link to the
Vallas website.

The messages did not include a "stop" option to let Mr. Klueh and
Mr. Campbell inform Vallas they did not wish to receive further
texts, according to plaintiffs.

Mr. Klueh's phone number has a 773 prefix and Mr. Campbell's a 630
prefix.

Plaintiffs said they believe the Vallas campaign obtained their
phone numbers, as well as the numbers of thousands of other people
in Chicago, by buying or otherwise acquiring a mass list or
database of numbers without permission of the number holders.

According to plaintiffs, the names of the other text recipients can
be ascertained from commercially available databases and Vallas'
records.

Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Mr. Vallas could be
fined at least $500 per message, but plaintiffs want the penalty
tripled, because Mr. Vallas' alleged violation of the Act was
"willful and knowing."

Plaintiffs noted the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
headquartered in San Francisco, has ruled text messages are among
electronic transmissions barred by the Act.

No hearing date is yet set and no judge assigned the case.

Messrs. Klueh and Campbell are represented by James Vlahakis, of
Sulaiman Law Group in suburban Lombard. The group also operates as
Atlas Consumer Law.

According to the Atlas Consumer Law website, Mr. Vlahakis focuses
on consumer-based litigation, particularly cases involving the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act. [GN]


PAUL VALLAS: Says Class Action Over Text Messages "Dirty Trick"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Hendrickson, writing for The Chicago Sun Times, reports
that two Chicago men have launched a class-action lawsuit against
the campaign of mayoral candidate Paul Vallas over his use of text
messaging to reach voters.

But the Vallas campaign in a statement on Jan. 15 called the
lawsuit "a dirty trick" and blamed the "political machine" for the
maneuver.

James Vlahakis, a consumer-rights attorney based in west suburban
Lombard, filed the suit on Jan. 11 in U.S District Court on behalf
of Jeff Klueh and Jake Campbell, who say they never signed up to
receive text messages on their phone from the Vallas campaign.

The suit alleges Mr. Vallas' campaign violated the 1991 Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits calling or texting a
person using an automatic telephone dialing system without their
consent.

Mr. Klueh received text messages from the Vallas campaign Dec. 5
and Dec. 20, according to the suit. Campbell was texted Jan. 2.

Additionally, neither man was given information in the message on
how to opt-out of receiving future texts, according to the suit.

The Chicago Sun-Times reported earlier in January that people
targeted by the "spam" messages vowed it would keep them
considering Vallas for the city's top job.

A text message sent by the campaign that was obtained by the
Sun-Times linked to a website paid for by Vallas for All Chicago.
The site detailed Vallas' plan to address crime and violence in the
city.

Mr. Vlahakis, who has worked on "about a dozen" similar suits, said
he began contemplating filing the suit after reading the story.

The suit seeks as much as $1,500 in damages from the Vallas
campaign for each message sent to Klueh and Campbell, according to
court filings.

Mr. Vlahakis said political campaigns need to be more aware of the
risks of violating FCC rules regarding spam texting.

"There's a general misconception that this is allowed," according
to Mr. Vlahakis, who said he also received a text message from the
Vallas campaign.

"When I saw the message, I was shaking my head . . . because I
obviously didn't give consent," Mr. Vlahakis said.

If the Vallas campaign is found to have violated the act, it could
have to pay a minimum of $500 for each message sent, according to
the suit, which estimates that the messages could have reached "at
least several hundred persons."

The suit is scheduled for a status hearing in March before Judge
Andrea R. Wood at the Dirksen Courthouse, Mr. Vlahakis said.

The Vallas campaign declined to answer questions again on Jan. 15
about their use of text messaging to reach voters but called the
lawsuit "a dirty trick" in a statement.

"Clearly, the strength of my candidacy is a threat to the political
machine and their pay-to-play candidates," according to an emailed
statement attributed to Vallas. "This is a dirty trick, and this is
what they do.

"Our communications platform has been thoroughly vetted legally and
is legal under FCC guidelines. Everyone has the option of opting
out if they so choose. Our vendors follow all rules and
regulations. The nation's pre-eminent telecommunications law firm
will be responding accordingly and I have no concerns."

Mr. Vlahakis said he categorically denied the lawsuit was
politically motivated and the suggestion that his clients were
working on behalf of another campaign.

"We are disappointed that Mr. Vallas' knee jerk reaction is to
decry 'dirty politics' without him having any factual basis to make
this assertion," Mr. Vlahakis said. "We look forward to having Mr.
Vallas' attorneys explain why he believes that his unsolicited
political text messages comply with federal law." [GN]


PG&E CORPORATION: Herndon, et al. Seek Damages Over Wildfire
------------------------------------------------------------
David Herndon, Julia Herndon, Gabriell Herndon, Jedidiah Herndon,
Estefania Miranda, Gabriella's Eatery, Chico Rent-a-Fence and
Ponderosa Pest & Weed Control, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PG&E Corporation, a
California corporation, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, a
California corporation, Geisha Williams, and Does 1-20, Defendants,
Case No. 19-03005 (N.D. Cal., February 13, 2019) seeks damages and
injunctive relief against Defendants.

In November 2018, a fire began near Camp Creek Road in Butte
County. The Camp Fire was caused by unsafe electrical
infrastructure owned, operated, and inadequately maintained by PG&E
Corporation and Pacific Gas & Electric Company.

Although PG&E knew that its infrastructure was aging, unsafe, and
vulnerable to the weather and environmental conditions prevailing
when the Camp Fire was ignited, PG&E did not fulfill its duties,
and failed to take preventative measures in the face of known
high-risk weather conditions, such as de-energizing its electrical
equipment. PG&E's dereliction of these duties resulted in the
deadliest and most destructive wildfire in California history,
asserts the complaint.

PG&E's failing infrastructure and its inadequate efforts to
maintain its equipment and mitigate risk have resulted in prior
tragedies, and, unsurprisingly, PG&E has been sanctioned repeatedly
for misconduct that bears a striking resemblance to that pled here,
says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are natural persons and residents of the State of
California.

PG&E Corporation is a corporation existing under the laws of the
State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     John M. Pierce, Esq.
     Thomas D. Warren, Esq.
     Carolynn K. Beck, Esq.
     Janine Cohen, Esq.
     Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP
     355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4400
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 262-9333
     Email: jpierce@piercebainbridge.com
            twarren@piercebainbridge.com
            cbeck@piercebainbridge.com
            jcohen@piercebainbridge.com

          - and -

     Michael I. Gottfried, Esq.
     Roye Zur, Esq.
     Jack A. Reitman, Esq.
     LANDAU GOTTFRIED & BERGER LLP
     1801 Century Park East, Suite 700
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 557-0050
     Fax: (310) 557-0056
     Email: mgottfried@lgbfirm.com
            rzur@lgbfirm.com
            jareitman@lgbfirm.com


PODS ENTERPRISES: Removes Salazar Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
PODS Enterprises, LLC removes the case captioned as, NOEL SALAZAR,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated and/or
aggrieved employees of Defendants in the State of California, the
Plaintiff, v. PODS ENTERPRISES, LLC, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendants,  Case No. CIVDS1900240 (Filed Jan. 10,
2019), from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California. The Central District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00260 to the
proceeding.

The complaint alleges eight class-wide causes of action and one
representative action against the Defendants for purported
violations of California wage and hour and related laws.
Specifically, the complaint alleges putative class action claims
for: (1) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (2) Failure to Provide
Rest Periods; (3) Failure to Pay Minimum and Regular Wages; (4)
Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages; (5) Failure to Indemnify All
Necessary Expenditures; (6) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized
Wage Statements; (7) Violation of Business and Professions Code
sections 17200, et seq.; and a representative action for (8)
Violation of the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Labor Code
sections 2698, et seq.[BN]

Attorneys for PODS Enterprises, LLC:

          Jolee Land, Esq.
          Reed L. Russell, Esq.
          Raquel R. Jefferson, Esq.
          PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP
          100 Ashley Drive South, Suite 2000
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: 813-472-7550
          Facsimile: 813-472-7570
          E-mail: jolee.land@phelps.com
                  reed.russell@phelps.com
                  raquel.jefferson@phelps.com

               - and -

          David R. Krause-Leemon, Esq.
          BEAUDOIN & KRAUSE-LEEMON, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone No.: 818 205-2809
          Facsimile No.: 818 788-8104
          E-mail: david@bk-llaw.com

PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN: Jacobson Asserts Breach of Policy Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Jacobson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Progressive Northern Insurance Company,
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH01852, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, in Illinois on February 13, 2019, is a lawsuit brought
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated insureds
who suffered damages due to the Defendant's practice of refusing to
pay full "Actual Cash Value" or "ACY" payments or full total loss
payment ("FTLP") to first-party total loss insureds on physical
damage coverage, including collision or physical damage other than
collision coverage.

