CAR_Public/190228.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, February 28, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 43

                            Headlines

ABSOLUTE BONDING: Illegally Debits Bank Accounts, Starace Says
ABT ELECTRONICS: Kardos Sues over Collection of Biometrics Data
AEFFE USA: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Dawson Says
ALAIN PINEL: 6th Cir. Affirms Denial of Arbitration Bids in Juen
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Court Narrows Claims in Turano

ALIBABA GROUP: Hai Dong Li Sues for Fraud and Breach of Contract
ALLURA USA: Luongo Sues Over Defective Sidings, Seeks Warranty
ALPHABET: Rhode Island Pension Fund Named Lead Plaintiff in Case
ALTA MESA: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
ALTEX LOGISTICS: Tsybikov Seeks Lost Wages & Actual Damages

ALTOUNION CONSTRUCTION: Lieberman Seeks Overtime Pay
AMERICAN CORADIUS: Switz Seeks Certification of Class Under FDCPA
AMERICAN EAGLE: Delivery Drivers' Class Action Can Proceed
APEX SYSTEMS: Dietrick Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Illegally Debits Bank Funds, Springer Claims

AQUASTAR DISTRIBUTORS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Thorne Says
ASCENA RETAIL: $78K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Rougvie Suit
ATLANTIC RECORDING: Conner Files ADA Class Action
BARILLA AMERICA: Bolden Hits Product Mislabeling
BENAMATI WATER: Walters Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime for Drivers

BIRKENSTOCK USA: Dawson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLUE WATER RESORT: Boronzy Files ADA Suit in M.D. Florida
BOSTON CENTER: Jackson Sues Under FLSA Over Unpaid Wages
BRETTMARK ENTERPRISES: Blanco Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime
C.R. ENGLAND: Lewis Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay for Truck Drivers

CACH, LLC: Thoensen Alleges Deceptive Debt Collection Practices
CANADA: Court Approves Ottawa pay EI Sickness Benefits Settlement
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Bid for Class Cert. in Gordon TCPA Suit Denied
CERTIFIED CREDIT: Rodriguez Sues over Debt Collection Practices
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Wisconsin Court Dismisses Loeb Suit w/ Prejudice

COAST ACCOMMODATIONS: Boronzy Suit Asserts ADA Breach
COLLECTO INC: Cruz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
COMENITY BANK: Fails to Respond to Identity Theft Report, Suit Says
CONCORDE INVESTMENT: Securities Class Action Dismissal Affirmed
CONCORDE INVESTMENT: Sheppard Mull Attorneys Discuss Ruling

CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Defends Workers' ERISA Class Action
CORNUCOPIA LOGISTICS: McClean Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages
COUNTER BRANDS: Dawson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COX COMMUNICATIONS: Court Certifies Class in Knapper TCPA Suit
CRYOPURE SPA: Figueroa Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing

CVR REFINING: Vincent Russo Alleges Breach of Call Right
DELL: Police Fund Hits Management Buy-out, Stock Retirement
DELUXE CORPORATION: Removes Mansapit Case to N.D. California
DEUTSCHE BANK: Igarashi Files FDCPA Suit in Hawaii
DIOCESE OF SYRACUSE: Kevin Braney Files Class Action

DIRECTIONAL PROJECT: Bratcher Wants to Notify Possible Plaintiffs
DON VITO OZUNA: Seeks Prelim. OK of $375K Camilo Suit Settlement
EMBARQUE AA: Perez Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Pay
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Greifman Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
EXTRA SPACE: Johnson Alleges Storage Lease Bait-and-Switch Scheme

EXTREME ALTERATIONS: Shellman Seeks OT Pay for Landscape Laborers
FASHION NOVA: Federoff Sues Over Unsolicited Autodialed Messages
FELIDIA RESTAURANT: Borja et al. Seek Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
FERROGLOBE PLC: U.S. Law Firms Prepare Class Action
FIRST CONTINUING: Papadopoulos Sues over Unsolicited Advertisements

FREDERIC FEKKAI: Patrascu Seeks Overtime Pay for Nail Technicians
GANNETT CO: Hall Claims Overtime for Off-the-Clock Work
GO 2 TRANSPO: Mast Suit Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
GOLDEN & WALTERS: Ky. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Doe Suit
GRAND DESIGN: Faces Gallagher Suit Over Defective Axle Designs

GRUBHUB: 2 Restaurants File Class Action in Pennsylvania
HEALTH CARE SERVICE: 3rd Show Cause Order in Candelaria Issued
ILG TECH: Reconsideration of Remand Bid Denial in Murray Suit Nixed
INTERSECTIONS: Salladay Sues D&O Over Merger Deal
J.A.W. ENTERTAINMENT: Shanta Strong Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay

JUMIO CORPORATION: Removes Prelipceanu Suit to N.D. Illinois
KIA MOTORS: Medina Sues over Sale of Defective 2.0 GDI Engine
KIMPTON GROUP: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Haggar Says
KRH INC: Eastep Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
LASER SKIN SOLUTIONS: Kankalian Hits Unsolicited Telemarketing Call

LEO CONSTANTATOS: Mojica Claims Spread-of-Hours, Overtime Pay
LETTER RIDE: Hollers Sues over Rest & Meal Breaks for Couriers
LIC EVERGREEN: Lema Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
LITTLE CAESAR: Faces Lenoir Suit over Biometric Data Collection
LOG ANALYSIS: Fails to Pay Oilfield Workers Overtime, Hollis Says

LOS ANGELES, CA: County Board Votes to Settle Strip Search Case
MAURY COBB: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Molkandow FDCPA Suit OK'd
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Hampton Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MDL 2286: Dismissal with Prejudice of 25 Member Cases Recommended
MDL 2633: Premera Can't Compel Depositions Devices/Docs Production

MDL 2820: Court Partly Denies Monsanto, BASF Bids to Dismiss
MICHIGAN: Class Cert. Bid Granted in Part in Suit vs Jail Officers
MICHIGAN: Court Narrows Claims in Suit Over Mental Health Services
MICROSOFT CORP: Khalid Says Employment Contract Anti-Competitive
MILLERCOORS LLC: Faces Cardiel Labor Suit in Los Angeles

MM CUSTOM: Veloz Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
MONARCH RECOVERY: Gould Moves for Class Certification Under FDCPA
MONSANTO COMPANY: Jones et al. Sue over Sale of Roundup Products
MOTEL 6: Judge Lists Number of Concerns with Settlement Agreement
NEW PRIME INC: Haworth Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

NICOR ENERGY: Vectren Customers May Receive Settlement Payouts
NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY: Agency Faces Derr et al. Suit in E.D. Pa.
NUTRISYSTEM INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
NZONE GUIDANCE: Hiser and Ace Seek to Certify FLSA Classes
OMNICARE INC: $1.3MM Deal in Esomonu FCRA Suit Has Final Approval

OPEN DEALER: Thornburg Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
PAM TRANSPORT: Must Face Drivers' FLSA Class Action, Court Rules
PINNACLE STAFFING: Bid to Transfer Cody to District of Kansas Nixed
PLANET FITNESS: Request for TCPA Class Action Arbitration Denied
POPSUGAR INC: O'Brien Suit Remanded to Santa Clara Superior Court

PROPEL PROPERTY: 4th Cir. Affirms Denial of Dismissal Bid in Curtis
PROSHARES TRUST II: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
R.J. REYNOLDS: Sheffield's Punitive Damages Award Affirmed in Part
RANDALL-REILLY LLC: Fabricant Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
REALPAGE INC: Monfort Sues over Credit Background Checks

RUSS & DAUGHTERS: Settles Former Employees' Wage, OT Class Action
SCOUT BOATS: Website not Accessible to Blind, Bishop Says
SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Quaile Sues over Workers' Compensation Claims
SERVICE KING: Removes Ajemyan et al. Suit to C.D. California
SKINNYCORP LLC: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Dawson Says

SRAH BAKERY: Settlement of Polanco et al. Suit Wins Initial Okay
STAGER TRAVEL: Lim et al. Seek Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Pay
T-MOBILE USA: $980K Black Labor Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
TBC CORP: Sued for Failing to Collect Safety Recall Data
TEXAS: Court Denies Certification of Lynn Class

THGPP LLC: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Dawson Says
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Davis Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
TRINITY CAPITAL: Loar Balks at Merger with Enterprise Financial
ULTA SALON: Removes Scarpino Case to California Central District
UNITED STATES: Back Pay for Investigative Specialists Sought

UXIN LIMITED: Faces Securities Class Action Over IPO
VALET PARKING: Fails to Pay Overtime to Attendants, Garcia Claims
VBFS INC: Aguilar to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Pay
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Cerveny's Bid to Certify Class Dismissed
VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA: Court Denies 2nd Bid to Remand Kelly Suit

VERIZON WIRELESS: Arbitration Bid Denial in Bateman Suit Affirmed
VESTIAIRE COLLECTIVE : Website not Accessible to Blind, Dawson Says
VIRGINIA BEACH: Marcotte Nixed from Andreana Discrimination Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Parker Granted Leave to Amend Suit to Cure Defects
WALMART INC: Court Grants Bid to Dismisses Doe RICO Suit

WALMART, INC: Sued over Systematic Overcharging of Packaged Foods
WELLS FARGO: Coordes Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Washington
WELLS FARGO: Court Certifies Class, Subclass in Kang Labor Suit
WELLS FARGO: Jay Schmidt Moves to Certify Class in CS Wang Suit
WORLD FINANCIAL: Removes Yeomans et al. Case to N.D. California

WYETH INC: Untimeliness of Claim in Diet Drugs Suit Affirmed
YANGTZE RIVER: Behrendsen Files Securities Class Action
[*] Number of Securities Class Actions Drops Slightly in 2018

                            *********

ABSOLUTE BONDING: Illegally Debits Bank Accounts, Starace Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN STARACE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ABSOLUTE BONDING CORPORATION; and DOES
1-10, the Defendant(s), Case No. 1:19-cv-00202-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal.,
Feb. 12, 2019), alleges that the Defendant illegally debits the
Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' bank accounts on a
recurring basis without obtaining a written authorization signed or
similarly authenticated for pre-authorized electronic fund
transfers from the Plaintiff's and the putative Class members'
accounts, thereby violating Section 907(a) of the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act.

According to the complaint, in or around February 2013, the
Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Defendant to obtain a bail
bond, whereby Defendant would provide funds to secure the bail set
for the release of the Plaintiff's son-in-law from police custody.
The Defendant contacted the Plaintiff regarding the Plaintiff's
requirement to make a monthly payment for the bail bond. The
Plaintiff provided his debit card information, linked to his
checking bank account, to make a one-time payment for the bail
bond. The Plaintiff never provided Defendant with any authorization
to deduct these sums of money on a regular recurring basis from the
Plaintiff's banking account. The Defendants continued to deduct
this monthly sum from the Plaintiff for several months without the
Plaintiff's authorization. Further, the Defendants did not provide
to the Plaintiff, nor did the Plaintiff execute, any written or
electronic writing memorializing or authorizing these recurring or
automatic payments, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: 877 206-4741
          Facsimile: 866 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com

ABT ELECTRONICS: Kardos Sues over Collection of Biometrics Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARCUS KARDOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ABT ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2019CH01235 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Jan. 29, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of
the Plaintiff's and the Class's sensitive proprietary biometric
data, in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Abt Electronics, Inc. operates as a retailer of consumer
electronics and major appliances for high-tech gadget lovers and
kitchen aficionados. Abt Electronics, Inc. was formerly known as
Abt Radio. The company was founded in 1936 and is based in
Glenview, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephenzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephenzouras.com
                  aficzko@stephenzouras.com
                  hjenkins@stephenzouras.com


AEFFE USA: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Dawson Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN DAWSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AEFFE USA, INC. d/b/a PHILOSOPHY DI
LORENZO SERAFINI, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01385-KPF
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2019), alleges that Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website at
www.philosophyofficial.com to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, a violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired
and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to
read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the
terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with
visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in
that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or
equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have
limited vision. Others have no vision.  Based on a 2010 U.S. Census
Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United
States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind,
and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015
report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the
State of New York.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12 th Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


ALAIN PINEL: 6th Cir. Affirms Denial of Arbitration Bids in Juen
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRADLEY T. JUEN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALAIN
PINEL REALTORS, INC. et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No.
H043230 (6th Cir.), Judge Adrienne Grover of the Court of Appeals
of California for the Sixth District affirmed the trial court's
order denying the Defendants' motions to compel arbitration.

The Plaintiff engaged Pinel to sell his Danville home in 2008.  In
2015 he filed a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
California residents who between August 2004 and July 2011 had used
Pinel in a transaction to buy or sell a home in California and had
utilized TransactionPoint, a real estate software program developed
by Fidelity National Financial, Inc.  

The Plaintiff sued Pinel, certain managing owners and brokers, and
Fidelity subsidiaries alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, aiding
and abetting, violations of Civil Code section 1710 and Business
and Professions Code section 17200, constructive fraud, and unjust
enrichment.  He alleged Pinel had entered into unlawful
sublicensing agreements with Fidelity subsidiaries Ticor Title Co.
of California, Fidelity National Home Warranty Co., and Chicago
Title Co., allowing those entities to contract their settlement
services to Pinel clients using TransactionPoint; during the class
period Pinel had used the software to contract for real estate
settlement and related services; and the Fidelity Defendants paid
unlawful sublicensing fees to Pinel in return for the
TransactionPoint-generated business.

Pinel and all individual Defendants except Mr. Profeta ("Pinel
Defendants") moved to compel arbitration in the trial court,
relying on the arbitration clause (paragraph 19B) in the
Plaintiff's residential listing agreement.  After a hearing, the
trial court issued a written order adopting its tentative decision
denying the Pinel Defendants' motion.  It concluded that the Lisa
Crosby-Torres declaration failed to establish that Pinel had
initialed the arbitration provision.  It rejected the reasoning in
Grubb & Ellis Co. v. Bello, and instead adopted the reasoning in
Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Brokerage Co. v. Hock
Investment Co. to find no enforceable arbitration agreement.  The
court concluded that the language of the arbitration provision
contemplated that the seller and broker mutually agree to the
provision and that each indicate its assent by initialing the
provision.  Having failed to show that the broker had initialed the
provision, the Pinel Defendants failed to establish the existence
of an enforceable arbitration agreement.  The court also denied
motions to compel arbitration by Rhesus, Inc. and Mr. Profeta
("Rhesus Defendants) and the Fidelity Defendants, as the existence
of an enforceable arbitration agreement was necessary to their
arbitration demands.  

All the Defendants have appealed from the trial court's order, and
collectively briefed the matter in the Court.  They argue that the
trial court erred by finding no enforceable arbitration agreement.


Judge Grover finds that the evidence presented in the declaration
is not of such character and weight as to compel a finding that
Crosby-Torres initialed the listing agreement as a matter of law.
What is missing is either a statement from Crosby-Torres
establishing that it was her habit to account for and review every
listing contract executed by Smith, or a declaration from Smith
stating that she either presented Crosby-Torres with the
Plaintiff's listing agreement, or that as a matter of habit she
presented all listing agreements to Crosby-Torres during the
relevant time period.  Without that evidence, the Pinel Defendants
failed to establish that the Plaintiff's listing agreement was
among those habitually reviewed and initialed by Crosby-Torres.
Accordingly, the trial court did not err by concluding that the
Pinel Defendants failed to prove that in this particular instance
Crosby-Torres initialed the arbitration provision.

In addition, she finds that the Defendants' reliance on Civil Code
section 3388 as a means to enforce the arbitration agreement is
also misplaced.  That section provides that a party who has signed
a written contract may be compelled specifically to perform it,
though the other party has not signed it, if the latter has
performed, or offers to perform it on his part, and the case is
otherwise proper for enforcing specific performance.  Civil Code
section 3388 is a specific performance remedy provision for breach
of a contract enforceable in equity.  The offer to perform
referenced in the statute is not a substitute for the mutual assent
required to form a bilateral contract; the remedy requires the
existence of an agreement.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Grover affirmed the order denying the
Defendants' motions to compel arbitration.  Costs on appeal are
awarded to the Respondent.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/2dbdKP from Leagle.com.


ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Court Narrows Claims in Turano
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, CYNTHIA N. TURANO, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-06953-KAW (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the third and fourth causes of
action.

Turano filed the instant putative class action, bringing
constitutional and state claims related to her experience while in
the custody of Defendant Alameda County Sheriff's Office.

On Dec. 25, 2016, the Plaintiff's husband called the Oakland Police
Department ("OPD"), claiming that the Plaintiff had violated a
temporary restraining order.  On. Dec. 26, 2016, at around 1:00
a.m., OPD officers responded to the call.  The OPD officers
arrested the Plaintiff for violating the restraining order and took
her to Santa Rita Jail, where she was transferred into the custody
of the County.

The Plaintiff was first placed in a cell that had fecal matter
spread over the walls and benches, and had walls with bloody hand
smears, mucus, and medical pads with human hair stuck to them.  She
was taken out of the cell and searched in the hallway without a
privacy screening.  She was then placed in another cell and told
she would be interviewed by a nurse.  The second cell contained
piles of rotting food, stains of dried fluids on the walls and
benches, and garbage and used tissue or toilet paper piled
alongside the toilet.  The Plaintiff was not provided with adequate
clothing or a blanket.

The Plaintiff was eventually interviewed by a male deputy.  She
told him that she needed feminine hygiene products, and that she
was not feeling well. The deputy said she would be seen by a nurse.
The Plaintiff was not provided feminine hygiene products or seen
by a nurse.

The Plaintiff was then moved to a third holding cell. The cell also
strewn with garbage.  She, meanwhile, was menstruating and bleeding
over her clothes, and the blood seeped through her pants and onto
the concrete bench.  After hours of banging on the window and door,
a female deputy arrived, bringing in another woman.  The Plaintiff
again requested menstrual pads, and the female deputy returned with
two pads.  Because there was no soap or paper towels in the cell,
the Plaintiff rinsed the blood off in the drinking fountain and
wiped her hands off on her clothing.

Around 9:30 a.m., the Plaintiff was discharged and given a bus
ticket and BART ticket.  Prior to her discharge, she never saw the
cells cleaned.  The Plaintiff took public transportation back in
her wet, visibly blood-stained clothing.

The Plaintiff then filed the instant suit. On Nov. 25, 2018,
Plaintiff filed her third amended complaint, asserting claims for:
(1) Fourteenth Amendment due process claim based on conditions of
confinement; (2) Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim; (3)
negligence; and (4) injunctive relief.

On Dec. 10, 2018, the Defendants filed the instant motion to
dismiss the third and fourth causes of action.  On Dec. 24, 2018,
the Plaintiff filed her opposition.  On Dec. 31, 2018, the
Defendants filed their reply.

As an initial matter, the parties agree that the negligence claim
against Defendants County of Alameda and Alameda County Sheriff's
Office should be dismissed.  The parties dispute, however, whether
the negligence claim against the individual Defendants are barred
by statutory immunities, and whether the claim is sufficiently
pled.

Magistrate Judge Westmore finds that Section 820.2 immunity does
not apply because the Plaintiff challenges the implementation of
existing policies, not the policies themselves.  The Defendants
also failed to discipline employees for failures to comply with or
execute the adopted policies.  The implementation is an operational
decision, not a basic policy decision, and therefore not a
discretionary act entitled to Section 820.2 immunity.

She also finds that the Plaintiff does not assert a negligence
claim based on vicarious liability.  Instead, the Plaintiff brings
her claims against the individual Defendants based on their own
actions as supervisors, including their alleged negligence in
training, developing processes, supervising staff, and disciplining
staff for failures to comply with the adopted policies.  Thus, the
Magistrate concludes that Section 820.8 immunity does not apply in
the case.

The Defendants also argue that the Plaintiff did not allege a
specific injury because she only alleges "personal injuries," but
does not specify what those injuries are.  The Magistrate holds
that the Defendants are incorrect.  The Defendants fail to explain
why these allegations are insufficiently specific.  She finds these
allegations are sufficiently specific to put the Defendants on
notice of the injury suffered, and will deny the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the negligence claim as to the individual Defendants.

Finally, as to injunctive relief, the Magistrate finds that the
likelihood that the Plaintiff will be falsely arrested again is
still speculative, as it will require that the Plaintiff's husband
make another allegedly false accusation that Plaintiff violated the
terms of a restraining order, which the Plaintiff has not
established is likely to occur again.  Accordingly, she will
dismiss the injunctive relief claim based on lack of standing.

For the reasons stated, Judge Westmore granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  The negligence claim is
dismissed as to Defendants County of Alameda and Alameda County
Sheriff's Office, and the injunctive relief claim is dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 8, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/KyESgY from Leagle.com.

Cynthia N Turano, Plaintiff, represented by Yolanda Huang --
yhuang.law@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Yolanda Huang.

County of Alameda, Gregory J. Ahern, Brett Keteles, Tom Madigan, D
Skoldqvist & Tara Russell, Defendants, represented by Gregory B.
Thomas -- gthomas@bjg.com -- Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP &
Temitayo O. Peters -- tpeters@bwslaw.com -- Burke, Williams &
Sorensen, LLP.

Alameda County Sheriff's Office, Defendant, represented by Gregory
B. Thomas, Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP.


ALIBABA GROUP: Hai Dong Li Sues for Fraud and Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hai Dong Li, Zhong Wang, Shoudong Li, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated Haikou Hongpengxiang Trading Co.
Ltd., Haikou Hongyangpijiang Trading Co. Ltd., Plaintiffs, v.
Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., Ant Financial Services Group Ltd.,
a/k/a Zhejiang Ant Small Micro Finance Service Group Co., Ltd.,
Alipay Internet Technology Company, Ltd., Jack Yun Ma, Daniel Yong
Zhang, Jungong Sun, Defendants, Case No. 702781/2019 (Sup. Ct.,
Queens Cty., February 15, 2019) is an action against all
above-referenced defendants to seek compensation as a result of
breach of contract, fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, and breach of New York Executive Law.

Plaintiffs, through the Defendant's website and without actual
knowledge, had purchased a large amount of leather sofas, were
complaining towards the Defendants regarding online merchants'
fraud behaviors. An authentication report later revealed that the
leather sofas purchased by Plaintiffs are non-genuine, which is
contrary to the description on Defendant's website.

Plaintiffs made numerous attempts to contact Aftersale service and
Plaintiffs' compensation were refused by the Defendant because the
Defendant claimed the merchants did not sell fake products, says
the complaint.

Plaintiffs are consumers who are residents of the State of New York
and the People Republic of China.

Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. is organized and exists under the laws
of the Cayman Islands.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     King L. Wu, Esq.
     KING L. WU & ASSOCIATES
     38-08 Union Street, 10F
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Phone: 718-888-0618
     Fax: 718-888-0283
     Email: contact@wuesq.com


ALLURA USA: Luongo Sues Over Defective Sidings, Seeks Warranty
--------------------------------------------------------------
Antonetta Luongo, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Allura USA LLC, Plycem USA LLC
D/B/A Allura, Plycem USA, Inc., Elementia USA, Inc., Elementia,
S.A.B. de C.V., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-10143, (D. Mass.,
January 22, 2019), seeks compensatory damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, an award of attorneys' fees and costs and
such other or further relief resulting from breach of express and
implied warranty and negligence.

Allura USA LLC, Plycem USA LLC D/B/A Allura, Plycem USA, Inc.,
Elementia USA, Inc., Elementia and S.A.B. de C.V. manufacture fiber
cement sidings. Luongo alleges that the Defendants used excessive
amounts of fly ash that resulted in brittleness, porosity problems,
and other uniform damages in their sidings thus resulting in
brittleness, cracking, splitting and breakage despite offering a
life of 50 years.

Loungo used Allura siding during the construction of her home at 63
Wedgewood Drive, Norwood, Massachusetts. Cracking in two or three
pieces of her siding manifested within a span of 2 years. Allura
denied Loungo's claims for warranty yet offered her $160.00 to drop
all claims. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Walter Kelley, Esq.
      BERNHEIM DOLINSKY & KELLEY, LLC
      Four Court Street
      Plymouth, MA 02360
      Tel: (508) 747-8854
      Fax: (508) 747-8857
      Email: walterkelley@duejustice.com


ALPHABET: Rhode Island Pension Fund Named Lead Plaintiff in Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
the $8.1 billion Rhode Island Employees' Retirement System,
Providence, was appointed lead plaintiff in a shareholder
class-action lawsuit against Google's parent company, Alphabet.

In a court order signed Jan. 25, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey
White of the Northern District of California, Oakland, approved the
request by Rhode Island Treasurer Seth Magaziner to be named lead
plaintiff.

Mr. Magaziner, who oversees the Rhode Island State Investment
Commission, said in a statement that Alphabet "misled regulators,
users and the public regarding its failure to secure users'
information."

In October, it was revealed that Google executives knew about, but
did not disclose, a breach in its Google Plus platform that
compromised the personal information of 500,000 users. Google later
announced the number of users whose private information was
compromised without their permission or knowledge was about 52.5
million users.

"Google knew that there had been a security breach and that users'
private information had been compromised, and instead of disclosing
the information, they chose to hide it," Mr. Magaziner said.

The order consolidates multiple similar class-action suits against
Alphabet into a single class action. Parties objecting to the
consolidation have 10 days to file their objections with the
court.

Evan England, spokesman for Mr. Magaziner, said Google's
"egregious" behavior warranted the lawsuit.

"We watch closely the behavior of companies in which we invest,"
Mr. England said in an interview. "Usually that involves proactive
conversations about how to improve practices. In this case it was
both appropriate and necessary to seek restitution." [GN]


ALTA MESA: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
(http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/altamesa/)on Jan. 30 disclosed that
a class action has been commenced on behalf of all holders of
record of Alta Mesa Resources, Inc. f/k/a Silver Run Acquisition
Corporation II ("Silver Run II") (NASDAQ:AMR) Class A common stock
as of January 22, 2018, the record date to vote on the acquisition
of Alta Mesa Holdings, LP ("Alta Mesa") and Kingfisher Midstream
LLC ("Kingfisher") by Silver Run II (the "Acquisition"). This
action was filed in the Southern District of New York and is
captioned Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund v. Alta
Mesa Resources, Inc. f/k/a Silver Run Acquisition Corporation II,
et al., No. 19-cv-00920.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who held Silver Run II Class A common stock on January 22,
2018, the record date to vote on the Acquisition, to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from
January 30, 2019. If you wish to discuss this action or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, Brian E. Cochran of Robbins
Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at
djr@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/altamesa/.

The complaint charges Silver Run II, its Board of Directors and its
private equity sponsor, Riverstone Investment Group LLC
("Riverstone"), with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 ("Exchange Act"). Silver Run II is an oil and natural gas
company focused on the acquisition, development, exploration and
exploitation of unconventional onshore oil and natural gas reserves
in the eastern portion of the Anadarko Basin in Oklahoma.

The complaint alleges that in early 2018, Silver Run II issued a
materially false and misleading Definitive Merger Proxy Statement
on Schedule M14A (the "Proxy") that recommended shareholders vote
in favor of the Acquisition in contravention of ????14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9. As a result of the false
and misleading Proxy, Silver Run II shareholders were prevented
from making an informed decision on whether or not to redeem their
shares and voted in favor of the Acquisition on February 6, 2018.
The redeemable Class A common shares were valued at approximately
$10 per share at the time of the Acquisition. The complaint alleges
that subsequent to and due to the approval of the Acquisition, the
value of Silver Run II Class A common shares has significantly
declined.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all holders of
record of Silver Run II Class A common stock as of January 22,
2018, the record date to vote on the Acquisition (the "Class"). The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading law firms representing
investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices,
Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class
action recoveries in history. For five consecutive years, ISS
Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual
SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in both amount
recovered for shareholders and total number of class action
settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the
securities laws and recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf
of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for
defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in
implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the
financial markets for investors worldwide. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
Contacts:

         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Brian E. Cochran, 800-449-4900
         djr@rgrdlaw.com [GN]


ALTEX LOGISTICS: Tsybikov Seeks Lost Wages & Actual Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------
AYUR TSYBIKOV, the Plaintiff, vs. OLEKSANDR DOVGAL, ALINA KIM, DYL
EXPRESS INC., and ALTEX LOGISTICS INC., the Defendants, Case No.
2019CH01814 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Feb. 13, 2019), seeks to recover lost
wages and other actual damages under the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Illinois and worked as a truck
driver in Illinois, compensated on a per mile bases and later on as
a per hauled cargo load basis as a non-exempt employee for
Defendant companies in the state of Illinois. The Plaintiff brings
this case on behalf of himself and others who currently work, and
who previously worked as drivers for Defendants.

When Plaintiff worked to be compensated on a per load basis, the
Defendants failed to pay him fully for the work he performed.
Specifically, the Defendants forged the freight confirmations
presented to Plaintiff based on which he would be deriving a
percentage of a cost, and in addition, made other unlawful
deductions from the said percentage. The Plaintiff does not know
precisely how much he was underpaid by, because all relevant
freight confirmation documents are in Defendants' possession and
control, and exact damages must be determined through accounting,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

          Julia Bikbova, Esq.
          BIKBOVA LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          666 Dundee Rd, Suite 1604
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Telephone: 847 541 8100

ALTOUNION CONSTRUCTION: Lieberman Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
DAVID LIEBERMAN , on behalf of himself and all other the Plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, v. ALTOUNION
CONSTRUCTION, INC., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION AND TODD ALTOUNION,
INDIVIDUALLY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00910 (N.D. Ill.,
Feb. 13, 2019), seeks overtime wage compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a former employee of
Defendants who performed construction services for Defendants at
their Lake Bluff location. He worked more than 40 hours per week
without compensation at a rate of one and one-half his regular rate
of pay. The Plaintiff was compensated for all hours at his
straight-time regular rate of pay including hours worked in excess
of 40 per week, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant is an Illinois corporation that owns and operates a
construction business located at 13110 West Highway, Lake Bluff,
Illinois, that provides wide-ranging construction services for
commercial and residential customers.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

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

AMERICAN CORADIUS: Switz Seeks Certification of Class Under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned EMILY SWITZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN CORADIUS
INTERNATIONAL LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-01278-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), seeks
to certify a class defined as:

     All natural persons with addresses in the State of
     Wisconsin, to whom American Coradius International, LLC
     mailed an initial written communication substantially
     similar to the letter attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint
     that was not returned as undeliverable, which identifies the
     creditor as "PayPal, Inc." and sought to collect a "Paypal,
     Inc. account", and which was mailed on or after August 17,
     2017 and on or before September 7, 2018.

Ms. Switz asserts claims against ACI under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.  She also asks that the Court appoint her to
represent the putative class members, and that her attorneys be
appointed counsel for the class.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          3010 South Appleton Road
          Menasha, WI 54952
          Telephone (973) 379-7500
          E-mail: Francis@SternThomasson.com
                  Philip@SternThomasson.com
                  Andrew@SternThomasson.com


AMERICAN EAGLE: Delivery Drivers' Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal
appeals court has ruled that federal law does not pre-empt New
Jersey law in determining the employment status of a group of
delivery drivers suing their employer, a logistics company.

In a precedential ruling on Jan. 29 that allows the case to move
forward, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a
New Jersey federal judge's denial of American Eagle Express' motion
for judgment on the pleadings.

AEX contended that the drivers' claims that they were misclassified
as independent contractors were pre-empted by the Federal Aviation
Authorization Administration Act of 1994.

The drivers, New Jersey residents, filed the putative class action
seeking a judgment from the court that they were employees, not
contractors, under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and the New
Jersey Wage Payment Law.

Third Circuit Judge Patty Shwartz wrote in the court's opinion that
in order for the applicable New Jersey law to be pre-empted in the
case, it must have a significant impact on a motor carrier's
ability to conduct business.

The question then focused on New Jersey's statutory "ABC
classification test" for determining the employment status of
workers.

"The New Jersey ABC classification test does not have a significant
effect on prices, routes, or services either. The test does not
bind AEX to a particular method of providing services," Judge
Shwartz said, joined by Circuit Judges Joseph Greenaway Jr. and
Stephanos Bibas in affirming the ruling below from U.S. District
Judge Esther Salas of the District of New Jersey.

Judge Shwartz added, "No part of the New Jersey test categorically
prevents carriers from using independent contractors. As a result,
the state law at issue here does not mandate a particular course of
action -- e.g., requiring carriers to use employees rather than
independent contractors -- and it offers carriers various options
to comply with New Jersey employment law."

AEX argued unsuccessfully that the law would force it to shift from
its practice of using independent contractors, which it said would
drive up costs and lead to price increases.

"Specifically, AEX asserts that if it can no longer use independent
contractors to perform its delivery services, then it will be
forced to recruit employees, bring on a human resources department
to manage them, acquire and maintain a fleet of vehicles and pay
expense reimbursements, provide fringe benefits, plan and dictate
delivery routes and timing, and pay overtime wages and employment
taxes," Judge Shwartz said. "Our Court and our sister circuits have
rejected similar lists of conclusory impacts. Though AEX correctly
states that it need not proffer empirical evidence to support its
assertions of significant impact at the pleading stage, it does not
provide even a logical connection between the application of New
Jersey's ABC classification test and the list of new costs it would
purportedly incur."

Harold Lichten of Lichten & Liss-Riordan in Boston represented the
plaintiffs and did not respond to a request for comment.

Joseph C. DeBlasio -- Joseph.DeBlasio@jacksonlewis.com -- of
Jackson Lewis in Morristown represents AEX and also did not respond
to a request for comment. [GN]


APEX SYSTEMS: Dietrick Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Emily Dietrick, Steven Connell, Brock Deel, Monica Jones, and Tyler
Suite, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees v. Apex Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00006 (D. Md.,
January 2, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant did not pay its Recruiters
for all of their hours worked. This was because the Defendant
misclassified its Recruiters as "exempt" salaried employees. The
Defendant paid its Recruiters a salary in order to evade the
overtime requirements, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs all worked as Recruiters for the Defendant.

The Defendant Apex Systems, LLC is a staffing agency that centers
on finding potential job candidates for its clients. The Defendant
conducts business throughout the United States. Defendant has
offices in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, North
Carolina, Nebraska, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
      The Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl
      36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Tel: (410) 244-7005
      Fax: (410) 244-8454
      E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com


APRIA HEALTHCARE: Illegally Debits Bank Funds, Springer Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
NANCY SPRINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. APRIA HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC., and DOES
1-20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01099 (C.D. Cal.,
Feb. 13, 2019), alleges that the Defendants debit the Plaintiff's
and the putative Class members' bank accounts on a recurring basis
without first obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly
authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers from the
Plaintiff's and  the putative Class members' accounts, thereby
violating the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

According to the complaint, on or around August 2012, the Plaintiff
entered into an agreement with the Defendant, whereby the Defendant
would deduct funds from the Plaintiff's account on a reoccurring
basis for one year for the purchase of a wheelchair. On or around
August 2013, the Plaintiff had paid for the wheelchair in full and
Defendant told the Plaintiff the wheelchair was hers to keep. On or
around February 13, 2018, the Plaintiff's bank account was debited
$554.64 by Defendant, which caused the Plaintiff's bank account to
be overdrawn. The Defendant deducted funds from the Plaintiff's
account without the Plaintiff's consent or authorization.

The Defendant's withdrawal caused an overdraft on the Plaintiff's
bank account, causing her actual injury in the forms of additional
fees. The Plaintiff never provided Defendant with any authorization
to deduct this sum of money from the Plaintiff's banking account.
Further, Defendant did not provide to the Plaintiff, nor did the
Plaintiff execute, any written or electronic writing memorializing
or authorizing this payment, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          Tom E. Wheeler, Esq.
          Kelsey L. Kuberka, Esq.
          Mordechai Wolowitsch, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: 877 206-4741
          Facsimile: 866 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com
                  abacon@ toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  twheeler@toddflaw.com
                  kkuberka@toddflaw.com
                  mwolowitsch@toddflaw.com

AQUASTAR DISTRIBUTORS: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Thorne Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRAULIO THORNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AQUASTAR DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00881-AJN (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 29, 2019) alleges that the
Defendant's website at WWW.AQUASTARDISTRIBUTORS.COM is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, in violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.

Aquastar Distributors, Inc. was founded in 1995. The company's line
of business includes the wholesale distribution of transportation
equipment and supplies. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (917) 796-7437
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com


ASCENA RETAIL: $78K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Rougvie Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAROL ROUGVIE, et al., v. ASCENA RETAIL GROUP, INC.,
et al, Civil Action No. 15-724 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Mark A. Kearney of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
granted in part and denied in part the Comlish Objectors' Motion
for attorneys' fees and incentive awards.  

The Judge granted the Motion to require, no earlier than March 15,
2019, the Claims Administrator release $78,000 from the Settlement
Fund payable to the Competitive Enterprise Institute Center for
Class Action Fairness.  He denied the Motion for $1,000 incentive
awards as the Comlish Objectors failed to adduce evidence of their
efforts other than providing their name to lawyers.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/mdKk63 from Leagle.com.

MELINDA MEHIGAN, FONDA KUBIAK, MARGUERITE SINKLER GILDER, CAROLINE
MANSOUR, CAROL ROUGVIE, TIFFANY BOLTON & KARA BELL, Plaintiffs,
represented by KEVIN E. RAPHAEL -- ker@pietragallo.com --
PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI LLP, WILLIAM
PIETRAGALLO, II -- wp@pietragallo.com -- ANTHONY J. COYNE --
acoyne@mggmlpa.com -- MANSOUR GAVIN LPA, pro hac vice, BRENDON P.
FRIESEN -- bfriesen@mggmlpa.com -- MANSOUR GAVIN LPA, pro hac vice,
EDWARD H. SKIPTON, III, Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick &
Raspanti, LLP, EDWARD J. WESTLOW, pro hac vice, ERNEST P. MANSOUR,
MANSOUR GAVIN LPA, pro hac vice, KENNETH D. MCARTHUR, JR.,
PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK, pro hac vice & ROBERT G. MANSOUR,
pro hac vice.

CAROL COWHEY, Plaintiff, represented by KEVIN E. RAPHAEL,
PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO BOSICK & RASPANTI LLP, EDWARD H. SKIPTON,
III, Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP, EDWARD J.
WESTLOW, pro hac vice & KENNETH D. MCARTHUR, JR., PIETRAGALLO
GORDON ALFANO BOSICK, pro hac vice.

ASCENA RETAIL GROUP, INC., doing business as JUSTICE STORES,
Defendant, represented by EZRA DODD CHURCH --
ezra.church@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP,
CHRISTOPHER JOHN MANNION -- christopher.mannion@morganlewis.com --
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
& GREGORY T. PARKS -- gregory.parks@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN,
LEWIS & BOCKIUS.

TWEEN BRANDS, INC., doing business as JUSTICE STORES, Defendant,
represented by DAVID D. YEAGLEY -- dyeagley@ulmer.com -- ULMER &
BERNE - CLEVELAND, EZRA DODD CHURCH, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP,
MICHAEL N. UNGAR -- mungar@ulmer.com -- ULMER & BERNE, CHRISTOPHER
JOHN MANNION, MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP & GREGORY T. PARKS,
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS.

STEVEN F. HELFAND, In Propria Persona, Respondent, pro se.

BARBARA COMLISH & KATHRYN ARTLIP, Respondents, represented by ADAM
E. SCHULMAN, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute.

KELSEY D FOLIGNO, Respondent, represented by GLENN A. MANOCHI --
gmanochi@lightmanlaw.com -- LIGHTMAN & MANOCHI.

PAMELA SWEENEY, Respondent, pro se.


ATLANTIC RECORDING: Conner Files ADA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Recording
Corporation. The case is styled as Mary Conner, Individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Atlantic Recording Corporation doing business as:
BrunoMars.com, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01464 (S.D. N.Y., Feb.
15, 2019).

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

Atlantic Recording Corporation is an American record label founded
in October 1947 by Ahmet Ertegun and Herb Abramson.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BARILLA AMERICA: Bolden Hits Product Mislabeling
------------------------------------------------
Lynn Bolden, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Barilla America, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-00472 (C.D. Cal., January 22, 2019), seeks equitable
relief; disgorgement of any benefits received and any unjust
enrichment realized as a result of improper and misleading
labeling; advertising and marketing, restitution; statutory and
punitive damages; prejudgment and post-judgment interest;
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief resulting
from breach of express and implied warranty, negligence, unjust
enrichment and for violation of California's False Advertising Law,
Unfair Competition Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

Barilla America manufactures and distributes pasta sauces, namely,
but not limited to Barilla Traditional, Barilla Chunky Traditional,
Barilla Marinara, Barilla Meat Sauce, Barilla Mushroom, Barilla
Roasted Garlic, Barilla Spicy Marinara, Barilla Sweet Peppers,
Barilla Tomato and Basil and Barilla Tuscan Herb. Bolden alleges
that their label says "No Preservatives" but lists citric acid, a
known preservative, as an ingredient on the back of the bottles of
its packaging. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gordon M. Fauth, Jr., Esq.
      K. Hope Echiverri Ranoa, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
      1935 Addison Street, Suite A
      Berkeley, CA 94704
      Direct Telephone: (510) 238-9610
      Telephone: (415) 398-8700
      Fax: (415) 398-8704
      Email: gfauth@finkelsteinthompson.com
             hranoa@finkelsteinthompson.com


BENAMATI WATER: Walters Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime for Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Walters, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Benamati Water Service, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00159-CRE (W.D. Pa., Feb. 12,
2019), seeks unpaid wages and overtime compensation for the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated co-workers who work or have
worked for Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff alleges on behalf of himself and other current and
former employees as well as those similarly situated current and
former employees holding comparable positions but different titles,
including drivers of water trucks employed by Defendant who elect
to opt into this action pursuant to the FLSA, that they are
entitled to unpaid wages for all hours worked in a workweek, unpaid
overtime wages for hours worked above 40 in a workweek, and
liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Collective and Class Action
Members:

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          707 Grant Street, Suite 2500
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918
          Telephone: 412-281-7229
          E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street N.E., Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: 202-470-3520
          E-mail: nmiglicaaio@classlawdc.com
                  jrathod@classlawdc.com

BIRKENSTOCK USA: Dawson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Birkenstock USA, LP.
The case is styled as Leshawn Dawson on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Birkenstock USA, LP,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01493 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 17, 2019).

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

Birkenstock USA, LP manufactures footwear and accessories. The
Company offers shoes for women, men, and kids. Birkenstock USA
serves customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUE WATER RESORT: Boronzy Files ADA Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Water Resort
AMI, LLC. The case is styled as Austin Boronzy individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Blue Water
Resort AMI, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendant,
Case No. 8:19-cv-00394 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 14, 2019).

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

Blue Water Resort AMI, LLC is a luxury premier short term rental
property with a resort style pool.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
     The Advocacy Group, LLC
     200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301- 3424
     Phone: (954) 282-1858
     Fax: (844) 786-3694
     Email: jkerr@advocacypa.com


BOSTON CENTER: Jackson Sues Under FLSA Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Boston Center for Independent Living and Tempus
Unlimited, Case No. 19-0001 (Mass. Cmmw., January 2, 2019), seeks
to recover damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.  The
Plaintiff brought the class action case for unpaid wages, as the
Defendants have failed to pay minimum wages required by the
Massachusetts law.

The Plaintiff Andrea Jackson, is a citizen of the United States and
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and resides in Chelmsford,
Massachusetts and worked for the Defendants.

The Defendant, Boston Center for Independent Living, is a private
organization incorporated in 1974 in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. Its principal business office is located at 60
Temple Place, Boston, Massachusetts 02111. Boston Center for
Independent Living is a private, nonprofit organization controlled
and directed by persons with disabilities.