Defendant is a large private-passenger auto insurance carrier that
operates, among other states, in Illinois. One of the coverages the
Defendant offers is collision or physical damage other than
collision coverage.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant systematically underpaid
not just Plaintiff but tens of thousands of other putative Class
members amounts Defendant owed its insureds for ACY losses for
total loss vehicles insured with collision coverage.

The Defendant's failure to pay FTLP to first-party total losses
owed to its insureds is a breach of the policy agreement and a
clear breach of contract, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is and was domiciled in Wheeling, Illinois, and was an
Illinois citizen.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
     Robert J Wozniak, Esq.
     Brian M Hogan, Esq.
     FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
     2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
     Bannockburn, IL 60015
     Phone: (224) 632-4500
     Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
     Email: dmillen@fklmlaw.com
            rwozniak@fklmlaw.com
            bhogan@fklmlaw.com

          - and -

     Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
     Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq.
     KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
     One West Las Olas, Suite 500
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 525-4100
     Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
     Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
            streisfeld@kolawyers.com

          - and -

     Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
     Jordan D. Utanski, Esq.
     EDELSBERG LAW, PA
     19495 Biscayne Blvd. #607
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (305) 975-3320
     Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
            utanski@edelsberglaw.com

          - and -

     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st A venue, Suite 400
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: (305) 4 79-2299
     Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
     Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

PURDUE PHARMA: Faces RICO Class Action Over Opioid Prescriptions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Enders, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma Inc., the
Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
Cephalon, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Actavis
plc, Actavis, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Watson
Laboratories, Inc., McKesson Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc.,
and AmerisourceBergen Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00448-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, February 11, 2019) seeks redress
for Defendants' alleged illegal acts pursuant to the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Prescription opioids have devastated communities across the country
and in the State of Ohio. Since 1999, there have been more than
183,000 reported opioid-related deaths nationwide, more than three
times the number of U.S. soldiers who died in the Vietnam War.

According to the complaint, the Manufacturer Defendants have
engaged in a cunning and deceptive marketing scheme to encourage
doctors and patients to use opioids to treat chronic pain. In doing
so, the Manufacturer Defendants falsely minimized the risks of
opioids, overstated their benefits, and generated far more opioid
prescriptions than there should have been.

The complaint asserts that the Manufacturer Defendants' false and
misleading statements deceived doctors and patients about the risks
and benefits of opioids and convinced them that opioids were not
only appropriate, but necessary to treat chronic pain. And they
tainted the sources that doctors and patients relied upon for
guidance, including treatment guidelines, medical education
programs, medical conferences and seminars, and scientific
articles.

Plaintiff Heather Enders is a natural person and resident of Ohio.

Defendants manufacture, market, sell, and distribute prescription
opioids, which are powerful, highly addictive narcotic
painkillers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Charles H. Cooper, Jr., Esq.
     Rex H. Elliott, Esq.
     C. Benjamin Cooper, Esq.
     COOPER & ELLIOTT, LLC
     2715 Riverside Drive
     Columbus, OH 43221
     Phone: 614.481.6000
     Fax: 614.481.6001
     Email: chipc@cooperelliott.com
            rexe@cooperelliott.com
            benc@cooperelliott.com

          - and -

     William S. Consovoy, Esq.
     Thomas R. McCarthy, Esq.
     CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
     3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700
     Arlington, VA 22201
     Phone: 703.243.9423
     Email: will@consovoymccarthy.com
            tom@consovoymccarthy.com

          - and -

     Ashley Keller, Esq.
     Travis Lenkner, Esq.
     Seth Meyer, Esq.
     KELLER LENKNER LLC
     150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: 312.506.5641
     Email: ack@kellerlenkner.com
            tdl@kellerlenkner.com
            sam@kellerlenkner.com

          - and -

     James Young, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
     76 South Laura Street, Suite 1100
     Jacksonville, FL 32202
     Phone: 904.398.2722
     Email: jyoung@ForThePeople.com

REGAL AUTOMOTIVE: Sued Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monifa Grant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Regal Automotive Group, Inc. d/b/a Regal
Honda, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00363 (M.D. Fla., February 11,
2019) is a putative class action under the Defendant's knowing and
willful violations of the TCPA.

The Defendant's telemarketing consists of sending pre-recorded
messages to consumers soliciting them to purchase goods and/or
services from Defendant.

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

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

Defendant owns and/or operates an automotive dealership in
Lakeland, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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

          - and -

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

          - and -

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

          - and -

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


RENT-A-CENTER INC: May 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

ALAN HALL AND JAMES DEPALMA,
PLAINTIFFS,

v.

RENT-A-CENTER, INC., ROBERT D.
DAVIS, AND GUY J. CONSTANT,

DEFENDANTS.

CIVIL NO. 4:16-CV-00978-ALM-CMC

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES

To:      All Persons Who Purchased or Otherwise Acquired
Rent-A-Center, Inc. Publicly-Traded Common Stock During the Period
from February 2, 2015 Through October 10, 2016, Inclusive and Who
Were Allegedly Damaged Thereby (the "Settlement Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas, that Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, on behalf of itself,
additional named plaintiff City of Hollywood Employees' Retirement
Fund, and the proposed Settlement Class, and Rent-A-Center, Inc.,
Robert D. Davis, and Guy J. Constant, (collectively, the
"Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the
above-captioned action (the "Action") in the amount of $11,000,000
that, if approved, will resolve the Action in its entirety (the
"Settlement").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Amos L. Mazzant, III of
the United District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, at the
Paul Brown United States Courthouse, 101 East Pecan Street,
Sherman, TX 75090, Courtroom 208, at 10:00 a.m. on May 3, 2019 (the
"Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine whether the
Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as
provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated
December 3, 2018; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund; and (iv) approve Lead
Counsel's Fee and Expense Application.  The Court may change the
date of the Settlement Hearing without providing another notice.
You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a
distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT.  If you have not yet received a Notice and Proof
of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of
these documents by visiting the website dedicated to the
Settlement, www.RentACenterSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by
contacting the Claims Administrator at:

         Hall v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.
         Claims Administrator
         P.O. Box 3727
         Portland, OR 97208-3727
         (877) 432-3842

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for
information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead
Counsel:

         Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
         LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
         140 Broadway
         New York, NY 10005
         www.labaton.com
         settlementquestions@labaton.com
         (888) 219-6877

If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or received no later than May 2, 2019.  If
you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid
Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by
all judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether
favorable or unfavorable.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice such that it is received no later than April 12, 2019.  If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application must
be filed with the Court and mailed to counsel for the Parties in
accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are
filed and received no later than April 12, 2019.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED: January 16, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS [GN]


REST HAVEN: Johnson Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
------------------------------------------------------------
Yvette Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Rest Haven Illiana Christian Convalescent
Home doing business as Providence Life Services, Defendant, Case
No. 2019CH01813, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, in
Illinois on February 13, 2019, is a Class Action Complaint and
Demand for Jury Trial against Defendant to put a stop to its
unlawful collection, use, and storage of Plaintiff's and the
putative Class members' sensitive biometric data.

When employees work at Providence, they are required to scan their
fingerprint in its biometric time tracking system as a means of
authentication, instead of using only key fobs or other
identification cards. While there are tremendous benefits to using
biometric time clocks in the workplace, there are also serious
risks.

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA"), specifically to regulate companies that collect and store
Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints. Despite this
law, Providence 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 natural person and citizen of the State of
Illinois.

Defendant Providence provides assisted living, memory care,
retirement living, skilled nursing and other services throughout,
Michigan, and Indiana.[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 A venue, 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@Jishlawfirm.com


ROYAL LINKS: Seeks Dismissal of Credit Card Receipt Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Sassani, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Royal
Links Golf Club is seeking dismissal of a lawsuit filed against it
by a California consumer who alleges it failed to protect him from
identity theft when it printed a receipt containing both the first
four and last four digits of his credit card number.