The Defendant, Tempus Unlimited exists to provide a continuum of
community-based services that support the efforts of children and
adults with disabilities to live as independently as possible in
the least restrictive environment. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan Jay Rom, Esq.
      ROM LAW, P.C.
      P.O. Box 585
      Chelmsford, MA 01824
      Tel: (617) 776-0575
      Fax: (617) 209-7714
      E-mail: alan@romlawoffice.com


BRETTMARK ENTERPRISES: Blanco Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR A. BLANCO & JORGE MONGE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. BRETTMARK ENTERPRISES INC. a/k/a
SURFACEWORKS, DIANE SAVARESE, BRETT NOTKIN, Case No. 2019-379
(Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty., February 8, 2019), is brought by
hourly workers of the Defendants seeking compensation for alleged
non-payment of wages and overtime.

Brettmark Enterprises, also known as SurfaceWorks, is a
Massachusetts corporation with a principal place of business in
Watertown, Massachusetts.  The Individual Defendants are owners and
officers of the Company.

SurfaceWorks provides house cleaning services, including carpet
cleaning, in home laundry, ironing, refrigerator and oven cleaning,
upholstery cleaning and window washing and exterior cleaning
services.  The business also provides post-construction cleaning
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James van Wagtendonk, Esq.
          GREATER BOSTON LEGAL SERVICES
          197 Friend Street
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 603-1613
          E-mail: jvanwagtendok@gbls.org


C.R. ENGLAND: Lewis Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay for Truck Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, BEATRICE LEWIS, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. C.R. ENGLAND, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00389 (D. Colo., Feb. 13, 2019), alleges that the Defendant
failed to pay for all hours worked by its employee truck drivers,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a resident of Pueblo,
Colorado. She was employed by Defendant as a truck driver from May
2016 through November 2017. C.R. England specializes in moving
goods in trucks throughout the United States. the Plaintiff was
paid by C.R. England based on the number of miles driven. As a
result, the Plaintiff and the Class'compensation was tied to the
distance travelled. the Plaintiff was not paid for on duty time
when not driving. In many weeks, the Plaintiff and other C.R.
England drivers were paid less than the minimum wage for each hour
that they worked.

The Plaintiff and the Class consistently worked in excess of 40
hours per week. This includes not only their time spent driving but
the many other hours spent on inspections, waiting for direction
from C.R. England, waiting for completion of pick up or delivery,
refueling, and myriad other tasks required by Swift.  The Defendant
failed to pay the Plaintiff and Class members for all hours worked.
Defendant failed to track the Plaintiff and Class members'hours
beyond the hours tracked by the US Department of Transportation.
While in route to a delivery, the Plaintiff and Class members were
required to be continuously on duty and, therefore, worked at least
16 hours, if not 24 hours, under 29 CFR section 785.22. However,
the Plaintiff and Class members were only paid per mile for driving
time, which driving time is limited by federal regulations. This
results in the Plaintiff and Class members being paid less than
minimum wage for every hour worked, the lawsuit says.

With headquarters is in Utah, C.R. England, Inc. is one of the
largest trucking companies and operates throughout the continental
United States.  C.R. England has annual gross revenues in excess of
$1.4 billion.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Michael Aschenbrener, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW LLC
          201 Milwaukee St, Suite 200
          Denver, CO 80206
          Telephone: (303) 222-0281
          E-mail: masch@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          Graham Lambert, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2625
          Telephone: (213) 514-5681
          E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
                  gl@haffnerlawyers.com

CACH, LLC: Thoensen Alleges Deceptive Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Thoensen, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CACH, LLC; Mandarich Law Group, LLP and
DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE, the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00273 (C.D.
Cal., Feb. 12, 2019), seeks to recover damages, statutory damages,
reasonable attorney's fees and costs in violations of the
California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act, the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, an the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
which prohibit debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive
and unfair practices.

According to the complaint, on Feb. 18, 2015, in Orange County
Superior Court, CACH filed a debt collection lawsuit against Maria
Thoensen titled CACH v. Maria Thoensen, Case No.
30-2015-00772241-CL-CL-CJC. The debt collection lawsuit contained
causes of action for "Breach of Contract" and "Common Counts" and
demanded $10,161.41 in principal, attorney???s fees pursuant to
statute, and costs of suit.

CACH purchased the debt from Bank of America  CACH is a debt buyer
and the debt collection lawsuit contained CACH's attempts to comply
with the statutory notice requirements as detailed in California's
Fair Debt Buying Practices Act.

On or about July 13, 2016, CACH and Thoensen agreed to a monthly
payment plan via a Stipulation for Conditional Entry of Judgment,
whereupon Thoensen would make monthly payments of $75 until the
settled balance of $4,5000 was paid and upon receipt and clearance
of $4,500 CACH or its attorneys would then dismiss the debt
collection lawsuit with prejudice.

The Plaintiff has been faithfully making her payments and at no
time has she been in default, which has been confirmed by
representatives of Mandarich Law Group. Yet, when the Plaintiff
received the statements from Mandarich Law stating the "Remaining
Balance Owed" was respectively $8,860.91 and $8,785.91, she became
very concerned and distressed she had somehow defaulted on the
payment plan, despite the record confirming she had been faithfully
making her payments, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

          Andrew P Rundquist, Esq.
          Law Office of Andrew P. Rundquist
          501 W Broadway, Suite 144
          San Diego, CA 92101-3536
          Telephone: (619) 992-9148
          E-mail: andrew@rundquistlaw.com

CANADA: Court Approves Ottawa pay EI Sickness Benefits Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Monsebraaten, writing for Toronto Star, reports that it is
official. The Federal Court has approved a multimillion-dollar
class-action settlement that will see Ottawa pay EI sickness
benefits to as many as 2,000 new parents -- mostly mothers -- who
were seriously ill during parental leave, but denied the additional
money.

Justice Catherine Kane's decision on Jan. 30 ends a six-year battle
waged by Calgary mother Jennifer McCrea on behalf of about 2,000
others who will receive an average of almost $4,000 each.

Ms. McCrea, who was awarded an additional $10,000 as an honorarium
for her efforts as class plaintiff, was "very relieved that it is
over."

"It has been quite a long journey," she told the Star. "So many
times I wanted to quit ??? But I am grateful that I had the
strength to fight ??? many women didn't have it in them to fight."

Ottawa settled with Ms. McCrea last August and the deal was
confirmed in September, subject to court approval.

The Jan. 30 ruling paves the way for the federal government, which
has records on EI sickness claimants, to mail notices of the
decision to parents eligible for payment and invite them to reapply
for the sick benefits they are owed. The estates of those who have
died will also be able to claim the money.

The settlement, which covers parents who were denied the benefit
between March 2002 and March 2013, is estimated to be worth between
$8.5 million and $11 million, depending on the number of class
members who apply for the money.

Ms. McCrea, 42, developed breast cancer in 2011 while on maternity
leave with her youngest son, Logan, but was denied additional EI
sickness benefits.

She is owed $7,515, the maximum 15-week benefit at the time.

Under the terms of the settlement, only parents who were sick
during the parental leave portion of their combined
maternity/parental leave period and were denied additional EI
sickness benefits are eligible for compensation.

In her ruling, Judge Kane said the settlement "is fair and
reasonable" and that the honorarium for McCrea is warranted "given
her significant contribution to this litigation and settlement."

Judge Kane noted the benefits would likely have been of more help
to the women when they were ill. But she said the settlement was
"nevertheless . . .a very good result."

"They will receive their benefits, albeit years later, and they
will have witnessed both a change in the legislation to benefit
others like them and improvements in the manner that information is
shared by Service Canada about such benefits," she added.

Ms. McCrea's lawyer Stephen Moreau was "thrilled" by the ruling.

"I'm glad to know this very long chapter has been closed," he
said.

Mr. Moreau, who has been battling Ottawa on the issue for almost
nine years, was particularly pleased class members will receive 100
per cent of the EI benefit they are owed.

Mr. Moreau and his law firm, Cavalluzzo LLP were awarded about $2.5
million to cover legal costs.

The court action stems from a 2002 change to EI legislation that
extended sickness benefits to working parents who become ill during
pregnancy or while on maternity and parental leave.

It meant new mothers, such as Ms. McCrea, could take up to 15 weeks
of sickness benefits to recuperate and then resume their parental
benefits.

But EI officials didn't interpret the changes that way; they argued
that since an ill woman on parental leave wasn't available for
work, she wasn't eligible for EI sickness benefits.

It wasn't until Toronto mother Natalya Rougas successfully appealed
her case in 2011 that the federal government took notice.

Mr. Moreau, who represented Ms. Rougas in her successful claim,
launched the class action in 2012 on behalf of McCrea after the
Calgary mother read about the case online in the Star.

Stephen Harper's Conservative government eventually changed the law
in 2013 to ensure new mothers with serious illnesses are not denied
EI sickness benefits. And it quietly paid about 350 women who had
their applications denied in 2012 and 2013.

But it refused to pay McCrea and others who were denied sickness
benefits between 2002 and 2013.

Ms. McCrea said she was grateful to the Liberal government for
living up to its 2015 election promise to settle the case, "albeit
not as quickly as we had hoped."

She also thanked the Star for keeping the case in the public eye.

"You were there when (others) couldn't care less and that made all
the difference." [GN]


CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Bid for Class Cert. in Gordon TCPA Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD GORDON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE,
INC., a Florida corporation, Defendant, Case No. 14 C 5848 (N.D.
Ill.), Judge John Z. Lee of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).

On July 28, 2014, Gordon received an unsolicited text message sent
on behalf of Caribbean Cruise Line ("CCL").  And so, he filed suit
against CCL, individually and on behalf of a putative class,
alleging that CCL violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").

Three months before filing the case, the Plaintiff's counsel had
filed a similar case in the Eastern District of New York, Jackson
v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., where another plaintiff filed a
class action against CCL and its Canadian advertising agency,
Adsource Marketing, Ltd., for violating the TCPA.  In Jackson, as
in the instant case, the plaintiff alleged that CCL, through
Adsource, sent unsolicited text messages to hundreds of thousands
of cell phone numbers.  The Court stayed the case during the
pendency of the Jackson litigation, and the parties, represented by
the same counsel in both cases, agreed that discovery in Jackson
would also apply here.

Discovery in Jackson took over two years. Having failed to answer
the complaint, Adsource defaulted.  Discovery of evidence from
Adsource and its president, Benjamin Langille, who was then a
Canadian resident, was pivotal to the plaintiff's claims against
CCL in Jackson.  Nonetheless, the plaintiff's counsel made no
formal attempt to obtain discovery from Adsource or Langille,
despite the Jackson court's warning that foregoing such discovery
could have fatal consequences.  The plaintiff's counsel chose,
instead, to rely on opposing the counsel to gather information from
Adsource.

Based upon this arrangement, CCL produced two lists obtained from
Adsource containing information about various individuals, who (at
least according to CCL and Adsource) had opted in and consented to
receive text messages regarding CCL.  CCL also provided a privilege
log that listed a curious document described as "Ben Langille
Declaration," which CCL withheld based upon the attorney work
product doctrine; the plaintiff's counsel did not challenge this
designation.  Two days before the close of discovery in Jackson,
the plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss the case with prejudice,
and the court granted the motion.

The resolution of Jackson prompted the restart of the instant case,
and the Court permitted the parties to pursue additional discovery.
At that time, the Plaintiff's counsel indicated that he would not
seek discovery from Langille or Adsource.  Additionally, the
Plaintiff neither sought the production of the Langille declaration
nor challenged its designation as attorney work product. Nor did he
ever seek leave to add Langille or Adsource as defendants in the
case.

The Plaintiff subsequently moved for class certification.  In its
opposition to the motion, CCL submitted Langille's declaration.
The Plaintiff moved to exclude the declaration under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 37(c)(1), and the Court denied the
motion on Sept. 18, 2018, permitting CCL to rely upon Langille's
declaration and finding that the Plaintiff would not suffer any
undue prejudice as a result.

The Plaintiff contends that text messages sent to the persons on
Adsource's Lead Lists and CCL's Call-Back List violated the TCPA.
And so, he has moved for class certification of his TCPA claim
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), seeking to certify a class defined as
all individuals in the United States that: (1) had a text message
sent to their cellular telephone number by, on behalf of, or for
the benefit of CCL; (2) using an automated telephone dialing
system; (3) between Feb. 1, 2014 and April 1, 2015); (4) whose
cellular number appears in CCL's records.

Judge Lee finds that the Plaintiff's significant business ties to
Carroll, Shamberg, and LDG, as well as his close personal ties to
Carroll, cast significant doubt upon his ability to put the
interests of the absent class members above that of the class
counsel.  Accordingly, he finds that the Plaintiff has failed to
satisfy Rule 23(a)(4)'s adequacy requirement.

Given the Lead Lists and Langille's declaration, individualized
factual inquiries will be necessary to determine whether the
individuals on the Lead Lists did, in fact, consent, and those
issues will predominate the litigation.  And the Judge finds that
the Plaintiff has not presented a viable approach based on common
proof to establish the lack of consent with respect to the class.
Accordingly, a multitude of mini-trials will be unavoidable.  For
these reasons, he finds that the Plaintiff has not satisfied Rule
23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement.

Finally, because TCPA claims involve small recoveries, the Judge
finds that the class members would have little interest in
individually controlling actions in separate venues, as indicated
by the fact that only a handful of other plaintiffs have filed
similar actions against CCL and each of those plaintiffs has
brought a class action.  That said, due to individualized factual
inquiries required to adjudicate the class members' claims, there
is a high likelihood that maintaining the litigation as a class
action would be unmanageable.  The Judge has considered alternative
procedural devices available in trying class actions, such as
questionnaires and affidavits, but none are up to the task of
providing CCL a meaningful opportunity to test the veracity of each
putative class member as to the issue of consent.  As such, he
finds that the manageability problems of litigating the claims as a
class action outweigh the benefits, and allowing the case to
proceed as a class action would not efficiently or fairly
adjudicate the controversy.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Lee denied the Plaintiff's Rule 23
motion for class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 8, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/CE2kL8 from Leagle.com.

David Izsak & Sunny Holmes, In Res, represented by Joseph J.
Siprut, Siprut PC.

Richard Gordon, Plaintiff, represented by Katrina Carroll --
kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC & Kyle Alan
Shamberg -- kshamberg@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg,
LLC.

Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian R.
Cummings -- brian.cummings@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder Law, pro
hac vice, Jeffrey Backman -- jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com --
Greenspoon Marder, P.A., pro hac vice, Richard W. Epstein --
richard.epstein@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder, P.A. & Timothy A.
Hudson -- thudson@tdrlawfirm.com -- Tabet DiVito Rothstein.


CERTIFIED CREDIT: Rodriguez Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
DELIA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CERTIFIED CREDIT & COLLECTION BUREAU; JOANNE
M. POSSUMATO; DIANA M. SCHOBEL; and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-01649-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., Jan. 29, 2019) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt. The case is assigned to Chief Judge Jose L. Linares and
referred to Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson.

Certified Credit & Collection Bureau is engaged as a debt
collection agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


CHAMPION PETFOODS: Wisconsin Court Dismisses Loeb Suit w/ Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KELLIE LOEB, Plaintiff, v. CHAMPION PETFOODS USA INC.
and CHAMPION PETFOODS LP, Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-494-JPS (E.D.
Wis.), Judge Joseph Peter Stadtmueller of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiff, a Wisconsin consumer, asserts that the Defendants,
makers of pet food, deceptively marketed their dog food as having
various highquality attributes when this was not the case.
Specifically, she claims that the Defendants' product was
contaminated with lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury.

On that basis, she brought the instant class action which states
five separate causes of action.  Three of the claims were dismissed
in the Court's order addressing the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment addressing
the two remaining claims and seeking dismissal of the entire
lawsuit.

The theme of the lawsuit is that while Orijen's packaging touts a
healthy, fresh, regionally sourced product, containing ingredients
which are biologically appropriate and fit for human consumption,
the heavy metals found within it render these assertions untrue.
Both of the Plaintiff's claims which have survived to this stage of
the case are based on this theme.

The first claim (Count I of the complaint) asserts that Defendants
have violated the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("WDTPA"), by misrepresenting Orijen's quality, thereby inducing
consumers to purchase the product at a premium price, when they
either would not have paid that price or purchased the product at
all.  Similarly, the second claim (Count V of the complaint)
contends that the Defendants have been unjustly enriched by selling
dog food at an inflated price which they knew was polluted with
heavy metals.

Judge Stadtmueller finds that the Plaintiff has not raised a
triable issue as to the second element of her WDTPA claim -- that
the Defendants' representations were "untrue, deceptive or
misleading."  More precisely, she has not adduced evidence
sufficient for a reasonable jury to agree with her theory of the
case.  Again, the Judge offers no opinion as to whether such
evidence could be obtained, or whether a differently pleaded theory
might have survived the Defendants' motion.  Nevertheless, as it
stands, the WDTPA claim must be dismissed.

In addition, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment
claim thus fails for two independent reasons.  First, in accordance
with his analysis of the WDTPA claim, the Plaintiff has failed to
raise a genuine dispute of fact as to whether the heavy metals in
the Defendants' products render their marketing statements
misleading.  The Plaintiff thus cannot establish the inequity
required by the third element of her unjust enrichment claim.
Second, it is undisputed that the Plaintiff bought Orijen in
various pet supply stores, not from the Defendants directly.
Consequently, the first element is also left wanting.  The unjust
enrichment claim cannot go to the jury.

In light of the foregoing, the Judge concludes that the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment must be granted and the action will be
dismissed with prejudice.  The Plaintiff's pending motion for class
certification will be denied as moot.  He will also grant two of
the Plaintiff's motions to seal related to a settlement report and
summary judgment submissions, respectively.  She filed an
additional motion to seal regarding class certification materials,
but the parties have now stipulated that the motion is unnecessary.
The Judge will therefore deny the motion to seal as moot.

Accordingly, Judge Stadtmueller granted the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment.  He dismissed Counts One and Five of the
Plaintiff's complaint.  He granted the Plaintiff's motions to seal
and the Plaintiff's motion to unseal documents filed in support of
her motion for class certification.  The Judge denied as moot the
Plaintiff's motion to seal documents filed in support of her motion
for class certification.  He directed the Clerk of the Court to
unseal the attachments to Docket #40 and docket as unsealed Docket
#39-1.  He also denied as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

The Judge dismsised with prejudice the action.  The Clerk of the
Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/UXbKha from Leagle.com.

Kellie Loeb, Plaintiff, represented by Erich P. Schork --
e.schork@barnowlaw.com -- Barnow and Associates PC, John D. Blythin
-- jblythin@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Mark A. Eldridge
-- meldridge@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Shpetim Ademi,
Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Joseph J. Braun, Strauss Troy, Richard S.
Wayne, Strauss Troy, Robert A. Clifford -- rac@cliffordlaw.com --
Clifford Law Offices, Shannon M. McNulty -- smm@cliffordlaw.com --
Clifford Law Offices & Ben Barnow -- b.barnow@barnowlaw.com --
Barnow and Associates PC.

Champion Petfoods USA Inc & Champion Petfoods LP, Defendants,
represented by Mark E. Schmidt -- mschmidt@vonbriesen.com -- von
Briesen & Roper SC, David A. Coulson -- coulsond@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig LLP, Derek J. Waterstreet --
dwaterstreet@vonbriesen.com -- von Briesen & Roper SC & Susan E.
Lovern -- slovern@vonbriesen.com -- von Briesen & Roper SC.


COAST ACCOMMODATIONS: Boronzy Suit Asserts ADA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coast Accommodations
International, LLC. The case is styled as Austin Boronzy
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Coast Accommodations International, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
8:19-cv-00402-WFJ-SPF (M.D. Fla., Feb. 14, 2019).

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

Coast Accommodations International, LLC offers Luxury Vacation
Rentals in Southwest Florida and Luxury and Exotic car rentals in
Sarasota, Tampa, Naples and all of Southwest Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
     The Advocacy Group, LLC
     200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301- 3424
     Phone: (954) 282-1858
     Fax: (844) 786-3694
     Email: jkerr@advocacypa.com


COLLECTO INC: Cruz Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collecto, Inc. d/b/a
EOS CCA. The case is styled as Rosemary Cruz, Robert R. Rankel
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Collecto, Inc. d/b/a EOS CCA, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00937 (E.D. N.Y., Feb. 15, 2019).

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

Collecto, Inc., doing business as EOS/CCA, Inc., operates as a debt
management and recovery resource company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
     Barshay Sanders, PLLC
     100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 203-7600
     Fax: (516) 281-7601
     Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


COMENITY BANK: Fails to Respond to Identity Theft Report, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LORI ANN GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMENITY BANK; and DOES 1-30, Defendants,
Case No. 19CECG00377 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., Jan. 29, 2019)
alleges that the Defendants violated California laws on how
creditors and debt collector must respond to reports of identity
theft.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff learned of the existence
of the "The Limited" branded credit card account in her name when
she began receiving telephone calls in Fresno, California, from the
Defendants seeking to collect on the purported debt.

The Plaintiff informed the Defendants orally that she did not open
the account and is a victim of identity theft. In August 2018, the
Plaintiff mailed to a "Contact Us" address found on Comenity Bank's
website, written notification that she did not open or apply for or
make any transactions on the "The Limited" credit card account, and
that she is a victim of identity theft with respect to that
account.

In response to the Plaintiff's letter, Comenity Bank sent the
Plaintiff a letter dated October 7, 2018, rejecting her claim of
identity theft without providing copies of any of the documents she
had requested.

The Defendants maintain a pattern and practice of not providing
requested information and documents as required under California
Penal Code, within ten business days of receiving a person's
submission of a copy of their police report and identifying
information or of receiving a person's request to be informed of
what categories of identifying information were used to apply for
or open an account.

Comenity Bank First is a full-service bank. The Bank accepts
deposits, makes loans and provides other services for the public.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tavy A. Dumont, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TAVY A. DUMONT
          101 Cooper Street, Suite 223
          Santa Cruz, CA 95060-4526
          Telephone: (831) 288-0714
          E-mail: tavy.dumont@dumontlaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Weiss, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN WEISS
          10576 Troon Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-4436
          Telephone: (310) 558-0404
          E-mail: jw@lojw.com


CONCORDE INVESTMENT: Securities Class Action Dismissal Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on
January 24, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative securities
class action against several investment advisory and financial
services firms for allegedly mismanaging the accounts of the
putative class plaintiffs and failing to act in their best
interests.  Susan Nielen-Thomas v. Concorde Investment Services
LLC, et al., No. 18-cv-00229 (7th Cir. Jan. 24, 2019).  Plaintiff
brought claims under Wisconsin and Nebraska securities laws, common
law claims under Wisconsin and Nebraska law for breach of contract,
fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, failure to
supervise, and breach of fiduciary duty, and a claim for breach of
the Securities Act of 1933 that the district court dismissed with
prejudice for failure to state a claim that plaintiff did not
appeal.  Defendants removed the case to federal court pursuant to
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA"),
and thereafter moved to dismiss the state law claims on the basis
that the suit constituted a "covered class action" that was
precluded by SLUSA.  Plaintiff, in moving to remand and in opposing
the motion to dismiss, argued that the case is not governed by
SLUSA because the proposed class action contained fewer than fifty
members and therefore could not be a covered class action as
defined by SLUSA.  Chief District Judge James D. Peterson of the
United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
agreed with defendants, finding that the suit was a covered class
action, denying plaintiff's motion to remand, and dismissing
plaintiff's state law claims with prejudice.  Plaintiff appealed
and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

The Seventh Circuit first considered the meaning of SLUSA's
"covered class action" definition.  Under SLUSA, covered class
actions based upon the statutory or common law of any State are
precluded if a plaintiff alleges either "a misrepresentation or
omission of material fact in connection with the purchase or sale
of a covered security" or that the defendant "used or employed any
manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in connection with
the purchase or sale of a covered security."  15 U.S.C. ??
78bb(f)(1).  A "covered security" is defined under SLUSA as a
"security traded nationally and listed on a regulated national
exchange."  Further, SLUSA defines a "covered class action" in
relevant part as either of the following:  Subparagraph (I) of 15
U.S.C. ?? 78bb(f)(5)(B)(i) provides that a single lawsuit qualifies
as a covered class action when (1) damages are sought, (2) on
behalf of more than fifty prospective class members, and (3) common
questions of law or fact predominate "without reference to issues
of individualized reliance on an alleged misstatement or omission";
Subparagraph (II) provides that a single lawsuit qualifies as a
covered class action when (1) damages are sought, (2) by "one or
more named parties" who seek to recover damages "on a
representative basis on behalf of themselves and other unnamed
parties similarly situated," and (3) common questions of law or
fact predominate.  Plaintiff did not dispute that her claims were
based on state law, involved a covered security, and alleged
misrepresentations in connection with the purchase of that covered
security.  Plaintiff argued, however, that her case was not a
"covered class action" as defined by SLUSA because she alleged that
the putative class would consist of "no more than 49 members."

The Seventh Circuit determined that SLUSA's definition of what
constituted a "covered class action" was clear and unambiguous, and
that Subparagraph (I) applied to actions brought on behalf of more
than fifty people, while Subparagraph (II) applied to actions
brought on behalf of unnamed parties.  According to the Seventh
Circuit, Congress's use of "or" in between Subparagraphs (I) and
(II) clearly demonstrated that the criteria must be considered in
the disjunctive, rejecting plaintiff's argument that she could
proceed so long as her claims survived under one of the two
Subparagraphs.  In so holding, the Seventh Circuit noted that while
no other circuit has directly opined on the difference between
these two Subparagraphs, the Second and Eighth Circuits have
"referenced SLUSA's definition of a covered class action in a way
that supports our interpretation."  As such, the Seventh Circuit
concluded that plaintiff could not proceed with her state law
claims because -- while her proposed class was fewer than fifty
people -- she filed a "Class Action Complaint," brought her claims
"individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated," pled
that "common questions of law and fact exist as to all members" of
the putative class, and sought to recover damages from defendants
on a representative basis, all of which clearly is precluded under
Subparagraph (II)'s definition of a "covered class action."  The
Court held that to accept plaintiff's interpretation that
Subparagraphs (I) and (II) are separate, independent bases for
excluding securities class actions under SLUSA would "completely
read[] Subparagraph (II) out of the statute."  The Court also
rejected plaintiff's argument that the fifty-person threshold
identified in Subparagraph (I) must apply to Subparagraph (II) to
avoid making the former "superfluous," holding that to adopt
plaintiff's position would be "untenable" and contravene the plain
text of the statute.

The Seventh Circuit then considered plaintiff's additional argument
that the Court's reading of the statute would sweep too broadly and
that no putative securities class actions based on state law and
otherwise meeting SLUSA's criteria could thus proceed in either
federal or state court.  Citing the legislative history of SLUSA,
the Court explained that Congress enacted SLUSA in order to address
the problem of litigants bringing class actions under state law in
order to circumvent the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 ("PSLRA"), which "impos[ed] burdens on plaintiffs who sought
to bring federal securities fraud class actions, including by
limiting recoverable damages and attorney's fees and by mandating
sanctions for frivolous litigation."  According to the Court,
Congress's enactment of SLUSA was meant to close this loophole by
"limit[ing] the conduct of securities class actions under State
law," and that "[t]his purpose could be easily frustrated if
plaintiffs bringing a state-law securities class action could
simply allege that they represented a class of no more than fifty
people."          

The Court noted that individuals may still pursue claims on their
own behalf in state court under state law, and nothing in SLUSA
would prevent them from doing so, provided that there are fewer
than fifty such plaintiffs for which common questions or law or
fact predominate.  The Court concluded, however, that "what SLUSA
does preclude these individuals from doing is continuing to pursue
their claims in the form of a class action."  Accordingly, the
Court held that SLUSA appropriately precluded plaintiff's putative
class claims from proceeding in either federal or state court, and
affirmed the judgment of the District Court. [GN]


CONCORDE INVESTMENT: Sheppard Mull Attorneys Discuss Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth E. Rechtoris, Esq. -- krechtoris@sheppardmullin.com -- and
David Poell, Esq. -- dpoell@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, in an article for Lexology, report
that in Nielen-Thomas v. Concorde Investment Servs., LLC, No.
18-2875, 2019 WL 302766 (7th Cir. Jan. 24, 2019), the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the Securities
Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA"), Pub. L.
105-353, 112 Stat. 3227, bars all putative class actions brought by
private plaintiffs in a representative capacity under state law,
regardless of the estimated size of the class. The Seventh
Circuit's decision effectively eliminates the ability of a single
plaintiff in a securities class action to represent a putative
class of unnamed persons in any State within the Seventh Circuit
(Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana).  

In Concorde Investment Services, plaintiff Susan Nielen-Thomas
filed a complaint in Wisconsin state court alleging that she and
other class members were defrauded by their investment advisor.
Plaintiff sued her advisor and several investment firms under
various state-law claims for defendants' alleged failure to
properly managed the class members' investments. Nielen-Thomas was
the only named plaintiff, but the putative class included retail
clients of the investment advisor and his investment advisory
firm.

After removing the action to federal court, defendants moved to
dismiss plaintiff's complaint as barred by SLUSA. In granting the
motion to dismiss, the district court held that plaintiff's lawsuit
met SLUSA's definition of a "covered class action" and therefore
must be dismissed with prejudice as required under the statute.
Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her state law class action
claims.

SLUSA prohibits certain securities class actions from proceeding
under state law. Specifically, under SLUSA, "[n]o covered class
action based upon the statutory or common law of any State . . .
may be maintained in any State or Federal court by any private
party" if that party alleges either "a misrepresentation or
omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase or sale
of a covered security" or "that the defendant used or employed any
manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in connection with
the purchase or sale of a covered security." 15 U.S.C. Sec.
78bb(f)(1) (emphasis added).

SLUSA provides that a "single lawsuit" qualifies as a "covered
class action" when:

Damages are sought on behalf of more than 50 persons or prospective
class members, and questions of law or fact common to those persons
or members of the prospective class, without reference to issues of
individualized reliance on an alleged misstatement or omission,
predominate over any question affecting only individual persons or
members; or one or more named parties seek to recover damages on a
representative basis on behalf of themselves and other unnamed
parties similarly situated, and questions of law or fact common to
those persons or members of the prospective class predominate over
any questions affecting only individual persons or members . . . .
15 U.S.C. Sec. 78bb(f)(5)(B)(i) (emphasis added).

Plaintiff did not dispute that her class action claims were (a)
based on state law, (b) involved a 'covered security' and (c)
allege misrepresentations "in connection with the purchase or sale
of" that security. Thus, there was only one issue before the Court:
whether plaintiff's lawsuit was a "covered class action" as that
term is defined under SLUSA. Plaintiff argued that her lawsuit was
not a "covered class action" under Subparagraph (I) because her
estimated class size was less than 50.The Seventh Circuit rejected
plaintiff's attempt to characterize her lawsuit as outside the
bounds of SLUSA, holding that plaintiff's carve-out of classes with
less than 50 putative members ignored subparagraph (II), which
expressly bars all class actions that are brought on a
"representative basis," regardless of class size. Under the express
terms of subparagraph (II), plaintiff's lawsuit was a "covered
class action" and therefore precluded under SLUSA. The Seventh
Circuit recognized that there could be some overlap in the scope of
each subparagraph (i.e., a putative class action in which the
proposed class exceeds fifty members would be covered under both
subparagraphs), but found the redundancy to be neither "unusual or
problematic."

On de novo review, the unanimous Seventh Circuit panel held that
giving effect to the clear meaning of the statute as written,
plaintiff's claims met the definition of a "covered class action"
under subparagraph (II). In analyzing the issue, the Court reviewed
the text of SLUSA and noted that subparagraph (II) unequivocally
precludes all class actions brought by "one or more named parties"
who seek to recover damages "on a representative basis on behalf of
themselves and other unnamed parties similarly situated." In other
words, subparagraph (II) prohibits the exact type of representative
class action brought by plaintiff. Based upon the clear statutory
text, the Seventh Circuit held that plaintiff's lawsuit was barred
under SLUSA, and accordingly affirmed the district court's ruling.

Going forward, it should not be possible (at least in the Seventh
Circuit) for private plaintiffs in securities class actions to sue
on behalf of a class of unnamed persons. Concorde Investment
Services teaches that the size of the class simply does not matter
under SLUSA. While it remains to be seen whether other Circuits
will follow the Court's rationale, representative "covered class
actions" under state law are now a thing of the past in the Seventh
Circuit. [GN]


CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Defends Workers' ERISA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Cornell University is seeking a win in an
Employee Retirement Income Security Act class action alleging
mismanagement of workers' retirement savings. [GN]


CORNUCOPIA LOGISTICS: McClean Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
MARCANTHONY MCLEAN, on behalf of himself, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
CORNUCOPIA LOGISTICS, LLC, the Defendant, Case no. 2:19-cv-00864
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff worked for
the Defendant -- a Long Island-based delivery company -- as a
delivery driver from December 2017 until July 15, 2018. The
Defendant willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff the wages lawfully
due to him under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.  Specifically, the Defendant required the Plaintiff to
work, and the Plaintiff did in fact work, in excess of 40 hours
each week or virtually each week, yet the Defendant paid him a flat
daily rate for each day worked regardless of how many hours he
worked per day or per week, and thus failed to compensate the
Plaintiff at the statutorily-required overtime rate for all hours
that he worked per week in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA's
and the NYLL's overtime provisions.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 679-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 679-5005

COUNTER BRANDS: Dawson Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Counter Brands, LLC.
The case is styled as Leshawn Dawson on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Counter Brands, LLC doing
business as: Beautycounter, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01495 (S.D.
N.Y., Feb. 17, 2019).

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

Counter Brands, LLC, doing business as Beautycounter, manufactures
and sells skin and body care products for women, men, and
kids.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Court Certifies Class in Knapper TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Joanne Knapper, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cox Communications, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. CV-17-00913-PHX-SPL (D. Ariz.), Judge Steven P.
Logan of the U.S. District Court for the Disrict of Arizona granted
the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of
Class Counsel.

On March 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the
Defendant for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").  She alleges, on behalf of a class, that the Defendant
routinely violates the TCPA by using an automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to place non-emergency
calls to numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service, without
prior express consent.

On June 28, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification and appointment of the class counsel.  On Aug. 14,
2018, the Defendant filed its response.  On Aug. 30, 2018, the
Plaintiff filed her reply.  Both parties have filed supplemental
authority notices.

The Plaintiff argues for certification under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure ("Rule") 23(b)(3).  She seeks to bring the action on her
own behalf, as well as on the behalf of the class of all persons
and entities throughout the United States (1) to whom Cox
Communications, Inc. placed a call, (2) directed to a number
assigned to a cellular telephone service, but not assigned to a Cox
Communications, Inc. subscriber, (3) in connection with its efforts
to collect a past due residential account balance, (4) via its
Avaya dialers or with an artificial or prerecorded voice, (5) from
March 28, 2013 through the date of class certification.

The Defendant responds that individual issues concerning consent
predominate, that the Plaintiff is neither an adequate nor a
typical class representative, and that a class action is not a
manageable or superior way to proceed.   It also argues that none
of its relevant call logs reflect actual calls made by Defendant to
wrong numbers or that the purported wrong numbers are actually
"wrong."  The Defendant does not, however, challenge the class
definition.

Having reviewed the parties' briefing, Judge Logan finds that the
Plaintiff has met the four Rule 23(a) requirements and has shown
that the class should be certified under Rule 23(b)(3).
Accordingly, he granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel.

Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3), he certified the class as (1)
all persons and entities throughout the United States, (2) to whom
Cox Communications, Inc. placed a call (3) directed to a number
assigned to a cellular telephone service, but not assigned to a Cox
Communications, Inc. subscriber, (4) in connection with its efforts
to collect a past due residential account balance, (5) via its
Avaya dialers or with an artificial or prerecorded voice, (6) from
March 28, 2013 through the date of class certification.

The Judge appointed the law firm of Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC
as the class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/9t1SxO from Leagle.com.

Joanne Knapper, on behalf of herself and others similary situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Radbil -- aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com --
Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC, James Lee Davidson --
jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com -- Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC &
Michael L. Greenwald -- mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com -- Greenwald
Davidson Radbil PLLC.

Cox Communications Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Amy Lynn
Brown, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Keshia Williams Lipscomb --
keshia.lipscomb@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP &
Petrina A. McDaniel -- petrina.mcdaniel@squirepb.com -- Squire
Patton Boggs (US) LLP.


CRYOPURE SPA: Figueroa Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing
------------------------------------------------------
Benny Figueroa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cryopure Spa, LLC, an Illinois Limited
Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-60414-UU (S.D. Fla.,
February 15, 2019) is an action against the Defendant to secure
redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").

To promote its services, 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 cryotherapy spa that sells various cryotherapy
services.[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


CVR REFINING: Vincent Russo Alleges Breach of Call Right
--------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT RUSSO on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the the Plaintiff, vs. CVR REFINING GP, LLC and
CVR ENERGY, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2019-0104 (Del. Ch.,
Feb. 12, 2019), alleges that Defendants breached a call right when
they exercised the call right related to CVR Refining at a price of
$10.50 instead of at least $16.7162 per common unit, the price at
which an affiliate of the General Partner acquired common units in
the 90-day period preceding the mailing of the Call Right notice
provided in Section 15.1(a) of the Agreement of Limited Partnership
(LPA).

According to the complaint, in 2013, Carl Icahn and his affiliates
sponsored the public offering of common units representing limited
partnership interests of CVR Refining, LP. The partnership
agreement provided that if certain ownership thresholds were met,
the Partnership's general partner, CVR Refining GP, LLC, could
purchase all of the Common Units not owned by the General Partner
or its affiliates (the "Call Right").

The Call Right included a pricing mechanism by which the price to
be paid for the Common Units when called would be the greater of
"(x) the Current Market Price as of the date three days prior to
the date that the notice described in Section 15.1(b) is mailed or
(y) the highest price paid by the General Partner or any of its
Affiliates for any such Limited Partner Interest of such class
purchased during the 90-day period preceding" exercise of the Call
Right.

In 2018, Icahn and his affiliates (such affiliates including all
entities and persons who have filed Schedule 13/Ds and amendments
thereto with Icahn with respect to the Partnership) (the "Icahn
Group") caused the ultimate parent of the General Partner, CVR
Energy, Inc. ("CVI"), to conduct an exchange offer that was
designed to satisfy the ownership thresholds that would trigger the
Call Right. On January 17, 2019, the Icahn Group announced that the
General Partner had assigned the triggered Call Right to CVI and
that CVI would exercise the Call Right at a price of $10.50 per
Common Unit instead of the $16.7162 at which an affiliate of the
General Partner had acquired Common Units in the 90-day period
prior to the exercise of the Call Right. Specifically, on November
14, 2018, Janice DeVelasco, the Partnership's Vice President of
Health, Safety and Security, an affiliate of the General Partner,
acquired Common Units for a price of $16.7162 per Common Unit.

CVI breached the partnership agreement's requirement and was
obligated to pay at least $16.7162 per Common Unit in connection
with the Call Right. The Partnership completed its initial public
offering in May 2013. The Partnership's First Amended and Restated
LPA has been in effect since January 23, 2013, as amended as of
January 1, 2018 with respect to certain tax matters, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

          Michael J. Barry, Esq.
          Joseph L. Christensen, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000

DELL: Police Fund Hits Management Buy-out, Stock Retirement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Miramar Police Officers' Retirement Plan, on behalf of itself and
all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Michael Dell, Egon Durban,
Simon Patterson, David Dorman, William Green, Ellen Kullman, MSDC
Denali Investors, L.P., MSDC Denali EIV, LLC, Susan Lieberman Dell
Separate Property Trust and Silver Lake Group LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 2019-0049, (Del. Ch., January 22, 2019), seeks damages
resulting from breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the
transfer of at least $10 billion in value away from Dell's Class V
stockholders and to Michael Dell and Silver Lake.

Dell was a publicly traded company for twenty-five years until it
was taken private by Michael Dell and Silver Lake in 2013 in a
management buy-out valued at approximately $25 billion. The
transaction retired Dell's Class V Common Stock. Miramar Police
Officers Retirement Plan is a former holder of Class V Common Stock
of Dell Technologies, Inc. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Barry, Esq.
      Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq.
      Joseph L. Christensen, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      123 Justison Street
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 622-7000
      Email: mbarry@gelaw.com
             cmackintosh@gelaw.com


DELUXE CORPORATION: Removes Mansapit Case to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
Deluxe Corporation removed the case, JAMES M. MANSAPIT, on behalf
of himself, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
DELUXE CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation; DELUXE CHECK PRINTERS,
a Minnesota corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
19CV340921, was removed from the Santa Clara County Superior Court,
to the to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. The Northern District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:19-cv-00790 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's disclosure and authorization
form that supposedly violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act, also
violates the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies
Act and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. The
Plaintiff further alleges that the claimed violations of the FCRA,
ICRAA and the ICRAA are "unlawful business practices" that violate
California Business & Professions Code.

Deluxe Corporation is a small business partner and advocate,
offering a wide range of custom products and marketing services
that help small businesses succeed and grow.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Rod M. Fliegel, Esq.
          Alison S. Hightower, Esq.
          Emily Mertes, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Tel: (415) 433-1940
          Fax: (415) 399-8490

DEUTSCHE BANK: Igarashi Files FDCPA Suit in Hawaii
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company. The case is styled as Clyde Igarashi,
Michelle Igarashi, others similarly situated named herein as Does
10 through 1000, inclusive, Plaintiffs, v. Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company, Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-14, Mortgage
Electronic Registration System, Inc, MERSCORP, Ocwen Financial
Corporation, and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Ocwen Mortgage
Servicing, Inc., and Homeward Residential, Inc., collectively as
Ocwen, OneWest Bank, FSB a division of CIT Bank, John Does 1-10,
Doe Partnerships 1-10, Doe Corporations 1-10, Doe Governmental
Units 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00083-JAO-KJM (D. Haw.,
Feb. 14, 2019).

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

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (California) was formerly
known as Bankers Trust Company of California, National Association
and changed its name in 2002.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


DIOCESE OF SYRACUSE: Kevin Braney Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Roman Catholic
Diocese of Syracuse. The case is styled as Kevin Braney, John Does
1-1,000 on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Syracuse, The United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishop Robert J. Cunningham,
Estate of Charles Eckermann, Paul Angelicchio, Estate of James
Quinn, Jacqueline Bressette, John Doe Priests 4-200, Defendants,
Case No. 5:19-cv-00210-TJM-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2019).

The Diocese of Syracuse is a Catholic diocese headquartered in
Syracuse, New York, United States. The current bishop is the Most
Rev. Robert J. Cunningham.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jessica A. Wegg, Esq.
     Saeed & Little, LLP
     1433 North Meridian St.. Suite 202
     Indianapolis, IN 46202
     Phone: (317) 721-9214
     Fax: (888) 422-3151
     Email: jessica@sllawfirm.com


DIRECTIONAL PROJECT: Bratcher Wants to Notify Possible Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled WOODROW BRATCHER, JR.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
DIRECTIONAL PROJECT SUPPORT, INC., and WILLIAM GARDNER,
Individually, Case No. 5:18-cv-00631-FB-RBF (W.D. Tex.), filed with
the Court his first stage motion for notice to potential
plaintiffs.

The Motion is brought on behalf of the Defendants' current and
former frontline, field-based Inspectors, each of whom have been
paid primarily on a day rate basis.  These Plaintiffs, just like
the Plaintiff in Arredondo v. Directional Project Support, Inc.,
Case No. 4:17-cv-3457 (S.D. Tex.), regularly worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek ("overtime") but did not receive overtime
compensation for their overtime work, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, Mr. Bratcher contends.