In the seven-page motion to dismiss submitted Dec. 18, 2018,
SGGOAKS Royal Links LLC (also called Royal Links Golf Club) says
that Keith Martinez's claim "lacks standing, and fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted."

Namely, the plaintiff alleges when he received a credit card
receipt for using the parking garage at the Royal Links Golf Club,
the receipt had 10 digits of his credit card as well as the card's
expiration date printed on the receipt. However, the golf club says
that only Mr. Martinez saw the receipt and that "any risk of
identity theft or credit card fraud was speculative."

Royal Links also seeks dismissal of the claim made by Martinez that
Royal Links Golf Club violated Nevada's Deceptive Trade Practices
Act (NRS 598). Additionally, it also seeks dismissal of the claim
for a class action against the golf club.

Previously, Royal Links Golf Club sought removal of Martinez's
original lawsuit, which was filed in Nevada's 8th Judicial District
Court for Clark County in September. Its rationale for removal
rested on its argument that the original complaint against the club
alleged Royal Links Golf Club violated the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act, a federal law. Thus, it argued that the case
should be removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada.

In his original suit, Mr. Martinez sought statutory, actual and
punitive damages against the golf club. He alleged the club had
violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act by printing
a receipt that had the first six as well as the last four digits of
his credit card number.   

Mr. Martinez argued in his suit that, as a result, he "suffered
actual damages since his credit card information referenced above
was obtained and used by identity theft criminals."

He alleged that he had to then address the charges made by the
people who stole his information.

Mr. Martinez also asked the court that his lawsuit be designated as
a class action. [GN]


SABRE YACHTS: Bishop Files ADA Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sabre Yachts. The
case is styled as Cedric Bishop and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sabre Yachts, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01265 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 9, 2019).

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

Sabre Yachts manufactures downeast style motoryachts; semi-custom
and hand-crafted in Maine since 1970.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SACHS ELECTRIC: Court Strikes Griffin's Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Beth Labson Freeman strikes the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification in the lawsuit titled JUSTIN GRIFFIN v. SACHS
ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-03778-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

On February 6, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a memorandum in support of
motion for class certification with numerous footnotes and intext
block quotes that do not comply with the Court's standing order
requiring that "[a]ll written text, including footnotes and
quotations, shall be no less than 12-point type and shall be
double-spaced."

Accordingly, the Motion at ECF 92 is stricken, according to the
Order.  The Plaintiff must file a compliant motion that does not
add any substantive argument.  The Defendants' opposition deadline
was February 20, 2019.[CC]


SAL 79 ASSOCIATES: Garcia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Julio Tellez Garcia, Julio Cesar Garcia, Carlos Tapia, Cesar Tello
Vargas, Julio Cesar Gandarilla, and Alejandro Mendez, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Plaintiffs, v. SAL
79 Associates, Inc. d/b/a Coppola's West, Salvatore's Corp. d/b/a
Coppola's East and Salvatore Coppola, Marian Ouatu, and Kenny
Kaiser, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01301 (S.D.
N.Y., February 11, 2019) seeks to recover damages for egregious
violations of state and federal wage and hour laws.

Although Plaintiffs worked approximately 60 hours or more per week
during the period of his employment by Defendants, they were not
paid time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation
of the overtime provision contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Law, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants from 1998 until September
2017.

SAL 79 Associated, Inc. d/b/a Coppola's West is a corporation
organized under the laws of New York with a principal executive
office at 2016 W. 79th Street, New York, NY 10024.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
     Helen f. Dalton & Associated, P.C.
     80—02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
     Kew Gardens, NY 11415
     Phone: 718-263-9591
     Fax: 718-263-9598


SC DATA: Approval of Settlement Agreement Vacated
-------------------------------------------------
Missouri Lawyers Weekly reports that where the defendant in a class
action moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the class
representative lacked standing, the district court erred by not
deciding standing before enforcing the settlement agreement, so
approval of the settlement agreement is vacated, and the case is
remanded. Vacated; remanded. Schumacher v. SC Data Center Inc.
[GN]


SCOTT FARMS: Ct. Grants Mondragon's Bid to Certify Class Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Louise W. Flanagan grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act in the lawsuit styled RICARDO MONDRAGON,
EUSTORGIO ESPINOBARROS FELICIANO, JUAN CONTRERAS, CUTBERTO ORTIZ
HERNANDEZ, RAMON ORTIZ HERNANDEZ, ALEJANDRO JIMENEZ GONZALEZ,
RENATO ROMERO ACUNA, JOSE TAPIA, ANASTACIO LOPEZ SOLIS, and ABDON
QUIRASCO SIXTECO v. SCOTT FARMS, INC., ALICE H. SCOTT, LINWOOD H.
SCOTT, JR., LINWOOD H. SCOTT, III, DEWEY R. SCOTT, JFT HARVESTING,
INC., JUAN F. TORRES, OASIS HARVESTING, INC., and RAMIRO B. TORRES,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00356-FL (E.D.N.C.).

The collective action will include:

     All persons who, during the three year period prior to the
     date on which such person files a consent to join this
     action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and ending with
     the date final judgment is entered, were not paid the
     required overtime wage rate when they worked more than 40
     hours in any workweek unloading, storing, packing and/or
     processing sweet potatoes in the storage facilities or
     packinghouses of the Scott defendants when any part of that
     work involved sweet potatoes that were and are produced by
     person(s) or entities other than the Scott defendants.

No subclasses shall be certified, although the parties may raise a
motion for certification of subclasses if and when they deem
appropriate, Judge Flanagan says.

Within 14 days of the date of this order, the Plaintiffs are
directed to submit to the Court an amended proposed notice, which
incorporates certain changes, providing both English and Spanish
versions of the notice.  The Defendants will have seven days to
raise any objections to the language of the amended proposed
notice.  The parties are encouraged to confer and resolve any
differences in wording before submission of the amended proposed
notice to the Court.

The opt-in period for this action shall extend to 90 days after the
court approves a final version of the Plaintiffs' proposed notice,
and the Plaintiffs are allowed to provide notice.  The Defendants
are directed to provide the contact information for all potential
collective action plaintiffs in accordance with this Order no later
than 14 days after entry of the Court's Order.

H. Scott III and Linwood H. Scott, Jr.'s (the Scott Defendants')
motion to seal proposed exhibit (DE 102) is granted.  The Scott
Defendants are to file within seven days a redacted version of the
sealed exhibit, which redacts only the names of employees, who are
not parties to this action.  All other information should remain in
the redacted exhibit for the public record.

The Plaintiffs' motion to withdraw Ramon Hernandez as a named
plaintiff and class representative (DE 96) is denied without
prejudice to refiling the motion in a manner that states with
particularity the procedural grounds for the relief sought.

The Plaintiffs' objection to the magistrate judge's order granting
the Scott Defendants' motion to amend their answer is overruled,
and the magistrate judge's order granting the Scott Defendant's
leave to amend is affirmed.[CC]


SEATTLE UNIVERSITY: Ex-Adjunct Faculty Member Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Kaplan, Alec Downing, Josh Merchant and Sophia Wells, writing
for The Spectator, report that a former adjunct faculty member has
filed a class action lawsuit against Seattle University that
alleges that they and other non-tenure track faculty were not paid
for breaks and work outside of the classroom.

In a copy of the lawsuit obtained by The Spectator, the complaint
alleges that Seattle U "is engaging in a systematic scheme of wage
and hour violations against its current and former piece-rate paid
adjunct faculty members working in the state."

The lawsuit, filed Jan. 2, could affect an estimated 200 current
and former adjunct professors. It is unclear at this time if
adjunct professors were notified about this lawsuit prior to the
publication of this article.

"Simply put," the lawsuit states, "[Seattle U] did not compensate
its adjunct faculty members for rest periods and for all time
worked during Class Period as required by law."

A class action lawsuit allows a plaintiff to sue on behalf of
themselves and a group of others, referred to as the class, who
have been similarly affected by the alleged conduct. All adjunct
professors at Seattle U are paid per course taught, on what is
referred to as a piece-rate basis.

The university released a statement via email to The Spectator on
Jan. 15, which is written below in its entirety: "While we are
still reviewing the lawsuit, we believe it is without merit and
will be responding to it in due course."

The lawsuit alleges that Seattle U failed to pay adjunct professors
minimum wage for all hours worked, "including, but not limited to,
grading papers and course materials, creating online course
materials, developing course materials, attending mandatory faculty
meetings, assisting students with senior symposium, answering
student questions, and pre-and-post course preparation."