To facilitate the Notice process, the Plaintiff seeks supervised
Notice to and Conditional Certification of the Potential
Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiff asks that the Court approve the proposed
Notice that is based on Notices approved and issued in other cases,
and also seeks a 90-day opt-in period from the date Notice is
mailed.  He also seeks an order: (1) requiring the Defendants to
disclose the names, last known addresses, e-mail addresses, and
telephone numbers within ten (10) days from the entry of an Order
and (2) providing permission to distribute the attached proposed
Notice and Consent Forms to the class members.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
                  vijay@buenkerlaw.com


DON VITO OZUNA: Seeks Prelim. OK of $375K Camilo Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled RODRIGO CAMILO, ALVARO
CAMILO, RICARDO SANCHEZ, JOSE MANUEL LOPEZ AND PUTATIVE PLAINTIFFS
v. DON VITO OZUNA FOOD CORPORATION AND SEVERO OZUNA, Case No.
5:18-cv-02842-VKD (N.D. Cal.), ask the Court to preliminarily
approve their class action settlement.

The lawsuit is a class action complaint filed on behalf of
nonexempt employees against the Defendants.  Severo Ozuna owns Don
Vito Ozuna Food Corporation, a small tortilla factory in Santa
Clara County.  During the class period, May 14, 2014, through March
19, 2019, the Defendants employed the Plaintiffs as non-exempt
tortilla makers in their factory.

After a full day of mediation, the Parties agreed to settle this
case for $375,000 to be paid by the Defendants.  The Settlement Sum
includes attorney's fees, costs and expenses directly related to
the case.  The Settlement Administration costs are estimated to be
$15,000.  Class Representatives Rodrigo Camilo, Alvaro Camilo,
Ricardo Sanchez, and Jose Manuel Lopez shall receive Service Awards
of $5,000 each.  Subject to Court approval, Class Counsel will be
paid up to $112,500 for attorneys' fees, and an additional amount
for reasonable litigation costs not to exceed $10,000.

The members of the class shall recover damages based upon the
number of work weeks they worked during the class period.  The
Parties reserved an estimated $145,725 or 67% of the net settlement
funds for the Rule 23 class members.  If there are 4780 work weeks
between these dates then the class members will receive
approximately $30 per work week.  The estimated balance of $71,775
or 33% of the net settlement funds is reserved for the FLSA opt-in
collective action.

The settlement shall be paid in two installments. The first for
$200,000 shall be paid on July 1, 2019, or thirty days after the
final approval whichever is shorter.  The second payment of 175,000
shall be made on May 1, 2020.  Any checks left uncashed 180 days
after the first payment shall be paid to the class members that
cashed their checks for the first payment.  Any uncashed checks 180
days after the second payment shall cy pres to the Katharine &
George Alexander Community Law Center a nonprofit that assists low
wage earners with their employment issues.

The Court will commence a hearing on March 19, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Dal Bon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES DAL BON
          606 N. 1st St.
          San Jose, CA 95112
          Telephone: (408) 466-5845
          E-mail: jdb@wagedefenders.com

               - and -

          Victoria L. Booke, Esq.
          BOOKE & AJLOUNY
          606 N. 1st St.
          San Jose, CA 95112
          Telephone: (408) 286-7000
          E-mail: vbooke@bookelaw.com

Defendants Vito Ozuna Food Corporation and Severo C. Ozuna are
represented by:

          Stacey A. Zartler, Esq.
          SV EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM PC
          160 Bovet Road, Suite 401
          San Mateo, CA 94402
          Telephone: (650) 265-0221
          E-mail: szartler@svelf.com


EMBARQUE AA: Perez Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR ANTONIO PEREZ, individually and on behalf all others
similarly situated v. EMBARQUE AA CORP., and IRENO ARIAS, as an
individual, Case No. CV19-0795 (E.D.N.Y., February 8, 2019), seeks
to recover alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Embarque AA Corp. is a corporation organized under the laws of New
York with a principal executive office in Brooklyn, New York.
Ireno Arias owns and/or operates the Company.

Embarque AA is in the Arrangement of Transportation of Freight and
Cargo industry in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
          E-mail: avshalumovr@yahoo.com


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Greifman Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Greifman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 7:19-cv-01480 (S.D. N.Y., February 15, 2019) seeks to
recover for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA").

According to the Complaint, the Defendant attempted to collect a
consumer debt by sending two letters within 30 days of each other
for a single debt, from one year before the date of this Complaint
to the present. This action seeks a finding that Defendant's
conduct violates the FDCPA, and asks that the Court award damages,

Plaintiff Sarah Greifman is an individual who is a citizen of the
State of New York residing in Rockland County, New York.

Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, is a Florida Limited Liability
Company with a principal place of business in Duval County,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EXTRA SPACE: Johnson Alleges Storage Lease Bait-and-Switch Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LENAY JOHNSON, and LAMAR MOSLEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EXTRA SPACE STORAGE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. RG19004671 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., Jan. 28,
2019) alleges that the Defendant's misleading bait-and-switch
scheme constitutes false and misleading advertising in violation of
the California Unfair Competition Law, California False Advertising
Law, and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant lures consumers into
leasing the Defendant's storage units by advertising competitive
rental rates, while hiding the fact that it will hike up those
rental rates shortly after consumers have signed leases.

Extra Space Storage Inc., headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, is
a self-administered and self-managed REIT and a member of the S&P
500. As of September 30, 2018, the Company owned and/or operated
1,606 self-storage stores in 39 states, Washington, D.C. and Puerto
Rico. The Company's stores comprise approximately 1.1 million units
and approximately 122 million square feet of rentable space. The
Company offers customers a wide selection of conveniently located
and secure storage units across the country, including boat
storage, RV storage and business storage. The Company is the second
largest owner and/or operator of self-storage stores in the United
States and is the largest self-storage management company in the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
          Tanya Koshy, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com
                  tkoshy@tzlegal.com


EXTREME ALTERATIONS: Shellman Seeks OT Pay for Landscape Laborers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED SHELLMAN, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, vs. EXTREME ALTERATIONS, INC.,
a Florida For Profit Corporation, and MIKE KARGAR, individually,
the Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-00292-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla., Feb. 13,
2019), seeks to reocover unpaid overtime compensation, unlawful
retaliation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was a salary paid
employee ("landscape laborer") and performed related activities for
Defendants in Volusia County, Florida. The Plaintiff, and those
similarly situated employees, worked as "laborers" and performed
related activities for Defendant in Volusia County, Florida. In
this capacity, the Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, earned
a salary in the amount of $600 per week for all hours worked. The
Plaintiff worked for Defendant from October 23, 2017 to January 12,
2018. The Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees,
routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week as part of their
regular job duties. Despite working more than 40 hours per week,
the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff, and other similarly
situated employees, overtime compensation at a rate of no less than
time and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
over 40 in a workweek, the  lawsuit says.

The Defendant is a landscaping company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
          1950 Lee Road, Suite 213
          Winter Park, FL 32789
          Telephone: (407) 574-4999
          Facsimile: (833) 423-5864
          E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com


FASHION NOVA: Federoff Sues Over Unsolicited Autodialed Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Federoff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Fashion Nova, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00331-GPC-JLB (S.D. Cal., February 15, 2019) brought this
action for legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal
actions of the Defendant in transmitting unsolicited, autodialed
SMS text message advertisements to her cellular telephone and the
cellular telephones of numerous other consumers across the country,
in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").

Plaintiff has occasionally purchased merchandise from Defendant via
the Defendant's website at http://www.fashionnova.com,but
Plaintiff has never provided Defendant "prior express written
consent" or any other form of consent to be sent Defendant's text
message solicitations and advertisements, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is an individual "person" and a resident of Tucson, AZ.

Defendant maintains, and at all times mentioned herein, its
corporate headquarters in Vernon, CA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FELIDIA RESTAURANT: Borja et al. Seek Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARCO L. BORJA and NELSON STALIN ESPINOZA REDWOOD, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FELIDIA
RESTAURANT, INC. (D/B/A FELIDIA RESTAURANT), LIDIA BASTIANICH,
TANYA BASTIANICH MANUALI, FORTUNATO NICOTRA, and SANTIAGO PESANTEZ,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01397 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2019),
seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were ostensibly employed
as busboys and food runners at Defendants' restaurant.  However,
they were required to spend a considerable part of their work day
performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to carrying
boxes of wine from the first floor to the fourth floor three times
a week and more often during the winter months, washing dishes,
taking out the trash, moving some products from the restaurant to
the owner's car, and cleaning bathrooms.

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay the Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs
the required "spread of hours??? pay for any day in which they had
to work over 10 hours a day, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants own, operate, or control an Italian restaurant,
located at 243 East 58th Street, New York, New York 10022 under the
name "Felidia Restaurant".[BN]

Attorneys for the 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
          Faillace@employmentcompliance.com

FERROGLOBE PLC: U.S. Law Firms Prepare Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Marietta Times reports that several large law firms around the U.S.
are attempting to gather plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit
directed against the multinational corporation that includes among
its assets a silicon metal and alloy production plant in Beverly.

Lawsuits being prepared by Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, and
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., both of Washington D.C., the Brian
Schall Law Firm of Los Angeles, Calif., and others are urging
anyone who bought shares of Ferroglobe between Aug. 18 and Nov. 27,
2018, to sign on.

Ferroglobe PLC, headquartered in the United Kingdom, owns silicon
and specialty alloy production plants around the world both
directly and through subsidiaries. Among the latter is Globe
Metallurgical, Inc., which owns the Beverly plant and others in
Alloy, W.Va., Selma, Ala., and Niagara Falls, N.Y.

The lawsuit alleges that Ferroglobe failed to state in company
stock forecasts leading up to the third quarter that demand for its
products, which include silicon metal and alloys, would soften and
corporate income would suffer as a result. Ferroglobe declared $66
million in net profits for the second quarter of 2018; for the
third quarter it declared a loss of about $2 million, and its stock
lost 62 percent of its value, the lawsuit said.

The company on at least three occasions in August and September of
2018 misled investors, the lawsuit alleges, with statements that
were "materially false and/or misleading, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the company's business, operations and
prospects."

The lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York federal
court Jan. 22. No response had been filed by Ferroglobe as of Jan.
29. The lawsuit was filed in the name of Lance Treankle as a
plaintiff investor claiming to have been harmed, but the class
action lawsuit could be joined by hundreds of others.

In late November, when the adverse third quarter results were
issued by the company, it announced that market conditions for its
products had deteriorated through the quarter and it intended to
curtail production of silicon metal and manganese alloys. "??? We
are operating in a volatile environment currently and our financial
results may continue to be challenged in the near term," a press
release cited in the lawsuit read in part.

Sales of silicon metal, the company said, were also affected by the
tariff disputes between the U.S. and China, which impacted
availability of aluminum scrap.

The impact on the Beverly operation, which in the past according to
company presentation documents online has produced about 24,000
tons of silicon metal, about 48,000 tons of silicon alloys and 360
tons of solar-grade silicon annually, could not be determined by
The Marietta Times as corporate representatives could not be
contacted on Jan. 29. A slide deck used during the earnings call in
November indicated a production cutback at the plant, potentially
idling one furnace.

None of the law firms involved in the class-action lawsuits
returned calls for comment.

Ferroglobe's stock after the November third-quarter announcements
dropped to $1.80, the lawsuit said, losing 62 percent of its value.
The stock on January 29, 2019, was trading at about $2.30. [GN]


FIRST CONTINUING: Papadopoulos Sues over Unsolicited Advertisements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Papadopoulos Dental Corporation, a California corporation,
individual and on and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. First Continuing Education Administration, LLC
d/b/a CE Karma, a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01109 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 13, 2019), alleges that Defendant
has sent facsimile transmissions of unsolicited advertisements to
the Plaintiff and the Class in violation of the The Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act of 2005.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has sent, and continues
to send, unsolicited advertisements via facsimile transmission in
violation of the JFPA to the Plaintiff and numerous other
consumers. Unsolicited faxes cause concrete and particularized
legal harm and damages to their recipients. A junk fax recipient
loses the use of its fax machine, paper, and ink toner. An
unsolicited fax wastes the recipient's time that would have been
spent on something else.

A junk fax also invades the recipient's privacy. Unsolicited faxes
prevent fax machines from receiving authorized faxes, prevent their
use for authorized outgoing faxes, cause undue wear and tear on the
recipients' fax machines, and require additional labor to attempt
to discern the source and purpose of the unsolicited message.

On August 30, 2017, CE Karma transmitted or otherwise caused to be
sent, by telephone facsimile machine or similar technology, an
unsolicited fax advertisement to the Plaintiff. On September 21,
2017, the Defendant again caused an unsolicited fax advertisement
to be transmitted to the Plaintiff. CE Karma knew about, profited
from, and received the benefits of marketing of its products and is
a responsible party under the JFPA.

CE Karma is a dental continuing education company headquartered in
Salt Lake City, Utah.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Michael Aschenbrener, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLP
          9404 Genesee Ave, Suite 340
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (303) 222-0281
          Facsimile: (858) 800-4277
          E-mail: masch@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com

FREDERIC FEKKAI: Patrascu Seeks Overtime Pay for Nail Technicians
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOINA PATRASCU, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs. FREDERIC FEKKAI NEW YORK LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01376 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2019),
seeks overtime pay and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor
Standard Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant
as a nail technician from 1993 to 2018 at various locations in New
York, New York.  Her primary duties throughout these years were the
same: giving clients manicures, pedicures, and similar nail and
feet treatments, and selling third-party products to the clients.
From 2017 until her employment was terminated, Patrascu, on
average, worked 15 hours above and beyond her regular work schedule
1-2 weeks per month, resulting in her working a minimum of 45 hours
those weeks.  Patrascu worked these extra hours when clients would
ask her to come in on her days off, stay late or come in early.

In 2017, by paying her only for 30 hours at $11.00 per hour when
she was working 45 hours, $7.33 ($330/45) was her effective hourly
rate. In 2018, by paying her only for 30 hours at $13.00 per hour
when she was working 45 hours, $8.66 ($390/45) was her effective
hourly rate.  Frederic Fekkai did not pay the Plaintiff for the
hours she actually worked before, during and after her scheduled
hours.  Frederic Fekkai did not provide her with overtime premium
pay for any hour she worked over 40 hours in week.

Frederic Fekkai owns and operates high-end hair and nail salons
around the United States, with the first location at Bergdorf
Goodman Department Store. It also sells its hair care products and
third-party products at its salons.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
          Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Telephone: 212 392 4772
          Facsimile: 212 444 1030
          E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
                  chris@lipskylowe.com

GANNETT CO: Hall Claims Overtime for Off-the-Clock Work
-------------------------------------------------------
Grace Hall, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Gannett Co. Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-00450 (D. Ariz., January 22, 2019), seeks to recover overtime
wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the
Kentucky Wage and Hour Act and the South Carolina Payment of Wages
Act.

Gannett operates call centers throughout the United States where
Hall was employed by Gannett in customer service in Gilbert,
Arizona, from approximately September 2012 until October 2017. She
claims over 2 hours of "off-the-clock" work per week and was not
compensated for that time which includes starting and logging-in to
her computer, and opening multiple different Gannett computer
programs. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq.
      Corey Feltre, Esq.
      Stanley Lubin, Esq.
      LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C.
      349 North Fourth Avenue
      Phoenix, AZ 85003-1505
      Telephone: (602) 234-0008
      Facsimile: (602) 626-3586
      Email: nick@lubinandenoch.com

             - and -

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
             austin@a2xlaw.com


GO 2 TRANSPO: Mast Suit Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Vernon Mast, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Go 2
Transportation LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
CV-16-01022-PHX-ROS (D. Ariz.), Judge Roslyn O. Silver of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona granted the parties'
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement.

Judge Silver finds that there remains substantial uncertainty
regarding how unclaimed funds in a multi-state class action should
be escheated to a government.  In light of that uncertainty, and
despite the parties' failure to explain why Arizona law should
apply, she will approve the parties' proposal.  It is possible
there will be no unclaimed funds and the issue will be moot.  But
in the event there are unclaimed funds, Arizona has the most
significant relationship to the Defendants.  In addition, requiring
disbursement of any unclaimed funds to multiple states would
substantially increase the complexity of managing the settlement.

Overall, the Judge finds that the proposed settlement appears to be
the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, has
no obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential
treatment to class representatives or segments of the class, and
falls with[in] the range of possible approval.  Thus, the joint
motion for approval will be granted with one minor exception.

The Court previously informed the parties that "class counsel will
be required to file the motion for attorneys' fees before the
deadline for class members to submit objections."  The parties
submitted a proposed revised schedule that still might result in
the class members needing to file objections before the motion for
attorneys' fees is filed.  The Judge will not approve of that
schedule as it conflicts with Ninth Circuit law.  Thus, assuming
the class counsel is willing to submit its motion for fees and
costs based on the date set forth, she will preliminarily approve
the settlement.

Accordingly, Judge Silver granted the Joint Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Settlement.  The parties will provide the Court
with their final proposed Notice to Class Members within 10 days
from the date of the Order.  The Class Counsel will mail and/or
e-mail as instructed in the Joint Motion and Settlement Agreement
the Notice to Class Members no later than 30 days from the date of
the Order.

The Judge set the matter for a Final Approval/Fairness Hearing on
May 22, 2019, at 2:00 p.m.

The parties will comply with the schedule set forth in Doc. 182
with the exception that the deadline for the class counsel to file
the motion for attorneys' fees and costs will be 60 calendar days
before the Final Approval/Fairness Hearing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 8, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/tcTXA5 from Leagle.com.

Benjamin Selby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Mast LLC & RL Hilton Transport LLC, Plaintiffs,
represented by Francis Robert Connelly, II --
rconnelly@dessauleslaw.com -- Dessaules Law Group & Jonathan Adam
Dessaules -- jdessaules@dessauleslaw.com -- Dessaules Law Group.

Go 2 Transportation LLC, an Arizona limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Emily K. Dotson --
edotson@rlattorneys.com -- Resnick & Louis PC, James F. Mahoney --
jmahoney@rlattorneys.com -- Resnick & Louis PC & Mitchell J.
Resnick -- mresnick@rlattorneys.com -- Resnick & Louis PC.


GOLDEN & WALTERS: Ky. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Doe Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN DOE # 1-37; JANE DOE # 1-6; and other
similarly-situated John Doe and Jane Doe victims, as a class,
Appellants, v. GOLDEN & WALTERS, PLLC; J. DALE GOLDEN; EUGENE GOSS;
MARK DAVID GOSS; FERNANDEZ FRIEDMAN GROSSMAN & KOHN, PLLC; DAVID A.
FRIEDMAN; ROBERT E. REEVES; REEVES & ASSOCIATES; ROBERT L.
TREADWAY, JR.; WILLIAM LARRY HUFFMAN; GAYLE E. SLAUGHTER; BARRY
LYNN DEMUS, JR.; OCTAVIUS GILLIS; CHRISTOPHER ANDRE WILLIAMS; CRAIG
JOHNSON; DAVID T. JONES; JOHN DOE NOS. 1-16, Appellees, Case No.
2017-CA-001337-MR (Ky. App.), Judge Sara Walter Combs of the Court
of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed the affirm the summary judgment of
the Fayette Circuit Court to Defendant attorneys.

The matter has been before the Court three times.  It arises
collaterally from a number of putative class actions filed in
federal court alleging civil rights violations against members of
the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government ("LFUCG").  The
Appellants were the Plaintiffs in the action underlying the appeal.
They are a putative class of unnamed alleged victims of still more
alleged civil rights violations.  The Appellees were the Defendants
in the underlying action.  They are individual attorneys and law
firms that represented a number of the initial alleged victims of
the claimed civil rights violations in the federal putative class
action litigation.

The case arises out of a series of federal class actions filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky: Guy
v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government; Doe # 1-9 v. Miller
(Doe I); Doe # 1-33 v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government
(Doe II); Doe # 1-44 v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government
(Doe III); and Doe v. Miller.

Guy was filed on Oct.15, 1998, by four named Plaintiffs on behalf
of themselves and a class of similarly-situated persons who were
allegedly sexually abused as minors by Ron Berry through their
involvement with Micro-City Government.  Berry was the director of
Micro-City Government, a nonprofit, community service program for
disadvantaged youth that was sponsored and funded, in part, by
LFUCG.  The action alleged that LFUCG violated the Plaintiffs'
civil rights because it continued to fund Micro-City Government,
despite having knowledge that Berry was a sexual predator.  Before
any ruling had been made on the issue of class certification, the
named Plaintiffs of Guy filed a joint motion with LFUCG to enter an
agreed order of dismissal based on a tentative settlement agreement
making no provisions for the putative class members.

On Feb. 4, 2000, the district court entered an order approving the
settlement of three of the four named Plaintiffs with LFUCG and
dismissing their claims against LFUCG, with prejudice.  It denied
the joint motion of Johnson and Jones to intervene but noted that
the statute of limitations remained tolled for them and for all
putative class members of Guy until the denial of class
certification or the dismissal of the case.  After a hearing, the
district court entered an order on Feb. 28, 2000, rejecting a pro
se motion by the fourth named Plaintiff to disapprove the
settlement.  The order approved the settlement between LFUCG and
the fourth named Plaintiff and dismissed his claims against LFUCG.

A second class action, Doe I, was filed on May 3, 2000, by a group
of named Plaintiffs, which ostensibly included Johnson and Jones,
who had been unable to intervene in Guy.  Filed on behalf of the
same class as Guy, Doe I also raised essentially the same civil
rights claims against LFUCG.  Before the district court had ruled
on the issue of certification in Doe I, the named Plaintiffs
entered into a tentative settlement agreement with LFUCG making no
provision for the putative class members.  This agreement was
expressly contingent on the denial of class certification.  And on
June 28, 2002, the trial court entered an order denying class
certification, approving the settlement agreement, and dismissing
the case.  No notice was given to the putative class members of the
denial of certification or of the settlement.

The third class action, Doe II, was filed on Sept. 25, 2002, by a
group of named Plaintiffs on behalf of the same class as Guy and
Doe I.  Doe II also raised civil rights claims against LFUCG.  The
district court denied class certification, holding that the
Plaintiffs of Doe II were collaterally estopped from relitigating
the merits of class certification based on the denial of
certification in Doe I.  On April 25, 2003, the district court
dismissed as time-barred all the claims of all of the named
Plaintiffs except for one Doe II Plaintiff.  Some of the claims of
the remaining named Doe II Plaintiffs were also dismissed at that
time as time-barred.  Ultimately, the remaining claims of the
remaining Plaintiffs were dismissed as time-barred on Aug. 22,
2003.

Doe III was filed against LFUCG on Jan. 13, 2003, by a group of
named Plaintiffs on behalf of the same class as the three previous
cases.  On Nov. 21, 2003, the federal district court ruled that the
Plaintiffs' claims in Doe III were time-barred.

The Plaintiffs appealed the federal district court's holdings in
Guy, Doe I, Doe II, and Doe III, and Doe v. Miller to the U.S.
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Following the district court's dismissal in Doe II, but prior to
the Sixth Circuit remand, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class
action in Fayette Circuit Court alleging legal malpractice against
most of the attorneys involved in the underlying federal class
action litigation.  The Fayette Circuit Court dismissed this claim,
finding, in pertinent part, that no attorney-client relationship
existed and that the attorneys owed no fiduciary duty to the
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed.

On appeal, the Court concluded that the Fayette Circuit Court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction of the case because it had been
filed before any of the causes of action asserted had accrued.  In
Doe v. Golden & Walters, PLLC, 173 S.W.3d 260 (Ky. App. 2005), it
reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the unripe
claims without prejudice.

When the Sixth Circuit's opinion became final, the Plaintiffs filed
a second complaint against the attorneys, alleging that the
attorneys had breached their fiduciary duty to protect their
interests during the litigation of Guy and Doe I.  The Defendant
attorneys filed various motions to dismiss.  However, the Fayette
Circuit Court concluded that the Plaintiffs could not prove any
injury or damages.  On appeal, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant
attorneys agreed that the Fayette Circuit Court had erred by
concluding that the claims were not ripe for decision.  On appeal,
the Court noted that whether the Plaintiffs' claims were ripe
depended upon whether their alleged damages were fixed and
non-speculative.  It agreed that the alleged damages were fixed and
non-speculative.

The matter was remanded and held in abeyance by the Fayette Circuit
Court.  

On Jan. 14, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the
matter be returned to the active docket of the Fayette Circuit
Court.  Upon remand of the Guy litigation to the federal district
court, the Plaintiffs, as the putative class members, had litigated
their substantive claims against LFUCG.  They noted that a final
disposition of the federal litigation had been entered by the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals on Aug. 20, 2015, and that time for filing
a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States had
expired. The motion was granted and the matter was restored to the
court's active docket.

In an order and opinion entered on July 24, 2017, the Fayette
Circuit Court granted summary judgment to the Defendant attorneys.
The court concluded that the attorneys were entitled to judgment as
a matter of law with respect to the claims asserted against them
because an attorney-client relationship had not been established
with the unidentified members of the putative class and that the
attorneys owed them no fiduciary duty.  The instant appeal
followed.

Before the Court now, the Appellants contend that the trial court
erred by concluding that the appellee attorneys did not owe a
fiduciary duty to the putative class members.  The dispositive
question on appeal is whether the putative class members have a
cause of action for malpractice against attorneys who filed the
putative class action complaint where no class was ever certified.

Judge Combs is not persuaded that the Appellee attorneys (who were
never appointed class counsel) undertook the legal representation
of, or were otherwise bound by, a fiduciary duty to protect the
interests of the absent members of a putative class of alleged
victims that has never been certified by any court and with whom
they never had the slightest contact.  Consequently, she holds that
the trial court did not err by concluding that the appellee
attorneys were entitled to summary judgment.  Given her analysis,
she holds she need not specifically address the circuit court's
dismissal of the action against the late Eugene Goss.  She affirmed
the summary judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 8, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/aOhJ54 from Leagle.com.

James M. Morris -- jmorris@downeybrand.com -- Sharon K. Morris,
Lexington, Kentucky, Briefs for Appellants.

James M. Morris, Lexington, Kentucky, Oral Argument for
Appellants.

Gayle E. Slaughter, Lexington, Kentucky, Brief for Appellees,
SLAUGHTER AND HUFFMAN.

Bethany A. Breetz -- bbreetz@stites.com -- Louisville, Kentucky,
Brief for Appellees GOLDEN, GOSS, FRIEDMAN AND REEVES.

Chadwick McTighe -- cmctighe@stites.com -- Louisville, Kentucky,
Oral Argument for Appellees.


GRAND DESIGN: Faces Gallagher Suit Over Defective Axle Designs
--------------------------------------------------------------
TROY GALLAGHER, BILL FAULKNER, DANA FAULKNER, CURTIS RICKETTS and
DANIEL RICKETTS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. GRAND DESIGN RV, LLC d/b/a GRAND DESIGN RV COMPANY, an
Indiana corporation, Case No. 3:19-cv-00083 (N.D. Ind., February 8,
2019), arises from alleged defective axle designs.

The putative class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and a class of current and former owners and lessees of
recreational vehicles ("RVs") manufactured, marketed and
distributed by Grand Design with defective axle designs, that
result in unstable and unsafe conditions while driving, including
leaking axle seals (the "Axle Defect") which in turn cause grease
to contaminate the brake pads and rotors equipped in Defendant's
RVs ("Class Vehicles").  The Plaintiffs allege that the Axle Defect
predisposes the Class Vehicles to sudden and catastrophic brake
failure and unstable driving, thereby exposing operators, occupants
and other motorists to unreasonable and substantial safety risks,
including a heightened risk of accidents and physical injury.

Grand Design RV, LLC, is a limited liability company registered to
do business in Indiana with a principal office address located in
Middlebury, Elkhart County, Indiana.  The Company designs,
manufactures, distributes, sells and warrants recreational
vehicles, including the Class Vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
          E-mail: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
                  sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com

               - and -

          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          John Scheflow, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
          E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
                  jscheflow@caffertyclobes.com


GRUBHUB: 2 Restaurants File Class Action in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for Law.com, reports that online ordering
service Grubhub is pushing back on a proposed nationwide class
action spearheaded by a Philadelphia restaurant chain that claims
the popular digital service is collecting undeserved commissions.

In December, Tiffin Indian Cuisine restaurants filed a proposed
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, contending that Grubhub was withholding
millions from restaurants across the country because it charged
commissions on "sham" phone calls that did not result in takeout
orders. The online ordering company, however, shot back in court
papers recently, saying Tiffin's lawsuit failed to raise a claim.

"The face of the complaint makes this much clear. . . . There has
been no 'deception' on Grubhub's part in this matter,"
Pittsburgh-based Jones Day attorney Rebekah Byers Kcehowski said as
part of a motion to dismiss. "Grubhub has performed in accordance
with the contracts at all times."

Dilworth Paxson attorney Catherine Pratsinakis --
cpratsinakis@dilworthlaw.com -- acting on behalf of the two Tiffin
restaurants that are lead plaintiffs in the case, filed the
proposed class action in late December. The complaint alleged that
Grubhub's practices had deprived "tens of millions" of dollars in
revenue from more than 80,000 restaurants.

According to the complaint, the online ordering company has been
charging commissions on phone calls, regardless of whether they
resulted in an order being placed for takeout. The complaint said
the company does this by issuing new phone numbers for restaurants
that appear on Grubhub's sites, and, when dialed, the company
redirects the call to the intended restaurant and records the
calls.

The complaint alleges that the company failed to disclose these
practices, misrepresented how it charges commissions, and failed to
undertake, or disclose, any of the methods by which it analyses the
calls to determine which result in orders. Grubhub is a Chicago
company, so Tiffin also alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, which allows for treble
damages.

"Grubhub's actions, and failure to act when required, have caused
plaintiffs and tens of thousands of other restaurants across the
country to suffer harm, including but not limited to lost profits
in the tens of millions of dollars over the past seven years,"
Tiffin said in the complaint.

In its response, Grubhub asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit,
arguing, among other things, that it had disclosed the commission
to Tiffin in monthly states, online ledgers, public disclosures,
and in its contract with one of the restaurants.

Grubhub also noted that roughly 15 percent of Tiffin's business
comes through Grubhub, so the online platform allowed the
restaurants to grow its customer and revenue base.

Regarding the treble damages, Grubhub further contended that
Illinois' consumer fraud law did not apply to non-Illinois
plaintiffs.

"And even if plaintiffs could overcome these threshold issues,
their claim would still fail on the merits under the Act and Rule
9(b)'s heightened pleadings standard, as the complaint is devoid of
particularized allegations of 'deceptive' practices or of any
intent that plaintiffs rely on such alleged practices," Grubhub
said.

Neither Ms. Kcehowski nor Ms. Pratsinakis returned a call seeking
comment. [GN]


HEALTH CARE SERVICE: 3rd Show Cause Order in Candelaria Issued
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NORA CANDELARIA, Plaintiff, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-0404KG/SMV (D. N.M.),
Magistrate Judge Stephan M. Vidmar of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Mexico ordered the Plaintiff show cause no
later than March 8, 2019, why her claims should not be dismissed
for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the Court's
deadlines.

The Plaintiff filed her Complaint on April 3, 2017, asserting a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and a class
action under New Mexico's minimum wage law.  Despite a deadline
(and nine extensions) by which to file a motion for conditional
certification of the collective, no motion has been filed.  The
most recent deadline was Feb. 1, 2019.  That date has come and
gone, and nothing further has been filed on the record.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2019 Show Cause Order is
available at https://is.gd/rzNhFt from Leagle.com.

Nora Candelaria, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
?? 216 (b), Kimani Singleton, Arthur Santoyo, Debra Hollins, Yvette
Buckhaulter, Karen D Davis, Niteria McIntosh, Cynthia M Medley,
Keitta Smith, Idi Edem, Mari Gabbert, Janice Tucker, Fausat Osiade
& Bobbie S Drodwell, Plaintiffs, represented by Jack L. Siegel --
jack@siegellawgroup.biz -- Siegel Law Group PLLC, Jesse Hamilton
Forester -- jay@foresterhaynie.com -- Forester Haynie PLLC, Travis
Andrew Gasper, Lee & Braziel, LLP & J. Derek Braziel, Lee & Braziel
LLP.

Sabrina Powell & Charlene Gabaldon, Plaintiffs, represented by J.
Derek Braziel, Lee & Braziel LLP, Jack L. Siegel, Siegel Law Group
PLLC & Travis Andrew Gasper, Lee & Braziel, LLP.

Health Care Service Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam J.
Weiner -- ajweiner@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith, LLP, Mark D. Temple
-- mtemple@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP & Randy S. Bartell --
rbartell@motand.com -- Montgomery & Andrews, P.A..


ILG TECH: Reconsideration of Remand Bid Denial in Murray Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LLOYD DAN MURRAY, JR.; and JENNIFER McGHAN,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ILG TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, d/b/a ILG INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGIES; and BARIS MISMAN, Individually and as Sole Proprietor
of ILG INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, Defendants, Civil Action No.
4:18-cv-110 (S.D. Ga.), Judge R. Stan Baker of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Savannah Division,
denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration.

The proposed class-action lawsuit comes before the Court on the
Plaintiffs' request that the Court reconsiders its June 8, 2018
Order denying their Motion to Remand the case to the Superior Court
of Bryan County.

The Plaintiffs originally filed the lawsuit in the Superior Court
of Bryan County and claimed damages below the Court's
jurisdictional amount.  Specifically, the Complaint states that the
matter in controversy does not exceed $5 million in the aggregate,
no individual claim exceeds $75,000, and there are less than 100
class members.  As set forth in the Court's prior Order, the
Plaintiffs have actually had three chances to state their claimed
damages in court filings, and at all three turns they confirm that
they seek less than $75,000 per person.

Shortly thereafter, the Defendants filed a Notice of Removal in the
Court.  They contended that the Court could exercise jurisdiction
because the Plaintiffs sought damages in excess of $75,000 and the
Plaintiffs' citizenship was completely diverse from the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs then filed a Motion to Remand.  The Plaintiffs did
not dispute the parties' diversity of citizenship or that they
claimed more than the jurisdictional amount.  Rather, they
contended that Defendants failed to file their Notice of Removal
within the thirty-day window required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1446.
Specifically, they claimed that the Defendants should have known
that each Plaintiff was seeking more than $75,000 in damages prior
to receiving the May 2, 2018 email. Following a hearing on the
Motion to Remand, the Court rejected this line of reasoning.  In
doing so, the Court pointed out that, prior to the email, the
Plaintiffs had repeatedly represented that their individual claims
were less than $75,000.

Judge Baker finds that the Plaintiffs have not shown that the Court
made a clear error of law or fact when holding that the Defendants
timely filed their Notice of Removal.  Specifically, the Court's
holding that the Plaintiffs' counsel's May 2, 2018 email triggered
28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)'s clock was not clearly erroneous.  The
Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary have already been rejected by
the Court and are contradicted by their own prior pleadings.  For
all of these reasons, he denied the Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration.  The June 8, 2018 Order remains the Order of the
Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 8, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/cUxMeX from Leagle.com.

Lloyd Dan Murray, Jr., Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & Jennifer McGhan, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Brent J.
Savage, Savage & Turner, PC, James D. Durham, Savage & Turner,
P.C., Kathryn Hughes Pinckney, Savage & Turner, PC & Samuel LeCraw
Mikell, Savage, Turner, Durham, Pinckney & Savage.

ILG Technologies, LLC, doing business as ILG Information
Technologies & Baris Misman, Individually and a Sole Proprietor of
ILG Information Technologies, Defendants, represented by Brian P.
Hall -- bhall@sgrlaw.com -- Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP & Edward
H. Wasmuth, Jr. -- ewasmuth@sgrlaw.com -- Smith, Gambrell &
Russell, LLP.


INTERSECTIONS: Salladay Sues D&O Over Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------
Lance Salladay, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated former stockholders of Intersections, Inc., Plaintiff, v.
John M. Albertine, Thomas G. Amato, Bruce L. Lev, David A. McGough,
Melvin R. Seiler and Michael R. Stanfield, Defendants, Case No.
2019-0048, (D. Del., January 22, 2019), seeks damages together with
pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, expenses, including all
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees and such other relief
resulting from breach of fiduciary duties.

Intersections is an identity theft protection company founded by
Michael R. Stanfield and Loeb Holding Corporation. Stanfield served
as Intersections' CEO and Board Chairman. They collectively owned
approximately half of the company's outstanding equity. Stanfield
and Loeb partnered with WC SACD One, Inc. to take Intersections
private, thereby stripping its public stockholders of their
opportunity to share in the company's significant future upside
potential. WC SACD agreed to acquire all of the issued and
outstanding shares of Intersections for $3.68 per share. John M.
Albertine has been a director of Intersections since August 2008.

Salladay was a stockholder of Intersections and alleges that
Intersections failed to disclose information necessary to permit
the company's public stockholders to make a fully-informed tender
decision. [BN]

Salladay is represented by:

      Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq.
      David F.E. Tejtel, Esq.
      FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
      240 East 79th Street, Suite A
      New York, NY 10075
      Tel: (888) 529-1108

             - and -

      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      David M. Sborz, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike, Building C, Suite 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Tel: (302)-504-4957
      Fax: (302)-397-2681


J.A.W. ENTERTAINMENT: Shanta Strong Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHANTA STRONG, the Plaintiff, vs. J.A.W. ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a
Florida corporation, and JOSEPH LONG, individually, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-20584-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 13, 2019), seeks
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
and reasonable attorney's fee and costs from Defendants under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked hours
for which Plaintiff was not compensated by Defendants at a rate of
at least the federal minimum wage, during her employment with
Defendants. The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in
one or more work weeks during Plaintiff's employment with
Defendants. Likewise, the other employees similarly situated to
Plaintiff regularly were not paid either the minimum wage or
overtime pay by Defendant, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

          Brian Militzok, Esq.
          MILITZOK LAW, P.A.
          Wells Fargo Building
          4600 Sheridan Street, Suite 402
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 780-8228
          Facsimile: (954) 719-4016
          E-mail: bjm@militzoklaw.com

JUMIO CORPORATION: Removes Prelipceanu Suit to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case captioned as, ALEX PRELIPCEANU,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JUMIO CORPORATION, Defendant, filed a notice to remove
the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of Illinois,
County of Cook (Case No. 18CH15883) to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on January 28, 2019. The clerk of
court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-00561. The case is assigned to Honorable Robert W.
Gettleman.

Jumio Corporation develops and delivers digital ID verification and
scanning solutions. Jumio Corporation was founded in 2009 and is
based in Palo Alto, California. It has locations in Vienna/Wien and
Linz, Austria; London, United Kingdom; and India. The company also
has a sales office in Singapore. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Louis Gerbie, Esq.
          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          Myles P. McGuire, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          E-mail: dgerbie@mcgpc.com
                  jsheikali@mcgpc.com
                  mmcguire@mcgpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Debra Rae Bernard, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          131 S. Dearborn St., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 324-8559
          E-mail: dbernard@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Nicola C Menaldo, Esq.
          Susan D Fahringer, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 359-8000
          E-mail: NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com
                  SFahringer@perkinscoie.com


KIA MOTORS: Medina Sues over Sale of Defective 2.0 GDI Engine
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ADRIAN FRANCO MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.; KIA
MOTORS CORPORATION; HYUNDAI MOTORS CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV02985 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Jan. 29, 2019) alleges that the Defendants' vehicle
and its 2.0 gasoline direct injection (GDI) engine were defective
and susceptible to sudden and catastrophic failure.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants knew
since 2009, if not earlier, that the 2011-2016 KIA Optima,
2011-2016 KIA Sportage, 2012-2016 KIA Sorento, 2011-2016 Hyundai
Sonata, and 2013-2016 Hyundai Santa Fe vehicles equipped with a 2.0
or 2.4L engine, including the 2013 Kia Optima contained one or more
design and manufacturing defects in their engines that results in
the restriction of oil flow through the connecting rod bearings, as
well as to other vital areas of the engine. This defect -- which
typically manifests itself during and shortly after the limited
warranty period has expired -- will cause the KIA Vehicle to
experience catastrophic engine failure, stalling while in operation
and poses an unreasonable safety risk of non-collision fires all
due to inadequate lubrication. Furthermore, engine seizure often
causes internal parts, such as the connecting rods, to break and a
knock hole in the engine, permitting fluids to leak and ignite a
fire.

Kia Motors America, Inc. operates as an automobile dealer. The
Company offers passenger cars, minivans, sports utility vehicles,
crossovers, sedans, vans, and cargo trucks. Kia Motors serves
customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tionna Dolin, Esq.
          Daniel Tai, Esq.
          STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 430
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 929-4900
          Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
          E-mail: tdolin@slpattomey.com
                  dtai@slpattorney.com


KIMPTON GROUP: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Haggar Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELIA HAGGAR; KYO HAK CHU; VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. KIMPTON GROUP HOLDING, LLC; and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01095 (C.D. Cal., Feb.
13, 2019), seeks to secure redress against Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website at
https://www.kimptonhotels.com to be fully and equally accessible to
and independently usable by Plaintiffs and other blind or
visually-impaired people, a violation of Plaintiffs' rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and California's Unruh
Civil Rights Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are a visually-impaired
and legally blind people who requires screen-reading software to
read website content using his computer. The Plaintiffs use the
terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with
visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in
that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or
equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have
limited vision. Others have no vision.

Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant???s corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant???s website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says.

Kimpton Group Holding, LLC through its subsidiaries owns and
operates boutique and lifestyle hotels. The company was
incorporated in 2001 and is based in San Francisco,
California.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and Proposed Class:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Thiago Coelho, SBN 324715
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989

KRH INC: Eastep Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------
Jeremy Eastep, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees v. KRH, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00272 (D.N.D., January 2,
2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant who performed work
related to oil and gas wells serviced by Defendant.

Defendant misclassified Plaintiff as an independent contractor and
as such paid him a flat daily rate for his substantial regular and
overtime hours. Defendant also misclassifies other flowback
operators and similar employees as independent contractors across
the country and likewise denied them their proper overtime
compensation, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiff resides in Rockwall County, Texas, and worked as an
individual contractor for the Defendant.

The Defendant provides oil and gas well monitoring services to
energy companies nationwide. The Defendant employs its workforce to
monitor and maintain oil and gas wells in multiple states including
North Dakota and Montana. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Neuman, Esq.
      SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
      5612 Chaucer Drive
      Houston, TX 77005
      Tel: (281) 885-8630
      Fax: (281) 885-8813
      E-mail: jneuman@smnlawfirm.com


LASER SKIN SOLUTIONS: Kankalian Hits Unsolicited Telemarketing Call
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Christelle Kankalian, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Laser Skin Solutions, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-80089 (S.D. Fla., January 22, 2019),
seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Laser Skin Solutions is a medical spa that focuses on comprehensive
skin care treatments. It engages in unsolicited telemarketing,
inconveniencing thousands of consumers in the process. Kankalian
claims to have received multiple pre-recorded telemarketing calls
to her cellular phone by use of an automatic telephone dialing
system without her permission.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


LEO CONSTANTATOS: Mojica Claims Spread-of-Hours, Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vidal Mojica and Nelson E. Santos, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Leo Constantatos, Nicholas
Konstantatos and ABC Corp. Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00442 (E.D.
N.Y., January 22, 2019), seeks unpaid wages for overtime work
performed, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, interest and all
costs and disbursements associated with this action pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act as well as spread of hours wages under New
York Labor Law.