The lawsuit is also alleging that adjunct professors who worked at
least one day with a class or shift lasting longer than four hours
were not paid for mandatory breaks in addition to the piece-rate
pay. Additionally, it claims the university failed to satisfy wage
obligations assumed through contract.

If Seattle U is found to have been intentionally and willfully
withholding these wages, the university will have to pay twice the
amount of damages. It is unclear what the total monetary damages in
this case could amount to at this time.

"Simply put," the lawsuit states, "[Seattle U] did not compensate
its adjunct faculty members for rest periods and for all time
worked during Class Period as required by law."

Vice President and University Counsel at Seattle U Mary Petersen
said that the university is planning to submit their defense prior
to the Jan. 22 deadline.

"We have received the lawsuit and are reviewing the complaint,"
Petersen said. "We will be responding."

This is not the first lawsuit that has involved Seattle U and its
adjunct professors. The university faced another lawsuit in 2016
when its non-tenure track faculty members attempted to unionize.
The non-tenure track faculty had voted to unionize in 2014, but
after the university appealed their vote to the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB), they still did not have a union.

At that time, the NLRB made a legally binding decision forcing
Seattle U to allow adjunct faculty members to form a union. The
university ignored the decision, however, deciding to further
escalate to a higher court. The university said they would
challenge the decision until it reached the Supreme Court.

Seattle U has challenged the NLRB specifically on religious
grounds: University President Father Stephen V. Sundborg, S.J. said
in a video statement in 2016 that the federal government could
infringe upon the university's ability to make decisions aligned
with its religious character. This, he said, could challenge the
religious authority of Seattle U as a Jesuit university.

The union-organizing committee decided in January 2018, however, to
drop the suit under the guidance of the Service Employees
International Union, putting an end to litigation involving adjunct
professors at Seattle U until this year.

The plaintiff of the current suit is represented by India Lin
Bodien, a Tacoma-based attorney who specializes in wage and hour,
employment discrimination, and unfair competition cases. She is
also one of four attorneys representing a group of former Nike
employees in a lawsuit that alleges gender-based discrimination
within the company.

The case is scheduled to go to trial on Dec. 30 of this year. [GN]


SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION:  Violates FDCPA, Azizbayev Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Synergetic
Communication Inc.  The case is styled as Ravil Azizbayev
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Synergetic Communication Inc., John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05392 (D. N.J., Feb. 11, 2019).

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

Synergetic Communication is a Third-Party Debt Collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yaakov Saks, Esq.
     Stein Saks, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext 101
     Fax: (201) 282-6501
     Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


TIGER BRANDS: To Defend Listeriosis Outbreak Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
CapeTalk 567AM reports that Tiger Brands, whose factory in
Polokwane was identified as the source of the outbreak of
listeriosis in South Africa during 2017 and 2018, which claimed the
lives of almost 200 people will soon face a class action.

This is after Richard Spoor Inc. Attorneys and LHL Attorneys
launched this class action which was granted by the Johannesburg
High Court in December 2018.

The lead attorney with Richard Spoor Attorneys, Thamsanqa Malusi
says the firm was approached by people who have lost loved ones or
suffered after contracting listeriosis.

"Effectively this case is simply about getting Tiger Brands to pay
the victims that have suffered as a result of contracting
listeriosis."

Thamsanqa Malusi, lead attorney Richard Spoor Attorneys

"A lot of victims have suffered longterm illnesses as a result of
contracting the disease, so we want Tiger Brands to take
responsibility for that and compensate those people adequately."

Thamsanqa Malusi, lead attorney Richard Spoor Attorneys

Mr. Malusi says Tiger Brands has not offered a settlement. In fact,
it said that it will defend themselves against being held liable
for the outbreak.

As part of the class action, the court has ordered that all the
people affected by the listeriosis outbreak should be contacted.

Richard Spoor Attorneys has written to the affected victims from
the list provided by the department of health as well as started a
media campaign for victims.

He says anyone who does not want to be part of the case can opt out
by contacting the firm, otherwise, it will be assumed they will
form part of the class action and whatever outcome will bind them.
[GN]


TOUR 18 GOLF: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, McCullough Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
HOLLY MCCULLOUGH and AMANDA HARPER, Each Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. TOUR 18 GOLF, LLC, and CBIGG
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-00408 (S.D. Tex., February 6,
2019), arises from the Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiffs and other
hourly-paid tipped employees lawful minimum wage and overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants are domestic limited liability companies, registered
to do business in the state of Texas, with a principal office
address in Sugarland, Texas.

Tour 18 is open to the public and offers a full-service golf shop,
golf practice facilities, including a driving range and a putting
green, and a restaurant called the Scoring Tent Grill, where food
and drinks are served year round.

CBIGG is a subsidiary of the C-Bons Group, a Chinese conglomerate
engaged in the real estate, tourism, personal care products,
pharmaceuticals, textile and media industries.  CBIGG owns and
operates 26 private and daily-fee golf courses in nine states,
including 13 courses in Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


TRANSCONTINENTAL REALTY: Berger Sues Over Daisy Chain Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL BERGER, directly and derivatively on behalf of INCOME
OPPORTUNITY REALTY INVESTORS, INC. v. TRANSCONTINENTAL REALTY
INVESTORS, INC., AMERICAN REALTY INVESTORS, INC., PILLAR INCOME
ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., DANIEL J. MOOS, GENE S. BERTCHER, LOUIS J.
CORNA, TED R. MUNSELLE, HENRY A. BUTLER, ROBERT A. JAKUSZEWSKI,
RAYMOND D. ROBERTS, SR., GENE E. PHILLIPS, and MICKEY N. PHILLIPS,
Defendants, and INCOME OPPORTUNITY REALTY INVESTORS, INC., Nominal
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00286-K (N.D. Tex., February 4, 2019),
is a shareholder's verified derivative and class action complaint
filed by the Plaintiff, a long-time stockholder of the Nominal
Defendant IOR.

Mr. Berger alleges that during his time as an investor, IOR has
falsely represented itself as a company involved in the business of
real estate investment and land development.  He contends that IOR
and its non-affiliated public shareholders are the victims of an
illegal "daisy chain" scheme, whereby related corporations and
individuals funnel funds from the lowest level corporation (here
IOR) up the daisy chain and steal those funds for the other
participants (here TCI, ARL and the Phillips family).

In schemes such as this, companies such as IOR at the low end of
the daisy chain have their assets removed never to be returned, all
under the guise of purportedly legitimate corporate transactions,
the Plaintiff contends.  IOR has been looted of tens of millions of
dollars by the Defendants, leaving it bereft of the ability to
engage in any sort of new business or pay dividends, he adds.

Nominal Defendant IOR is a Nevada corporation purportedly engaged
in land development and real estate investing.  IOR shares
corporate offices with its corporate parents in Dallas, Texas.  IOR
has four directors, each of whom is also a director of TCI and
together are the only TCI and ARL directors.

Transcontinental Realty, Investors, Inc. ("TCI") is a public
company whose shares trade on the New York Stock Exchange.  TCI was
incorporated in 1984 in Nevada, with its principal place of
business located in Dallas, Texas.  TCI is secretly under the
control of Defendant Gene Phillips, although TCI's public filings
falsely create a contrary impression by stating that Phillips is
not an officer or director of TCI and that Phillips only has a
vague connection to Defendant Pillar, which in actuality Gene
Phillips indisputably controls.  TCI owns 81.25% of the common
stock of IOR.  TCI has held a majority interest in IOR.

American Realty Investors, Inc. ("ARL") is a Nevada corporation,
with its principal place of business located in Dallas, Texas.  ARL
and a subsidiary own approximately 77.68% of the outstanding shares
of common stock of TCI.  ARL is also secretly under the control of
the Phillips.