Defendants operate "Candlelight Diner-Restaurant," a full service
diner-restaurant that is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as a dishwasher and busboy
respectively. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
      MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
      91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
      Hempstead, NY 11550
      Telephone: (516) 280.4600
      Facsimile: (516) 280.4530
      Email: mmonteiro@mflawny.com


LETTER RIDE: Hollers Sues over Rest & Meal Breaks for Couriers
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUDY HOLLERS, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. LETTER RIDE LLC, a
California limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 50,
Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.: 37-2019-00007974-CU-0E-CTL
(Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 13, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to
pay minimm and overtime wages, and provide meal periods, rest
periods, and itemized wage statements.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated current and former non-exempt hourly wage
earners employed as couriers in the State of California. The
Plaintiff was employed as a courier for Defendant from March 1,
2014 until May 25, 2018. The Plaintiff's hourly wage was $14.00 per
hour and she generally worked 8.5-10 hours per day, Monday through
Friday. She also worked the same hours on Sundays, but was forced
by Defendant to work off-the-clock. She was not compensated at all
for this time spent working.

Since the Plaintiff is a Class Member, all similarly situated
employees were affected by Defendant's scheme. The Defendant failed
to furnish the Plaintiff and Class members with accurate itemized
statements in writing showing the accurate hours worked and paid
and that the Plaintiff and Class Members had earned one additional
hour of pay for meal and/or rest periods not provided within the
legal timeframe, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          A. Jacob Nalbandyan, Esq.
          Charles L. Shute, Esq.
          jnalbandyan@lntriallawyers.com
          cshute@lntriallawyers.com
          LEVIN & NALBANDYAN, LLP
          811 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 232-4848
          Facsimile: (213)232-4849

LIC EVERGREEN: Lema Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARIA MANUELA SUMBA LEMA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LIC EVERGREEN CLEANERS INC.
(D/B/A EVERGREEN CLEANERS), NY EVERGREEN CLEANERS INC. (D/B/A
EVERGREEN CLEANERS), JOHN SHIN, ETHAN H. BYUN, SUSANNE DOE, and
JEFF DOE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00836 (E.D.N.Y., Feb.
12, 2019), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed as a dry
cleaner and a packer at the laundry service located at 10-63
Jackson Avenue, Long Island City, NY 11101. The Plaintiff worked
for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours
that she worked. 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.

The Defendants' conduct extended beyond the Plaintiff 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, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

LITTLE CAESAR: Faces Lenoir Suit over Biometric Data Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
NIVEA LENOIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, Defendant, Case
No. 2019CH01185 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Jan. 29, 2019) is an action
against the Defendant for collecting, storing, using, or
transferring the Plaintiff and the Class's biometric identifiers
and information without adhering to the strict informed-consent
procedures established by the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. operates and franchises pizza
restaurants in the United States and internationally. It offers
pepperoni, cheese, veggie, and sausage pizzas; sides; and other
promotion products. The company was founded in 1959 and is based in
Detroit, Michigan. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. operates as a
subsidiary of Ilitch Holdings, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS, P.C.
          77 West Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  zfowerree@flsalaw.com


LOG ANALYSIS: Fails to Pay Oilfield Workers Overtime, Hollis Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA HOLLIS, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER 29 USC
216(B) v. LOG ANALYSIS SOLUTIONS, LLC, and NICHOLAS J. MASCHAS,
Individually, Case No. 7:19-cv-00038 (W.D. Tex., February 8, 2019),
alleges that instead of paying overtime as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Defendants paid frontline oilfield
workers, including equipment operators, primarily on a salaried
basis and improperly treated them as "exempt" from the FLSA.

Log Analysis Solutions, LLC, is an Engineering and Completion
consulting firm.  The Defendants' employees worked on oil and gas
drilling rigs.  Nicholas J. Maschas is an owner or officer of
LAS.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
          Southlake, TX 76092-4322
          Telephone: (817) 416-5060
          Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
          E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: County Board Votes to Settle Strip Search Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
MynewsLA.com reports that the Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors voted on Jan. 29 to settle a federal class-action
lawsuit brought by women subjected to unconstitutional strip
searches at Century Regional Detention Center in Lynwood.

Terms of the settlement were not disclosed. The board voted 3-0 to
approve the settlement, with Supervisors Janice Hahn and Mark
Ridley-Thomas absent due to illness.

Supervisor Sheila Kuehl briefly mentioned the allegations in the
case before the board went behind closed doors to discuss the
settlement.

"When we read the description of it, we were horrified," Ms. Kuehl
said of the strip searches that occurred between March 2008 and
January 2015.

The plaintiffs alleged that strip and body-cavity searches were
conducted in groups of up to 60 women crowded together in an
outdoor bus bay with a roll-up door open to the jail's reception
area where male employees work. They accused deputies of using
obscenities and abusive and demeaning language during the group
search.

Some alleged that deputies required inmates to insert their fingers
into their mouths after touching other body cavities.

In 2017, a federal judge ruled that the women's Fourth Amendment
rights had been violated and

The sheriff's department installed body scanners at the downtown
Inmate Reception Center in 2014, following recommendations by the
Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence aimed at reducing strip
searches at all county jails. After consultation with outside
correctional experts, 18 more scanners, including two at CRDF, were
installed by last May.

A December report to the board by Sheriff Alex Villanueva said that
8,124 scans had been conducted at CRDF in the first nine months of
2018 and not one inmate refused the scanner in favor of a physical
search.

However, the "department routinely conducts strip searches of
inmate housing locations and inmate personal property during
day-to-day operations within all custody facilities to maintain
safe jail facilities for inmates and staff, while also removing
potentially dangerous contraband" and data on those day-to-day
searches is not tracked, according to the report.

As a matter of policy, the county does not publicly disclose the
details of legal settlements until all parties formally agree to
the terms. [GN]


MAURY COBB: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Molkandow FDCPA Suit OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BORIS MOLKANDOW, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MAURY COBB ATTORNEY AT
LAW, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-cv-0891-WJM-STV (D.
Colo.), Judge William J. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado (i) granted the Defendant's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings; (ii) denied as moot the Defendant's
Unopposed Motion to Continue Pretrial Deadline; and (iii) dismissed
the Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice.

The dispute concerns whether a debt collection letter sent to
Molkandow by the Defendant complied with Section 1692g(a)(2) of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  The Plaintiff
allegedly owed an outstanding balance to T-Mobile.  T-Mobile hired
the Defendant to collect that debt.  In its efforts to collect, the
Defendant sent the Plaintiff a debt collection letter dated May 4,
2017.

On April 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a class-action complaint
against the Defendant, alleging that its Letter violated the FDCPA
because it failed to identify the Plaintiff's current creditor.
The parties agree that T-Mobile is the current creditor of the debt
and that the Letter was the Defendant's first communication to the
Plaintiff regarding the debt, but dispute whether the Letter
adequately identified T-Mobile as the current creditor.  The
Plaintiff contends that the FDCPA applies in this context because
he is a "consumer" who received a "communication" from a "debt
collector" regarding a "debt," per the definitions set out in the
statute.

On June 22, 2018, the Defendant moved for judgment on the
pleadings, arguing that the Plaintiff's claim should be dismissed
because the name of the creditor was unequivocally contained within
the collection Letter, and when the Letter is read in its entirety,
the Plaintiff could not have been confused as to whom the debt was
owed.  The Plaintiff filed a Response to the Defendant's Motion and
theDefendant filed a Reply.

Judge Martinez finds that the "least sophisticated consumer" could
only reasonably interpret the Letter to mean that T-Mobile was the
current creditor as of the date that the Letter was sent.  No more
is required by the statute.  Therefore, he finds that the Plaintiff
has failed to state a claim for a violation of the FDCPA.
Accordingly, he will grant the Defendant's Motion and will dismiss
the Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice.  As a result, the
Defendant's Motion for Continuance will be denied as moot.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Martinez (i) granted the
Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; (ii) dismissed
with prejudice; and (iii) denied as moot the Defendant's Unopposed
Motion to Continue Pretrial Deadlines.  The Clerk will enter
judgment in favor of the Defendant and terminate the case.  The
Defendant will have its costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/SktZ12 from Leagle.com.

Boris Molkandow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Hillel Marcus --
Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus & Zelman, LLC.

Maury Cobb Attorney at Law, LLC, Defendant, represented by Harijot
Singh Khalsa, Sessions Fishman Nathan & Israel, LLP & Louis Leonard
Galvis -- lgalvis@sessions.legal -- Sessions Fishman Nathan &
Israel, LLP.


MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Hampton Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Hampton and Sergio Hernandez, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. McDermott
International Inc., and Chicago Bridge & Iron, Co., Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00200 (W.D. La., February 15, 2019) is an action
for damages and other legal and equitable relief from Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Defendants violated the FLSA by requiring Laborers to work
"off-the-clock" while being transported by the Defendants'
mandatory transportation system before the start of their scheduled
shifts. By requiring Plaintiffs and all those similarly situated to
work "off the-clock," the Defendants deprived them of the
statutorily required overtime premium of one and a half their
regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employees of the Defendants who are citizens of
Alabama and Texas.

McDermott is a corporation, which is incorporated in Panama and
headquartered in Houston, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Philip Bohrer, Esq.
     Bohrer Brady LLC
     8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
     Baton Rouge, LA 70809
     Phone: (225) 925-5297
     Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com

          - and -

     Jay D. Ellwanger, Esq.
     Esha Rajendran, Esq.
     Ellwanger Law LLLP
     8310-1 N. Capital of Texas Hwy, Suite 190
     Austin, TX 78731
     Phone: (737) 808-2260
     Facsimile: (737) 808-2262
     Email: jellwanger@equalrights.law
            erajendran@equalrights.law

          - and -

     James A. Vagnini, Esq.
     Alexander M. White, Esq.
     Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP
     600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 203-7180
     Facsimile: (516) 706-0248
     Email: jvagnini@vkvlawyers.com
            awhite@vkvlawyers.com


MDL 2286: Dismissal with Prejudice of 25 Member Cases Recommended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., TELEPHONIC
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT LITIGATION, case No. 11-md-2286-MMA-MDD
(S.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California recommended
the dismissal with prejudice of the member cases in which the
Plaitiffs did not respond to discovery order nor order to show
cause why their cases should not be dismissed.

On Aug. 10, 2018, a Joint Motion was filed seeking the Court's
approval of an agreement between a group of counsel for the
Plaintiffs and the Defendant regarding the use of a discovery
questionnaire and a related protective order providing for limited
discovery.  To facilitate early discovery without requiring formal
discovery requests and responses, the parties recommended that the
Court adopt a procedure whereby every Plaintiff in every member
case complete a proposed discovery questionnaire.  In response to
completed questionnaires, the Defendant would provide certain
Plaintiff-specific discovery and non-specific discovery regarding
its dialing technologies and processes.

On Aug. 15, 2018, the Court issued an Order allowing two weeks for
any Plaintiff to file objections to the proposed questionnaire and
related procedures.  On Sept. 5, 2018, having not received any
objections, the Court ordered all the Plaintiffs in the
multi-district litigation to complete and serve a discovery
questionnaire within 45 days.  The Order authorized the Defendant
to move to dismiss any cases in which the Plaintiffs failed to
serve a completed questionnaire.

On Nov. 13, 2018, the Defendant moved for an order to show cause
why cases in which the Plaintiffs failed timely to serve a
completed questionnaire should not be dismissed.  On Nov. 16, 2018,
the Court granted the motion and ordered that the Plaintiffs who
did not complete the questionnaire show cause by Nov. 30, 2018, why
their cases should not be dismissed.  A number of the Plaintiffs
responded to the Order to Show Cause.  On Jan, 14, 2019, the Court
refused to recommend dismissal in cases where the Plaintiffs served
their discovery questionnaires late.  The Court advised all
parties, however, that it would recommend dismissal of any cases in
which the Plaintiffs failed entirely to respond.  A few Plaintiffs
responded to the January 14 Order, and the Court granted them
relief.

In summary, almost six months ago, the Court first provided an
opportunity to all the Plaintiffs to object to the discovery
questionnaire and related procedures.  Five months ago, it ordered
all the Plaintiffs to complete and serve the discovery
questionnaire.  Almost three months ago, the Defendant moved for an
order to show cause why cases in which the Plaintiffs did not
timely complete and serve questionnaires should not be dismissed.
Almost one month ago, the Court announced that it would recommend
dismissal of all cases in which the Plaintiffs did not complete and
serve discovery questionnaires or respond to the Order to Show
Cause.

Magistrate Judge Dembin holds that even with the dismissal of the
cases subject to his Recommendation, the litigation will continue
and the public interest, as identified in the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, will be satisfied.  He recommended the dismissal
with prejudice of the following member cases: Carter v. Midland,
14-cv-1160; Clark v. Midland, 16-cv-2078; Conger v. Midland,
16-cv-2365; De la Cruz v. Midland, 17-cv-1639 (pro se); Floyd v.
Midland, 14-cv-2423 (pro se); Holland v. Midland, 14-cv-0506;
Jesula v. Midland, 15-cv-2009; King v. Midland, 14-cv-2909; Laurore
v. Midland, 16-cv-2487; Leone v. Midland, 14-cv-0905; Maitlen v.
Midland, 15-cv-2636; McCulley v. Midland, 16-cv-1361; McDonald v.
Midland, 14-cv-0689; McGee v. Midland, 14-cv-1317; Miller v.
Midland, 15-cv-0473 (Plaintiff Richardson only); Miller v. Midland,
15-cv-0710 (pro se); N.L. v. Midland, 14-cv-1442; Neal v. Midland,
15-cv-0896; Nelson v. Midland, 15-cv-2008; Pacheco, Jr. v. Midland,
17-cv-0451; Pugh v. Midland, 16-cv-1977; Vasquez v. Midland,
16-cv-1294; Ward, et al. v. Midland, 17-cv-0448; Watters v.
Midland, 17-cv-1687; Wentworth v. Midland, 14-cv-1355; and Wong v.
Midland, 14-cv-1538.

Any written objections to the Report must be filed with the Court
and served on all parties no later than Feb. 20, 2019.  The
document should be captioned "Objections to Report and
Recommendation."  Any reply to the objection will be filed with the
Court and served on all parties no later than Feb. 27, 2019.  The
parties are advised that the failure to file objections within the
specified time may waive the right to raise those objections on
appeal of the Court's order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2019 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/VZISRP from
Leagle.com.

Christopher Robinson, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas J. Campion
--
doug@djcampion.com -- Law Offices of Douglas J Campion, Abbas
Kazerounian, Kazerounian Law Group, APC & Joshua B. Swigart --
josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart.

Eduardo Tovar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Trenz, Law Offices of
David Schafer PLLC, pro hac vice & David P. Schafer, Law Offices
of
David Schafer PLLC, pro hac vice.

Nicholas Martin, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander H. Burk , Burke Law
Offices, LLC, pro hac vice.

Dave Scardina, individually and on behalf of a class, Plaintiff,
represented by Daniel A. Edelman, Edelman Combs Latturner &
Goodwin
LLC, pro hac vice, James O. Latturner, Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC, pro hac vice, Cassandra P. Miller, Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Cathleen M. Combs, Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, Curtis Charles Warner, Warner Law Firm,
LLC & Francis Richard Greene, Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin
LLC.

Chad R. Goetz, Plaintiff, pro se.

Midland Funding LLC, Defendant, represented by Aaron L. Vorce,
Dykema Gossett, Amy M. Gallegos , Jenner & Block LLP, Andrew
Michael Schwartz , Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin,
P.C., Benjamin Michael Katz , Burr and Forman, Brett J Natarelli ,
Dykema Gossett PLLC, Bryan James Anderson, Dykema Gossett, PLLC,
Daniel Andrew Brown, WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS, Danielle M.
Vugrinovich , Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, David
J. Elkanich , Holland & Knight, LLP, David M. Schultz , Hinshaw &
Culbertson, LLP, pro hac vice, Ethan A. Glickstein , Jenner &
Block
LLP, Heather L. Kramer -- hkramer@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett
PLLc, James Michael Golden, Dykema Gossett PLLC, John Anthony
Love,
King and Spalding, pro hac vice, Joshua C. Dickinson, SPENCER
FANE,
LLP, LATI WELLS SPENCE, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
PC, Lauren M. Burnette, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin,
Matthew B. Ames, Balch & Bingham LLP, Matthew Brady Johnson,
Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Matthew W. McDade,
BALCH
& BINGHAM, LLP, Michael Ronald Ayers, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP,
Palak Naimesh Shah, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Patrick Michael
DeLong, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Patrick T.
McLaughlin, SPENCER FANE LLP, Paul F. Labaki, Peltan Law, PLLC,
Paul A. Wilhelm, Dykema Gossett, Renee Lynn Zipprich, Dykema
Gossett PLLC, Stephen Michael Mahieu, Dykema Gossett, PLLC,
Theodore W. Seitz -- tseitz@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC, pro
hac vice, Todd A Gale -- tgale@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC,
Todd Philip Stelter, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Amanda Catherine
Fitzsimmons, DLA Piper LLP & Edward D Totino , DLA Piper LLP.

Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron
L.
Vorce, Dykema Gossett, Aimee Guidry Szygenda, McGlinchey Stafford,
Amanda E Wilson, Amy M. Gallegos, Jenner & Block LLP, Amy R.
Jonker, DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC, Andrew Michael Schwartz, Marshall,
Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, P.C., Anthony J. Palermo,
Holland & Knight, LLP, Benjamin Michael Katz, Burr and Forman,
Brandon Stein, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Brandon M. Wrazen, Peltan
Law, PLLC, Brett J Natarelli, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Bryan James
Anderson, Dykema Gossett, PLLC, Christopher David Johnsen, Holland
& Knight, Christopher Spain, Simmonds & Narita LLP, Cory W.
Eichhorn, Holland & Knight, LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Andrew
Brown,
WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS, Danielle M. Vugrinovich, Marshall,
Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, David J. Elkanich, Holland &
Knight, LLP, David George Peltan, Peltan Law, PLLC, David M.
Schultz, Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, pro hac vice, Erica Gooden
Bartimmo, Holland & Knight, LLP, Ethan A. Glickstein, Jenner &
Block LLP, Gennifer Lynn Bridges, Burr & Forman, LLP, Gregg D
Stevens, McGlinchey Stafford, Heather L. Kramer, Dykema Gossett
PLLc, James A. Byram, Jr., BALCH & BINGHAM, LLP, James Michael
Golden, Dykema Gossett PLLC, James S. Kreamer, Baker, Sterchi,
Cowden & Rice, LLC, James Lanter, James Lanter, P.C., Jared D.
Kemper, Dykema Gossett, PLLC, Jason Brent Tompkins, Balch &
Bingham
LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey M. Sankey, Sankey Law Offices, Jennifer
L. Braster, Naylor & Braster Attorneys at Law, PLLC, John Anthony
Love , King and Spalding, pro hac vice, John M. Naylor , Naylor &
Braster Attorneys at Law, John Christopher Suedekum , Burr and
Forman, LLP, Jonathan Clayton Brown, Burr Forman LLP, Joseph L.
Francoeur, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, Joseph W
Letzer , Burr and Forman, Joshua C. Dickinson, SPENCER FANE, LLP,
Keasha Ann Broussard , King & Spalding, LLP, pro hac vice, LATI
WELLS SPENCER, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN PC, Laura
Irene Hillerich, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin,
Laura Westerman Tanner , Burr & Forman, LLP, Lauren M. Burnette ,
Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Lauren Lynn Millcarek ,
Holland & Knight, LLP, Lawrence J. Bartel, III, MARSHALL DENNEHEY
WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN, Leah Suzanne Strickland , Solomon Ward
Seidenwurm & Smith LLP, M. Cory Nelson  Lewis, Rice & Fingersh,
pro
hac vice, Matthew B. Ames, Balch & Bingham LLP, Matthew J. Devine
,
Burr & Forman, LLP, Matthew Brady Johnson, Marshall Dennehey
Warner
Coleman & Goggin, Mei-Ying M. Imanaka, Solomon Ward Seidenwurm &
Smith, LLP, Melissa S. Gutierrez, McGlinchey Stafford, Michael
Ronald Ayers, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Nicole Strickler, Messer,
Stilp & Strickler, Ltd., pro hac vice, Palak Naimesh Shah, Hinshaw
& Culbertson LLP, Patrick Michael DeLong, Marshall, Dennehey,
Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Patrick T. McLaughlin , SPENCER FANE
LLP,
Paul F. Labaki, Peltan Law, PLLC, Paul A. Wilhelm, Dykema Gossett,
Peter J. Caltagirone, Solomon, Ward, Seidenwurm and Smith, Rachel
R. Friedman, Burr & Forman LLP, Randy Jiro Aoyama, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP, Reid Stephens Manley, Burr Forman LLP, Renee Lynn
Zipprich, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Richard David Lane ,, Marshall
Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Robert Franklin Springfield,
Burr
& Forman, LLP, Ronald Michael Metcho, II , Marshall, Dennehey,
Warner, Coleman & Goggin, P.C., pro hac vice, Russell S. Ponessa,
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Stephen Michael Mahieu Dykema Gossett,
PLLC, Theodore J. Greeley, Dykema Gossett, PLLC, Theodore W.
Seitz,
Dykema Gossett PLLC, pro hac vice, Thomas Butler Alleman , Dykema
Cox Smith, Thomas F. Landers, Solomon Ward Seidenwurm & Smith,
LLP,
Thomas A. Leghorn, Wilson, Elser Law Firm, Thomas M. Martin ,
Lewis
Rice LLC, Todd A Gale, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Todd Philip Stelter,
Hinshaw & Culbertson, Tomio B. Narita, Simmonds & Narita LLP,
Amanda Catherine Fitzsimmons, DLA Piper LLP, Edward D Totino, DLA
Piper LLP, Jacqueline A. Simms-Petredis ,, Burr & Forman, LLP,
Tatiana Alexander Waits , McGlinchey Stafford LLP & Thomas Richard
DeBray, Jr. ,, Balch & Bingham, LLP.