Pillar Income Asset Management, Inc. ("Pillar") is a Nevada
corporation, with its principal place of business located in
Dallas, Texas, whose control traces back to Defendant Gene
Phillips.  According to IOR's 2018 Proxy Statement (which does not
mention Gene Phillips at all): "the sole shareholder of [Pillar] is
Realty Advisors, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company ("RALLC"),
the sole member of which is Realty Advisors, Inc., a Nevada
corporation ("RAI"), which is 100% owned by May Realty Holdings,
Inc., a Nevada corporation ("MRHI"), the sole stockholder of which
is a Trust known as the May Trust."  The May Trust, according to
testimony given by Gene Phillips in the Northern District of Texas,
is beneficially owned by Gene Phillips' six children.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Corporate
Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          2926 Maple Ave., Suite 200
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 696-1100
          Facsimile: (214) 740-0112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq.
          PASKOWITZ LAW FIRM P.C.
          208 East 51st Street, Suite 380
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 685-0969
          E-mail: classattorney@aol.com

               - and -

          Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
          ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2440
          New York, NY 10170
          Telephone: (212) 867-1156
          E-mail: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Negligence at VA Hospital
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Chapman, writing for The Journal Gazette, reports that thirteen
people have filed a class action lawsuit in federal court, alleging
they received negligent care from a doctor at the Veterans
Administration Northern Indiana Health Care System in Fort Wayne
and Marion.

The complaint, filed on Jan. 11 in U.S. District Court in Fort
Wayne, lists the United States of America as the defendant. The
suit states "employees or agents of the federal government" knew of
negligent podiatric care and treatment provided by Dr. Bradley R.
Hammersley between 2009 and 2016 and "concealed the same from each
of the plaintiffs and other similarly situated veterans."

In early 2018, according to the complaint, each plaintiff was
called to a meeting with Fort Wayne VA officials, including the
"succeeding podiatrist."

"During their respective meetings, each plaintiff was informed that
he or she was the victim of medical malpractice at the hands of Dr.
Hammersley," the complaint states.

Plaintiffs were provided information detailing the medical care and
treatment and specific acts of medical malpractice by Hammersley.
Each plaintiff was also advised of the claims process and given
disability claims application forms, the complaint said.

After filing forms, "each plaintiff received a letter from the VA
denying his claim as being time barred because the claim had not
been presented within two years of the alleged negligent treatment
by Dr. Hammersley," the complaint states.

Each plaintiff will be filing individual medical malpractice
actions in connection with the medical care they received from
Hammersley, the complaint said.

The 13 plaintiffs, all veterans, according to the lawsuit, are
seeking an unspecified amount in damages, including costs and
attorneys fees.

In an email on Jan. 15, Tom Blackburn, public affairs officer at VA
Northern Indiana Healthcare System, said, "VA always strives to
provide veterans with the very best health care possible. When we
don't meet that standard, we work quickly to identify problems, fix
them and hold those responsible accountable."

In this case, he said, VA Northern Indiana Health Care System
completed an internal review in 2017 of all surgical podiatry cases
performed by Hammersley after VANIHCS staff raised concerns.

"The review determined that a small percentage of Dr. Hammersley's
patients received substandard care," Mr. Blackburn said. "VANIHCS
leaders have contacted all affected veterans to apologize
personally, offer additional medical care and inform them of their
options moving forward."

Following the review of Hammersley's surgical podiatry cases, the
VA terminated his employment in May 2017 and reported him to the
Indiana Board of Podiatry, Blackburn said. Hammersley started
working in 2006 as a VA fee-based provider and a full time VA
employee in September 2014, Blackburn said.

"Any veteran may file a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act
regarding issues of substandard care," Mr. Blackburn said "Under
the FTCA, we look to state law for statute of limitations purposes.
In any case filed, the Indiana statute of limitations would be
applied, and is calculated based upon when the veteran/claimant
knew or should have known of his or her potential claim."

The plaintiffs who filed the complaint are Vincent J. Colombini of
Berne; Billy McGuire of Kendallville; Martin L. Heifner of Grover
Hill, Ohio; Robert J. Swisher of Uniondale; Derrick S. Link of New
Haven; John D. Gross of Fort Wayne; Deborah K. (Fortier) Rogers of
Kokomo; Michael A. Garman of Fort Wayne; Jerry W. Kittle of
Huntertown; Carisa A. Snyder of Fort Wayne; Deborah K. Smith of
Columbia City; Ephraim N. Shields of Fort Wayne; and Marshall
Phillips Jr. of Fort Wayne. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Federal Employees' Lawsuits Over Shutdown Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Ogrysko, writing for Federal News Network, reports that a
federal district judge on Jan. 15 refused to compel the executive
branch to find a way to end the government shutdown's impacts on
federal employees.

The National Treasury Employees Union filed a temporary restraining
order seeking injunctive relief from the current partial shutdown.
Specifically, it wanted to prohibit agencies from forcing excepted
employees to work without pay.

"If employees are working, they have to be paid," NTEU National
President Tony Reardon said. "If there is no money to pay them,
then they should not be working. The shutdown, now in its fourth
week, has become downright untenable for tens of thousands of
employees who have no way to pay for their basic living expenses.
We've asked our elected officials to end this disaster. Now we are
asking a federal judge."

Federal District Judge Richard Leon heard arguments on Jan. 15 in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on a variety
of constitutional challenges to the current partial government
shutdown.

Judge Leon's decision means that the status quo remains: Excepted
employees are still required to work without pay for the duration
of the partial government shutdown.

Ultimately, NTEU said it wanted to "put pressure on the political
branches to do the right thing [and] at a minimum, not make people
come to work if they're not going to get paid and ideally get them
to come to terms with the situation at hand and reopen government,"
Greg O'Duden, the union's general counsel, said on Jan. 14 in an
interview.

NTEU's latest request was closely aligned with a rather nuanced
lawsuit the union also filed.

In this particular challenge, NTEU argued that the Antideficiency
Act, which essentially prohibits agencies from spending money they
don't have, violates the appropriations clause of the U.S.
Constitution. The appropriations clause directs agencies to spend
obligated funds only if Congress has appropriated such funds.

Therefore, requiring certain employees to work without pay during a
lapse in appropriations violates existing law, according to NTEU's
argument.

"The government is arguably obligating itself to pay them at some
uncertain point in the future," Mr. O'Duden said. "Our position is
the federal government can't do that, because the appropriations
clause makes very clear that the power of the purse is with
Congress and that financial obligations can only be entered into if
there have been appropriated funds provided."

NTEU's second contention challenges the legality of the Office of
Management and Budget's definition of "excepted employees" and the
Trump administration's decision to call some federal employees back
to work at the IRS, for example, to process tax refunds.

"Excepted employees" are typically workers who are considered
essential to protecting life and property. But for NTEU, the IRS
employees who may be recalled in the next few days to handle
customer service work and process refunds, aren't truly
"excepted."

"These are not jobs that pose any kind of imminent threat to life
or property," Mr. O'Duden said. "They're just regular jobs, and the
administration is hoping to avoid the inconvenient effect of the
law by bringing them and also avoiding the political outcry that
would occur if people, for instance, didn't get their tax refunds
on time."

The D.C. district court has also consolidated two other similar
lawsuits on government shutdown with the NTEU challenge. The
National Air Traffic Controllers Association also challenged the
legality of requiring excepted employees to work without pay during
the government shutdown.

The Kator, Parks, Weiser and Harris law firm filed its own lawsuit
on behalf of four individual federal employees working without pay
during the shutdown. The KPWH suit claims this practice violates
the 13th Amendment's prohibition of "involuntary servitude."

Federal employee unions have filed several other legal challenges
to government shutdown. Here's a roundup of the class-action
lawsuits that are still pending — and could provide eventual
relief to federal employees impacted by the partial shutdown.

AFGE's Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuit
A Washington-based law firm, Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman and Fitch,
has offered a now-familiar legal challenge against the federal
government over the current partial shutdown.

The lawsuit argues the government's failure to pay excepted
employees wages and overtime during the shutdown is a violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The firm filed the class-action lawsuit with the U.S. Court of
Federal Claims on behalf of the American Federation of Government
Employees. It seeks back pay, including overtime, and liquidated
damages for exempted employees forced to work without pay during
the partial government shutdown.

AFGE and the firm filed its first lawsuit challenging the legality
of the government shutdown on the last day of 2018.

AFGE since amended its complaint to reflect that some 420,000
excepted employees working without pay during this government
shutdown missed their first paychecks of 2019 on Jan. 11.Heidi
Burakiewicz, a partner with KCNF leading the lawsuit, told the
Federal Drive with Tom Temin she's confident the court will rule in
favor of federal employees.

"Hundreds of thousands of federal employees have now been working
for two weeks under sometimes dangerous conditions," she said in a
statement. "While we hoped the shutdown would have ended in time
for employees to get their paychecks for the first full pay period
following the shutdown, we now have every indication that the
employees will miss their paychecks for work performed between Dec.
23 and Jan. 5. That is a blatant violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act."

The AFGE challenge names Justin Tarovisky and Grayson Sharp,
employees at the Bureau of Prisons, who have both worked on the
first day of the government shutdown -- Dec. 23, the last day of
the final pay period in 2018 -- and during the following two weeks
for the first pay period of 2019.

KCNF DC will set up an electronic sign-up system so interested
employees can join the case. In the meantime, federal employees
should send their questions about the lawsuit to
2018shutdownlawsuit@kcnlaw.com.

Parties still calculating 2013 damages
Ms. Burakiewicz filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of the AFGE and
roughly 25,000 "excepted" employees during the 2013 16-day
government shutdown.

Judge Patricia Elaine Campbell-Smith, then chief judge, sided with
the plaintiffs. Agencies are still obligated to pay employees in
accordance with the FLSA despite provisions in the Antideficiency
Act, the judge ruled.

A consultant is still calculating damages -- equal to twice the pay
for the shutdown period -- owed to impacted employees of the 2013
shutdown.

Both parties met back in August to review a proposed methodology
for calculating the damages, according to the most recent status
report on the matter. Attorneys for the plaintiffs asked for
information about the proposed methodology, while federal attorneys
are working with agencies to quickly gather necessary payroll data
for the impacted employees.

Federal employee lawyers are also contacting plaintiffs who likely
won't receive liquidated damages based preliminary determinations.
Once both parties agree to the methodology and collect all
outstanding data, a consultant can begin to calculate damage
payments.

The next update on the status of the damage calculations was due
Jan. 21.

Meanwhile, at least two other federal employee unions have filed
similar lawsuits again the federal government, again citing
challenges with the Fair Labor Standards Act.
NTEU filed and then updated its own class-action lawsuit in the
same court, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Again, it argued the
government is in violation of the FLSA by having certain "excepted"
employees work without pay.

NTEU's lawsuit names Eleazar Avalos and James Davis, both
"excepted" employees who have been working at Customs and Border
Protection without pay during the partial government shutdown.

The National Federation of Federal Employees filed its own lawsuit
on Jan. 11. NFFE's challenge names excepted employees at the Forest
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Weather Service and Federal Aviation Administration.

NFFE also argued the government has violated the FLSA in requiring
excepted employees to work without pay. It urged the Court of
Federal Claims to consolidate its case, along with the NTEU and
AFGE claims. [GN]


UPMC: Employees Must Pay $317K After Withdrawing Wage Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Miller, writing for PennLive, reports that a group of
employees who sued the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center in a
wage dispute must pay UPMC more than $317,000 after withdrawing the
case, a federal court panel has ruled.

That bill is for the cost of some of the millions of pages of
documentation the employees demanded UPMC provide during the course
of the court battle.

So, the workers are legally bound to reimburse their employer for
that expense, Judge Marjorie O. Rendell concluded in the opinion
from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.

Judge Rendell's ruling upholds an earlier decision by U.S. Western
District Judge Cathy Bissoon in a case that has some unusual legal
twists.

Four employees filed suit against UPMC in 2009, claiming it was
violating the federal Fair Labor Standards Act by automatically
deducting a 30-minute lunch break from them. They sought to have
the suit rated as a class action and open it to participation by
about 2,800 other workers.

The workers also demanded that UPMC provide a massive amount of
records, even though UPMC warned that would be massively
expensive.

Although the district court judge initially granted class action
status to the suit, it was later rescinded, leaving only the four
initial plaintiffs to contest the case. Those four workers then
voluntarily dismissed the suit with prejudice -- meaning it could
not be refiled -- so they could appeal the class action
decertification to the 3rd Circuit court.

The voluntary dismissal move was employed because, in general, the
federal circuit courts do not hear cases that have not been the
subject of some sort of final resolution at the district court
level.

The workers' move backfired, however. Judge Rendell's court
rejected their decertification challenge after finding the
voluntary dismissal "was an impermissible attempt to create
finality for the purposes of appeal."

That's when UPMC sought the $317,572 reimbursement. Judge Bissoon
ordered the employees to pay after rejecting their claim that they
weren't legally bound to reimburse UPMC for the document
compilation expense. Judge Bissoon also discounted the workers'
contention that the cost was so high because of "bad behavior" by
UPMC regarding their records request. Nor was the district judge
swayed by the employees' insistence that they can't afford to pay
the award.

Judge Rendell agreed with Judge Bissoon's findings, including the
district judge's conclusions that the workers aren't "indigent" and
citing indications that their lawyer "will bear the cost of the
award."

In denying the workers' appeal of the reimbursement order, Rendell
also rejected their claim that UPMC isn't eligible for the
repayment because it wasn't the "prevailing party" since the suit
was voluntarily dismissed rather than resolved with a court or jury
ruling.

She found the employees' argument that the reimbursement order will
"entirely eviscerate they purpose" of the FLSA to be
"unpersuasive." The workers claimed the reimbursement is contrary
to Congress' intention that employees should be able to file FLSA
actions regardless of legal costs.

"The possibility that a losing party will be compelled to
compensate the other side for its costs would not 'entirely
eviscerate the purpose of'" the FLSA, Rendell wrote. "Instead, it
'should cause parties to litigation to pause and calculate the
risks of pursuing meritless or marginal claims'."

The workers in the UPMC case "voluntarily chose to bring their
claims as a class action, and their counsel presumably informed
them of the risks of doing so," the circuit judge wrote. [GN]


US BANK: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Johnson Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE JOHNSON and SCOTT SCOLLITT, as individuals and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00286-BEN-LL (S.D. Cal., February 7, 2019), arises
from US Bank's alleged failure to, among other things, pay minimum
and overtime wages under the California Labor Code.

US Bank is a nationally chartered banking association, with a
headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio.  US Bank is qualified to do
business and actually does business in the state of California.

US Bank operates an industry, business, and establishment in
numerous geographic locations within the state of California for
the purpose of, among other services, mortgage and financial
services within California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Malte L. L. Farnaes, Esq.
          Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
          Mitchell J. Murray, Esq.
          FARNAES & LUCIO, APC
          2235 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 210
          Encinitas, CA 92024
          Telephone: (760) 942-9430
          Facsimile: (760) 452-4421
          E-mail: malte@farnaeslaw.com
                  clucio@farnaeslaw.com
                  mitch@farnaeslaw.com

               - and -

          Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
          Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
          HARTLEY, LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-5822
          Facsimile: (619) 400-5832
          E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com
                  lindner@hartleyllp.com


VOLKSWAGEN: German Car Owners May Face Long Wait for Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Petzinger, writing for Yahoo Finance UK, reports that
Volkswagen's 2015 emissions-cheating scandal may be disappearing in
the rearview mirror for US consumers, but Germans saddled with
affected diesel cars have yet to see a cent of financial
compensation.

VW has agreed to pay over $25bn (GBP19.4bn) in compensation to car
owners, states, and dealers in the US, as well as buy back some
half million affected diesels. In VW's homeland of Germany, the
company has so far gotten off with simply offering a cheap software
upgrade for 2.8 million polluting diesels -- unlike the more
expensive engine overhaul offered to US drivers.

Class action lawsuits made up of a collective of individual
claimants did not exist in Germany until 2018, when the government
approved what is called a Musterfeststellungsklage, or "model
declaratory proceeding" (MDP).

The country's first such suit will be against Volkswagen, and
around 383,000 consumers have now joined the proceeding. Sarah
Hoare from the Consumer Rights Association (VZBV), which is
representing the consumers, estimates that the suit could last for
around two years. Then individual claims cases could take another
two to three years.

The German version of the class action is quite different than the
US suit. People must be represented by consumer rights
organisations -- in this case the VZBZ -- and the judge will only
decide whether or not Volkswagen is at fault and should compensate
car owners.

"This case is about whether a company has acted unlawfully," Hoare
from the VZBV told Yahoo Finance UK, adding that the court first
needs to establish that VW owes damages caused by their
manipulation of the emissions software in the cars. "The Higher
Regional Court of Braunschweig will not order the payment of
damages to the persons concerned in its judgment."

If the court rules that Volkswagen should compensate consumers, the
claimants then need to bring individual suits against the car
company, in which they claim a specific amount of damages based on
the loss of value of their cars.

The consumer rights association "assumes that a company, which has
been convicted in a designation claim, may, considering its public
reputation, signal readiness to reimburse the damages without the
need for a second claim." [GN]


WAYFAIR: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in Boston
------------------------------------------------------
Tony Dobrowolski, writing for The Berkshire Eagle, reports that as
the city waits for Wayfair to announce the site of its new
300-worker call center in Pittsfield, the online seller of
household retail items and three of its officers have been accused
of securities fraud in a class-action lawsuit that was filed
recently in U.S. District Court in Boston.

The complaint alleges that Wayfair Inc., along with company
co-founders Niraj Shah and Steven K. Conine and CFO Michael D.
Fleisher, violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose
"adverse" facts about the Boston-based company, which deceived
investors about the firm's "prospects and business" between Aug. 2
and Oct. 31, 2018.

These actions allowed Wayfair executives and "insiders" the ability
to "cash out" by selling millions of dollars worth of personally
held shares of the company at "fraud-inflated prices."

Messrs. Shah, Conine and Fleisher together sold over 510,000 shares
of personally held Class A company stock, and collectively the
three defendants and other Wayfair "insiders" made $87.75 million
off of those sales, according to court documents.

These actions also caused plaintiff Marilyn Goodstein and other
investors to buy shares of Wayfair Class A common stock at
"inflated prices," court documents state. The lawsuit was brought
by three law firms on Goodstein's behalf. The number of those
affected is believed to be in the "hundreds of thousands,"
according to the complaint.

The lawsuit refers to the defendants' actions as a "fraudulent
scheme."

Through company spokeswoman Molly Delaney, Wayfair on Jan. 16
declined to comment on the lawsuit.

In December, Wayfair announced that it planned to establish a sales
and service center in Pittsfield, part of a larger state-funded
initiative that is also expected to bring 3,000 additional jobs to
Boston. Wayfair has already begun accepting online applications for
its Pittsfield facility, which is expected to open in mid- to-late
2019. The site for the sales and service center has yet to be
determined, but the Clock Tower Business Park on South Church
Street is believed to be one of the leading candidates.

Pittsfield Mayor Linda Tyer on Jan. 16 described conversations
between Wayfair and the city about the call center's site as
"ongoing" and that more information should be available over the
"next few weeks."

Ms. Tyer said she was not concerned by the allegations because they
have no bearing on Wayfair's future plans in Pittsfield.

"Unfortunately, while lawsuits of this nature are part of doing
business as a public company, the lawsuit has no impact whatsoever
on Wayfair's plans to open its customer service center in
Pittsfield," she said.

Shah, who grew up in Pittsfield where his father worked as an
engineer for General Electric, is also Wayfair's president and CEO
and co-chairs the company's board of directors with Conine. The two
men met while attending Cornell University in the early 1990s, and
founded Wayfair in 2002.

According to court documents, the day before the market opened on
Aug. 2, Wayfair in its second-quarter results reported direct
retail net growth of 49 percent year-over-year to $1.6 million, and
that it had 12.8 million active customers for 2018, an increase of
34 percent. The company also stated that it has spent $177.2
million on advertising during the second quarter. Based on that
news, the price of Wayfair's stock "skyrocketed" from $107 per
share on Aug. 1 to $150 per share by Sept. 14.

But the lawsuit refers to the company's comments at that time as
"materially false and misleading" because they failed to disclose
that Wayfair had been experiencing "significantly" diminished
demands for its product offerings and had significantly increased
advertising spending to grow. When the second-quarter results were
reported, Wayfair had already dramatically increased its
advertising revenue for the third quarter because a third of that
time period had already elapsed when the company released its
second-quarter results.

Based on those allegations, the defendants' statements about
Wayfair's business, operations and prospects were "materially false
or misleading and/or "lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant
times," court documents state.

In announcing the company's third-quarter results on Nov. 1,
Wayfair reported a 43.3 percent year-over-year increase in direct
retail net revenue, but a $151.7 million net loss during that time
period, a drop of $1.69 per share. That loss was fueled in part by
a 54.3 percent increase in advertising expenses which caused the
company's operating expenses to rise by 52 percent to $538 million,
and costs for expenses to jump by 50 percent. Based on that news,
Wayfair's stock dropped by nearly 13 percent, or 14 percent per
share, to $96.16 on Nov. 1. [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Wins Prelim. Approval of Nakamura Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Daniel D. Crabtree grants the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion
for Certification of Settlement Class and Preliminary Approval of
Class Settlement in the lawsuit captioned JIN NAKAMURA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION d/b/a WELLS FARGO DEALER
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 5:17-cv-04029-DDC-GEB (D. Kan.).

The Court preliminarily approves the parties' September 25, 2018
Settlement Agreement subject to further consideration at the final
Fairness Hearing.  The Court directs the parties to perform and
satisfy the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement, for
which entry of this Order is a condition.

The Court will hold a final approval hearing ("Fairness Hearing")
on May 15, 2019, at 9:00 a.m.

Class Counsel must file their motion for final approval of
settlement and all supporting documentation and papers no later
than April 1, 2019.

For settlement purposes only, the Court preliminarily certifies
this action as a class action under Rule 23 on behalf of the
Settlement Class, defined as:

     All servicemembers who, before the servicemember entered
     military service, paid a deposit or installment on a motor
     vehicle loan originated, acquired, and/or serviced by Wells
     Fargo Bank, N.A., its predecessors, successors,
     subsidiaries, and assigns ("Wells Fargo"), and whose motor
     vehicle subject to the loan was repossessed by Wells Fargo
     while the servicemember was in active military service
     without a Court order authorizing the repossession between
     January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2017, and have not already
     released their claims.

The Court approves the form and content of the notice of the
proposed Settlement Agreement.  The Court confirms and appoints
Epiq Administration as the Settlement Administrator to administer
the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the notification and
payment to class members.

No later than February 28, 2019, the Settlement Administrator must:
(1) publish the full versions of the Settlement Agreement and the
Preliminary Approval Order on a public website; and (2) mail and/or
e-mail the notice to all Settlement Class members whose addresses
can be identified with reasonable effort.

The Court approves the form and content of the Distribution Plan.
All reasonable expenses incurred in identifying and notifying
members of the Settlement Class, as well as administering and
distributing the settlement funds, must be paid in the fashion set
forth in the Settlement Agreement.

The Court designates the named plaintiff in this action as class
representative.  The Court also preliminarily appoints Rex A.
Sharp, Esq., Ryan C. Hudson, Esq., and Scott B. Goodger, Esq., of
Rex A. Sharp, P.A., Bryce B. Bell, Esq., and Mark W. Schmitz, Esq.,
of Bell Law Firm, LLC, and A. Scott Waddell, Esq., of Waddell Law
Firm, LLC, as Class Counsel in this matter.

Counsel must file their motion and supporting memorandum seeking an
award of attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards no later than
April 1, 2019.

Any member of the Settlement Class who desires to request exclusion
from the Settlement Class must do so by filing their exclusion
request no later than April 30, 2019, at 5:00 p.m. Central Daylight
Time (the "Opt-Out Deadline").[CC]


WESTERN DENTAL: Bulette Suit Wants to Stop Unsolicited Texts
------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL BULETTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WESTERN DENTAL SERVICES INC., a
California corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-00612 (N.D. Cal., February
4, 2019), asserts that the Defendant sent unsolicited, autodialed
text messages to consumers without their consent.

The Plaintiff seeks to stop Western Dental from violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and to otherwise obtain
injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by Western
Dental's conduct.

Western Dental is a California corporation headquartered in Orange,
California.  The Company conducts business throughout this
District, the state of California, and the United States.

Western Dental is the largest dental practice management company in
the West with over 200 offices, including in California, Arizona,
Nevada and Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Ratner, Esq.
          DAVID RATNER LAW FIRM, LLP
          33 Julianne Court
          Walnut Creek, CA 94595
          Telephone: (917) 900-2868
          Facsimile: (925) 891-3818
          E-mail: david@davidratnerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

               - and -

          Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          400 NW 26th Street
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (305) 469-5881
          E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


WESTERN GAS: Sabatini Sues over Anadarko Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------
ERIC SABATINI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WESTERN GAS PARTNERS, LP, BENJAMIN M.
FINK, ROBIN H. FIELDER, ROBERT G. GWIN, STEVEN D. ARNOLD, DANIEL E.
BROWN, MILTON CARROLL, JAMES R. CRANE, DAVID J. TUDOR, and MITCHELL
W. INGRAM, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00263-UNA (D. Del.,
Feb. 7, 2019), stems from a proposed transaction announced on
November 8, 2018, pursuant to which Western Gas Partners, LP will
be acquired by Western Gas Equity Partners, LP and its affiliates.
The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
their proxy statement in connection with the transaction.

On November 7, 2018, the Board of Directors of the Partnership's
general partner, which manages the Partnership, caused the
Partnership to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Anadarko E&P Onshore LLC, Western
Gas Equity Partners, LP, Western Gas Equity Holdings, LLC, Western
Gas Holdings, LLC, Clarity Merger Sub, LLC, WGR Asset Holding
Company LLC, WGR Operating, LP, Kerr-McGee Gathering LLC, McGee
Worldwide Corporation, APC Midstream Holdings, LLC, and Delaware
Basin Midstream, LLC. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, the Partnership's unitholders will receive 1.525 shares
of WGP for each unit of WES they own.

On January 28, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement, which scheduled
a unitholder vote on the Proposed Transaction for February 27,
2019, omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading, the lawsuit says.

WES is a growth-oriented Delaware master limited partnership formed
by Anadarko Petroleum Corporation to acquire, own, develop, and
operate midstream assets. With midstream assets located in the
Rocky Mountains, North-central Pennsylvania, Texas, and New Mexico,
WES is engaged in the business of gathering, compressing, treating,
processing, and transporting natural gas; gathering, stabilizing,
and transporting condensate, natural gas liquids, and crude oil;
and gathering and disposing of produced water for Anadarko, as well
as for third-party producers and customers. In addition, in its
capacity as a processor of natural gas, WES also buys and sells
natural gas, NGLs, and condensate on behalf of itself and as agent
for its customers under certain of its contracts.

WGP is a Delaware master limited partnership formed by Anadarko
Petroleum Corporation to own the following types of interests in
WES: (i) the general partner interest and all of the incentive
distribution rights in WES, both owned through WGP's 100% ownership
of WES's general partner, and (ii) a significant limited partner
interest in WES.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com

WILLING HANDS: Does Not Pay Overtime Wages, Ayres Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Ayres, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Willing Hands Inc. and Yvonne Wallace, Case No.
1:18-cv-02988 (N.D. Ohio, December 30, 2018), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act as
well as the statues of the State of Ohio.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime
compensation, failed to pay all hours worked, and failed to keep
accurate records of all hours worked, including overtime hours, as
required under Federal and Ohio law.

The Plaintiff Lauren Ayres has been employed by the Defendants from
approximately June 2017 to the present as a direct care
support/home health aide.

The Defendant Willing Hands is a home health agency providing home
health aides. The Defendant Willing Hands operates out of 7100
Broadway Ave. Cleveland, OH 44105. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
      Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
      Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
      SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
      The Caxton Building
      812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
      Cleveland, OH 44115
      Tel: (216) 912-2221
      Fax: (216) 350-6313
      E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
              rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
              kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com


WIRECARD AG: Dalpoggetto Sues over Misleading Financial Report
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARK DALPOGGETTO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WIRECARD AG, MARKUS BRAUN,
BURKHARD LEY, ALEXANDER VON KNOOP, JAN MARSALEK, and SUSANNE
STEIDL, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00986 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 8,
2019), is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than the Defendants
who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities
of Wirecard from April 7, 2016 through February 1, 2019, both dates
inclusive.

On April 7, 2016, the Company issued a press release containing a
web link to its financial results for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015. The 2015 Annual Report was signed by Defendants
Braun, Ley and Marsalek. The 2015 Annual Report contained signed
statements by Defendants Braun, Ley and Marsalek attesting to the
accuracy of financial reporting and a fair review of the
development and performance of the business, as well as the
attendant opportunities and risks.

The statements were materially false and/or misleading because they
misinterpreted and failed to disclose the following adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business and operations which were
known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: for the period spanning
from 2015 to 2018, a senior Wirecard executive in Singapore had
been accused of forging and backdating contracts, including
falsifying accounts and money laundering; an external law firm
commissioned to investigate Wirecard's Singapore office had
reportedly found evidence of "serious offences of forgery and/or of
falsification of accounts"; Wirecard had downplayed weaknesses in
its internal controls over financial reporting and failed to
disclose the true extent of those weaknesses; and as a result,
Defendants' statements about Wirecard's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times, the lawsuit says.

Defendant Wirecard, a technology company, purports to provide
outsourcing and white label solutions for electronic payment
transactions worldwide. The Company is headquartered in Aschheim,
Germany. Wirecard securities trade OTC under the ticker symbols
"WCAGY" and "WRCDF."[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

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

WISE GULL: Guerra Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing
-------------------------------------------------
Tony Guerra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Wise Gull, Inc. d/b/a Blenders Eyewear, a
California Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-60390-BB (S.D.
Fla., February 13, 2019) brought this action against the Defendant
to secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA").

To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals, says the complaint.

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

Defendant is a corporation that makes, designs, and sells various
sunglasses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: 305-479-2299
     Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

          - and -

     Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
     EDELSBERG LAW, PA
     19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: 305-975-3320
     Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


YOGAWORKS INC: Dellinger Sues IPO, Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------
Roy Dellinger, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff vs. YOGAWORKS, INC., ROSANNA
MCCOLLOUGH, VANCE CHANG, PETER L. GARRAN, MICHAEL A. KUMIN, MICHAEL
J. GEREND, BRIAN COOPER, GREAT HILL PARTNERS, L.P., GREAT HILL
EQUITY PARTNERS V, L.P., GREAT HILL INVESTORS, LLC, COWEN AND
COMPANY, LLC, ROTH CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, STEPHENS INC., GUGGENHEIM
SECURITIES, LLC, and IMPERIAL CAPITAL, LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00970 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 8, 2019), is a federal
securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities other
than the Defendants who purchased YogaWorks securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering commenced
on or about August 10, 2017 and closed on August 16, 2017.

On June 23, 2017, YogaWorks filed a registration statement on Form
S-1 for the proposed IPO.  The registration statement was followed
by several amendments, the last of which was filed on August 10,
2017, which became effective that day. On August 11, YogaWorks
filed a Prospectus. On August 16, YogaWorks completed its IPO
within which it offered 7.3 million shares at $5.50 per share.

At the time of the IPO, YogaWorks owned 50 studios in California,
New York City, Boston, and the Baltimore/Washington, D.C. area.
YogaWorks' growth is driven mainly through acquisition of yoga
studios in highly fragmented markets. The Registration Statement
stated, "through acquisitions, we believe we can quickly gain
students, grow our market share and build on the operating momentum
of these acquired businesses." YogaWorks' strategy to grow by
acquisition rather than organic growth is driven by its purported
belief that acquisitions of existing studios that already have a
student base is an "effective, profitable and risk-mitigating way
to enter a new regional market," rather than building new studios
and waiting for attendance to ramp up.

According to the Offering Materials, when deciding on acquisition
targets, YogaWorks claims to apply a "multi-factor evaluation
system that allows us to quickly assess potential acquisition
candidates and continually add qualified new targets to our active
outreach process." In the Offering Materials, YogaWorks stated that
it intended to increase its yoga studio count from 50 studios as of
August 2017 to over 250 studios in the next several years. The
Offering Materials boast YogaWorks' "proven post-acquisition
integrated methodology that is designed to facilitate a seamless
student, teacher and staff transition to the YogaWorks operating
model." In the Offering Materials, YogaWorks claims it has "a
proven history of retaining and improving the student and teacher
focus of each studio or chain of studios acquired."

According to ther complaint, in violation of the Securities Act,
Defendants negligently issued untrue statements of material facts,
and omitted to state material facts required to be stated from, the
Offering Materials presented to the public in support of the IPO.
At the time of the commencement of this action, YogaWorks' shares
are trading at $0.60 (February 5, 2019), or approximately 90% below
the IPO price. the lawsuit says.

Founded in 1987, YogaWorks was a single yoga studio in Santa
Monica, California. In July 2014, Great Hill acquired YogaWorks for
$45.6 million in cash. Great Hill currently owns around 70% of
YogaWorks' outstanding common stock. YogaWorks claims that it is
"one of the largest and fastest growing providers of high quality
yoga instruction in the U.S." and "the only national,
multi-discipline yoga instruction company."[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1558
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (818) 532-6499
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***