Encore Capital Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy M.
Gallegos, Jenner & Block LLP, Brett J Natarelli, Dykema Gossett
PLLC, Bryan James Anderson, Dykema Gossett, PLLC, Cory W. Eichhorn,

Holland & Knight, LLP, pro hac vice, Danielle M. Vugrinovich,
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Ethan A. Glickstein,
Jenner & Block LLP, James Michael Golden, Dykema Gossett PLLC,
Lauren Lynn Millcarek, Holland & Knight, LLP, Matthew B. Ames,
Balch & Bingham LLP, Rachel R. Friedman, Burr & Forman LLP, Renee
Lynn Zipprich, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Robert Franklin Springfield,
Burr & Forman, LLP, Theodore W. Seitz, Dykema Gossett PLLC, pro
hac
vice, Amanda Catherine Fitzsimmons, DLA Piper LLP & Edward D
Totino, DLA Piper LLP.

Laura E. Hartman, an individual, Defendant, represented by Robert
W. Murphy, Law Office of Robert W. Murphy.

X, Y, Z Corporations, Defendant, represented by Lauren M.
Burnette,
Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin.

Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, P. C., Defendant, represented by
Scot W. Groghan, Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, P.C.


MDL 2633: Premera Can't Compel Depositions Devices/Docs Production
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: PREMERA BLUE CROSS CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY
BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 3:15-md-2633-SI (D. Or.), Judge Michael
H. Simon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (i)
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to compel
Premera to produce certain documents, described by category, that
it has withheld based on assertions of attorney-client privilege or
protection under the attorney work-product doctrine; and (ii)
denied Premera's motion to compel the Plaintiffs to produce
specific devices and documents identified during depositions.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against Premera, a
healthcare benefits servicer and provider.  On March 17, 2015,
Premera publicly disclosed that its computer network had been
breached.

The Plaintiffs allege that this breach compromised the confidential
information of approximately 11 million current and former members,
affiliated members, and employees of Premera.  The compromised
confidential information includes names, dates of birth, Social
Security Numbers, member identification numbers, mailing addresses,
telephone numbers, email addresses, medical claims information,
financial information, and other protected health information.
According to the Plaintiffs, the breach began in May 2014 and went
undetected for nearly a year.  They allege that after discovering
the breach, Premera unreasonably delayed in notifying all affected
individuals.  Based on these and other allegations, the Plaintiffs
bring various state common law claims and state statutory claims.

Before the Court are the Plaintiffs' motion to compel and Premera's
motion to compel.  

The Plaintiffs request an order requiring Premera to produce
certain documents, described by category, that Premera has withheld
based on assertions of attorney-client privilege or protection
under the attorney work-product doctrine.  They argue that Premera
improperly is withholding 21 documents relating to news articles,
public relations, and press releases simply because an attorney is
either on the communication or the document was prepared at the
request of the counsel.  They add that Premera wrongfully is
withholding 436 documents or communications concerning notices to
customers and others relating to the data breach.  Finally, in this
category, they contend that Premera improperly is withholding 74
documents relating to remediation.

Among other things, Judge Simon finds that (i) privilege log does
not indicate that this was sent to counsel seeking counsel's legal
advice or input on the report; (ii) the actual final scripts, which
were intended to be read to, and thus disclosed to, third parties
(persons calling Premera with questions about the data breach), are
not privileged and must be produced; (iii) the timeline prepared by
inhouse counsel relating to Premera's remediation efforts is not a
document seeking or providing legal advice, hence, it is not
subject to the attorney-client privilege; (iv) business documents,
such as drafts of newspaper articles, press releases, and
notification letters, that are merely sent to or from attorneys
without seeking or providing legal advice or input, are not
privileged; and (v) the Court provided guidance on evaluating
work-product protection for draft documents and various categories
of documents.

Premera requests an order requiring the Plaintiffs to produce
specific devices and documents identified during depositions.  It
moves to compel production of specifically-identified personal
computers, including tablets, from named Plaintiffs April Allred,
Barbara Lynch, Debbie Hansen-Bosse, Elizabeth Black, Gabriel
Webster, Krishendu Chakraborty, Laura Webster, Mary Fuerst, Howard
Kaplowitz, Ralph Christopherson, Ross Imbler, and William Fitch.
Premera also moves to compel documents related to issues discussed
at depositions for which Premera does not believe all documents
have been produced.

Among other things, the Judge finds that Premera's request for a
forensic image of Plaintiffs' devices is not proportional to the
needs of the case; and denied Premera's motion to compel production
of documents relating to incidents and issues discussed at the
depositions of the named Plaintiffs.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Simon (i) granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel as described in the
Order; and (ii) denied Premera's Motion to Compel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/PogqCs from Leagle.com.

In re Premera Blue Cross, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R.
Warren, Esq. -- dwarren@bakerlaw.com -- James A. Sherer, Esq. --
jsherer@bakerlaw.com -- and Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq. --
pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP; Darin M. Sands,
Esq. -- sandsd@lanepowell.com -- LANE POWELL, PC.

All Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Arielle S. Wagner,
Lockridge, Grindal and Nauen, P.L. L. P., Chase C. Alvord, Esq. --
calvord@tousley.com -- Christopher I. Brain, Esq. --
cbrain@tousley.com -- Jason T. Dennett, Esq. --
jdennett@tousley.com -- and Kim D. Stephens, Esq. --
kstephens@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC; Keith S.
Dubanevich, Esq. -- kdubanevich@stollberne.com -- and Steve D.
Larson, Esq. -- slarson@stollberne.com -- STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING
& SHLACHTER P.C.


MDL 2820: Court Partly Denies Monsanto, BASF Bids to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: DICAMBA HERBICIDES LITIGATION, MDL No. 2820
(E.D. Mo.), Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri, Southeastern Division,
granted in part and denied in part Monsanto's motion to dismiss and
BASF's motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiffs in the Multi-District Litigation filed a 94-count
Crop Damage Class Action Master Complaint against Defendants
Monsanto and BASF on Aug. 1, 2018.  The laintiffs are 21 soybean
farmers from eight states: Arkansas, Illinois, Kansas, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Tennessee.  Each Plaintiff
alleges that its soybean crop was damaged by the herbicide dicamba
when neighboring farmers planted genetically modified
dicamba-resistant seeds and sprayed that crop with dicamba.  They
challenge Monsanto's commercialization of its dicamba-resistant
cotton seeds in 2015 and soybean seeds in 2016 ("Xtend seeds").
The United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") deregulated
(or permitted for sale) the dicambaresistant seeds in January 2015.
However, the Plaintiffs contend that their commercialization was
premature and improper because the United States Environmental
Protection Agency ("EPA") had not yet approved a dicamba herbicide
for use over the top of crops grown from those seeds.  They add
that the dicamba-resistant seeds were also tolerant to application
of other herbicides, like Monsanto's glyphosate-based
Roundup-branded herbicides.

Bader Farms, a peach-growing Plaintiff in the MDL (which has not
joined the Master Complaint), filed one of the first complaints of
its kind in 2016, alleging that neighboring farms planted Xtend
seeds and then sprayed dicamba over the top of that crop.  Bader
alleged that the dicamba then drifted to the Bader peach orchard,
damaging many trees and seriously diminishing the year's peach
crop.  It filed its lawsuit, eventually added BASF as a Defendant,
and the Court denied both the Defendants' motion to dismiss and
Monsanto's motion for partial summary judgment.  As stated, Bader
grows peaches, not soybeans, and Bader is not part of the Master
Complaint in the MDL.

Only one Plaintiff in the Master Complaint brings claims related to
2016, the year Monsanto sold Xtend seed but did not sell the
corresponding herbicide.  That Plaintiff, Jerry Franks of Missouri,
represents himself and a class of "Missouri 2016" Plaintiffs.

The other Plaintiffs allege that in 2017 they grew
non-dicamba-tolerant soybeans that were damaged by dicamba
herbicide used on fields that were planted with dicambatolerant
Xtend seeds.  In 2017, however, the EPA approved Monsanto and
BASF's new low-volatility dicamba herbicides (respectively named
XtendiMax and Engenia).  Earlier versions of dicamba had been on
the market since the 1960s (though none manufactured by Monsanto),
but it was not approved for in-crop use due to its volatility and
propensity to drift (sometimes taking other herbicides with it),
meaning it could cause damage to other, off-target growing plants.
XtendiMax and Engenia were developed to address original dicamba's
volatility problem so that they could be used over-the-top of
crops, during the growing season, without harming nearby,
non-tolerant crops.

The 2017, the Plaintiffs (that is, all the Plaintiffs other than
Franks), challenge the design and sale of Monsanto and BASF's
dicamba herbicide products.  They contend, despite the Defendants'
representations to the contrary, that both are unsuitable for
in-crop use because they too, like the earlier versions of dicamba,
are volatile and prone to move off-target and damage nearby,
sensitive crops.  The claim, then, is that the Defendants, in their
pursuit of increased profits, pushed the Xtend seeds and XtendiMax
and Engenia herbicides forward and misrepresented the system as
safe, knowing that non-dicambaresistant crops and plants would be
damaged.  In fact, the Plaintiffs contend that such damage was to
the Defendants' benefit, as it would cause farmers to defensively
purchase dicambaresistant seed to avoid damages.

Each Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and a state-wide class, brings
claims under its own state's laws, and they also seek to represent
a nationwide class pursuing claims under the Lanham Act.  The
Defendants have moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  Monsanto raises 16
points in support of its motion to dismiss.  BASF makes only 11.
With only a couple of exceptions, the Defendants' arguments are
largely overlapping and complementary.

Judge Limbaugh granted in part and denied in part both the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.  He dismissed the following claims:
(i) Count 1's nationwide class action claims against Defendant
BASF; (ii) trict Liability ??? Ultrahazardous Activity Counts
(Counts 2, 14, 25, 37, 50, 60, 71, and 84); (iii) the Plaintiffs'
Trespass Counts (Counts 12, 21, 34, 49, 57, 67, 81, 93); (iv) the
Plaintiffs' Nuisance Counts (Counts 22, 35, 41, 68, and 82); (v)
the Plaintiffs' Failure to Warn Counts regarding labeling only to
the extent they exceed the parameters of FIFRA, as explained in the
Memorandum; (vi) the Plaintiffs' Nebraska Consumer Protection Act
claim (Count 69); (vii) Plaintiffs' Negligent Training claims to
the extent they do not relate to the training of the Defendants'
employees or agents; (viii) Plaintiffs' Kansas warranty-related
counts (Counts 31, 32, and 33); and (ix) Plaintiffs' Breach of
Implied Warranty Counts in Arkansas, South Dakota, and Tennessee
(Counts 9, 10, 78, 79, 90, and 91).

The Judge denied in part the motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Conspiracy Counts as those Counts relate to underlying intentional
torts, and he withheld ruling on the Conspiracy Counts based on
underlying negligence claims.  Finally, he dismissed.

Among other things, the Judge found that the Plaintiffs allege a
scheme to market, sell, and expand sales and profits from the Xtend
Crop system, and they describe the Defendants' intertwined
activities at length.  However, the Plaintiffs are not entirely
clear which tort claims may serve as the underlying tortious
conduct to the conspiracy count, much less do they identify which
prong of the Restatement they are proceeding under.  It appears
that they have alleged intentional tortious conduct on the parts of
both Defendants to sustain a conspiracy claim for, at least, false
advertising and fraudulent misrepresentation under the Lanham Act.


As for counts going to negligence, the Judge found it unclear
whether the Plaintiffs are grounding their claims under the
Restatement's subsection (a), the conventional conspiracy theory,
or under subsection (b), the aiding-abetting theory.  If brought
under subsection (b), it is irrelevant, as noted, whether the
underlying tortious act is intentional or negligent.  On the other
hand, if the negligence claims are brought under subsection (a),
the Court would be faced with the difficult task of reconciling the
claims with the truism that parties cannot conspire to commit
negligence.

In any event, the Judge held that Court need not decide the
propriety of the underlying negligence claims until the Plaintiffs
have clarified whether those claims are grounded in subsections (a)
or (b), and the parties have fully briefed these additional issues.
And if indeed the Plaintiffs make clear that the underlying
negligence claims are being brought under subsection (b), the
conundrum posed under subsection (a) need not be addressed.  As
such, he denied the motion to dismiss as it pertains to the
remaining underlying intentional torts and withhold ruling on the
propriety of underlying negligence claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/j6olsN from Leagle.com.

John S. Hahn, Special Master, pro se.

Bader Farms, Inc. & Bill Bader, Plaintiffs, represented by Angela
Marie Splittgerber -- angie@randleslaw.com -- RANDLES AND
SPLITTGERBER, LLP, Beverly Turina Randles -- bev@randleslaw.com --
RANDLES AND SPLITTGERBER, LLP, Billy R. Randles --
bill@randleslaw.com -- RANDLES AND SPLITTGERBER, LLP & Don M.
Downing, GRAY AND RITTER, P.C.

Steven Wayne Landers & Deloris Irene Landers, Plaintiffs,
represented by Angela Marie Splittgerber, RANDLES AND SPLITTGERBER,
LLP, Beverly Turina Randles, RANDLES AND SPLITTGERBER, LLP, Billy
R. Randles, RANDLES AND SPLITTGERBER, LLP, Don M. Downing, GRAY AND
RITTER, P.C., Hal E. Hunter, IV, HUNTER LAW FIRM, LLP, Lawrence
Benjamin Mook -- ben@dgmlawyers.com -- DAVIS AND GEORGE LLC &
Richard Monroe Paul, III, PAUL LLP.

Wimberley Farms LLC, Ann Schuchart, Emil Schuchart, Trustees of the
Ann Schuchart Trust and Emil Schuchart Trust & Bumper Crop Farms,
LLC, On Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated And
the Class They Seek to Represent, Plaintiffs, represented by Angela
Marie Splittgerber, RANDLES AND SPLITTGERBER, LLP, Billy R.
Randles, RANDLES AND SPLITTGERBER, LLP, Don M. Downing, GRAY AND
RITTER, P.C. & Richard Monroe Paul, III, PAUL LLP.

Smokey Alley Farm Partnership, Amore Farms, JTM Farms Partnership,
Kenneth Loretta Garrett Qualls Farm Partnership, Qualls Land Co.,
McLemore Farms LLC & Michael Baioni, Plaintiffs, represented by
Brandon Michael Wise, PEIFFER WOLF, APLC, Don M. Downing, GRAY AND
RITTER, P.C., Michael G. Smith, DOVER AND DIXON, PLLC, Paul J.
James, JAMES AND CARTER, LLP, Paul A. Lesko, PEIFFER WOLF, APLC &
Richard Monroe Paul, III, PAUL LLP.

BASF Corporation, Defendant, represented by Alan L. Rupe --
Alan.Rupe@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS, LLP, Charles N.
Insler -- cinsler@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM, E. B. Chiles, IV
-- cchiles@qgtlaw.com -- Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC, Jason D.
Stitt -- Jason.Stitt@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith, LLP, John P. Mandler -- john.mandler@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE
AND BAKER LLP, John E. Tull, III -- jtull@qgtlaw.com --
Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC, Ross W. Johnson --
ross.johnson@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE AND BAKER LLP, Tarifa Belle
Laddon -- tarifa.laddon@FaegreBD.com --, FAEGRE AND BAKER LLP,
Thomas J. Magee -- tmagee@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM, Troy A.
Bozarth -- tbozarth@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM, Carolyn A.
Gunkel -- carolyn.gunkel@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE AND BAKER LLP &
Shane Alan Anderson -- shane.anderson@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE AND
BAKER LLP.

Monsanto Company, Defendant, represented by Ann E.
Sternhell-Blackwell, BRYAN CAVE LLP, Christopher M. Hohn, THOMPSON
COBURN, LLP, Daniel C. Cox, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Jan P. Miller,
THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Jan P. Miller, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Pro Hac
Vice, Jeffrey A. Masson, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, John R. Musgrave,
THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, John J. Rosenthal, WINSTON AND STRAWN, LLP,
Booker T. Shaw, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP & Kimberly M. Bousque,
THOMPSON COBURN, LLP.

E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company & Pioneer Hi-Bred International,
Inc., Defendants, represented by Amie A. Vague, Lightfoot, Franklin
& White, LLC, C. David Goerisch, LEWIS RICE, LLC, Jeffrey P. Doss,
LIGHTFOOT AND FRANKLIN, L.L.C., John Mann Johnson, LIGHTFOOT AND
FRANKLIN, L.L.C., R. Brad Ziegler, LEWIS RICE, LLC, Richard B.
Walsh, Jr. , LEWIS RICE, LLC & Sonette T. Magnus , LEWIS RICE,
LLC.

Robert Shaun Bennett, individually and as representative of RSB
Farming, Defendant, represented by Heather G. Zachary, Williams &
Anderson, PLC, Jerry O. Kelly, KELLY LAW FIRM, P.C., John Paul
Byrd, PAUL BYRD LAW FIRM, PLLC, Joseph Reid Byrd, Duncan Firm,
Joseph D. Gates, PAUL BYRD LAW FIRM, PLLC, Phillip J. Duncan,
Richard Lee Quintus, DUNCAN FIRM, PA., Timothy Paul Reed, Duncan
Firm & William R. Pointer, II, Duncan Firm.

BASF Plant Science LP, Defendant, represented by Alan L. Rupe,
LEWIS BRISBOIS, LLP, E. B. Chiles, IV, Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull
PLLC, Jason D. Stitt, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, John P.
Mandler, FAEGRE AND BAKER LLP & John E. Tull, III, Quattlebaum,
Grooms & Tull PLLC.


MICHIGAN: Class Cert. Bid Granted in Part in Suit vs Jail Officers
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit against the officers of the Michigan
Department of Corrections, the  Hon. Judge Laurie J. Michelson
entered an order on Feb. 13, 2019, granting in part and denying in
part Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify four
classes of Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) prisoners.
Some of the proposed classes include every prisoner in the MDOC's
custody. But in a group that size -- about 37,000 individuals --
the dental-health diversity is presumably great. It is likely that
some have had few dental issues and are at low risk of any serious
ones in the foreseeable future. For these prisoners, the alleged
deficiencies in the MDOC's dental care probably do not subject them
to a substantial risk of serious harm. On the other hand, in a
group of 37,000, some undoubtedly have frequent, serious dental
needs. For these prisoners, the alleged deficiencies in the MDOC's
dental care probably do subject them to a substantial risk of
serious harm. It is thus difficult to address the Eighth Amendment
claims of all 37,000 prisoners in "one stroke." See Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). Yet that is a
requirement for class certification. On the other hand, there are
smaller, less dentally-diverse groups of prisoners whose claims
can, at least in significant part, be efficiently litigated at
once. For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in
part plaintiffs' motion for class certification."

The Court further held:

-- CLASS I: consists of all prisoners who have less than two years
of continuous incarceration within the MDOC. These prisoners claim
that the MDOC's two-year wait for routine dental services exposes
them to a substantial risk of serious harm. Given the breadth of
this proposed class and the nature of the class claim, it does not
satisfy Wal-Mart's one-stroke requirement. Given that a class of
19,000 prisoners likely encompasses prisoners whose risk of
sustaining serious dental harm is very low and prisoners whose risk
of sustaining serious dental harm is very high, the Court will not
certify that class.

-- CLASS IVA: What was said about Class I also applies to Class
IVA: "All prisoners on the Routine Dental Appointment List."
According to Defendants, 3,000 prisoners are on the RDAL at any
given moment. While 3,000 is much less than 19,000, it still seems
likely that prisoners on the RDAL have very diverse dental needs.
The Court is not convinced that these 3,000 prisoners' claims have
a key issue that can be productively litigated at once.

-- CLASS IIB:  The Court certifies the following class as Class
IIB: "All prisoners incarcerated in an MDOC correctional facility
with healthy gums, gingivitis, early periodontitis, and stable
moderate periodontitis" insofar as these prisoners claim that the
MDOC's failure to provide them with periodontal treatment exposes
them to a substantial risk of serious harm.

-- Class IIA: This class also meets Rule 23's requirements. As
redefined, this class consists of any MDOC prisoner who has caries
that have reached the dentin or who has early periodontitis (or
worse). Thus, each prisoner in Class IIA is already past the
earliest stage of a progressive disease (an incipient lesion in the
case of caries or gingivitis in the case of periodontal disease).

-- Class III: This class also satisfies Rule 23???s requirements.
As redefined, this proposed class consists of all prisoners who
have requested dentures and who satisfy the criteria for dentures
set out in Sections 15 and 16 of Chapter VI of the Dental Services
Manual. Given that the class definition is premised on the MDOC's
own criteria for dentures, all prisoners in this class medically
need dentures.

-- Class IVB: This class also fits within the category of classes
set out in Rule 23(b)(2). The time it takes the MDOC to process
requests for urgent dental care applies to each class member.  And
a single injunction could provide each class member with relief.
For instance, the Court could order that the wait time for urgent
dental services be reduced to two days.

The case is captioned JOEY DEARDUFF, NICHOLAS BAILEY, TIMOTHY
BROWNELL, MELVIN BOWNES, TIMOTHY FLESSNER, JAMES GUNNELS, LEON
MEANS, JOHN PORTER, KENNETH REEVES, ANTHONY RICHARDSON, BRYAN
SLONE, and TINA STOLL, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HEIDI WASHINGTON, Director,
Michigan Department of Corrections, and JONG CHOI, Dental Regional
Director, in their official capacities, the Defendants, Case No.
2:14-cv-11691-LJM-MKM (E.D. Mich.).[CC]

MICHIGAN: Court Narrows Claims in Suit Over Mental Health Services
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, K.B. BY MOTHER, NEXT FRIEND, AND GUARDIAN T.B., ET.
AL., Plaintiffs, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, NICK LYON, RICHARD SNYDER, Defendants, Case No. 18-11795
(E.D. Mich.), Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division, (i) denied
the Plaintiffs' motion for corrected judicial assignment; and (i)
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.

On June 6, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the
Defendants the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services,
Nick Lyon, and Richard Snyder.  The Plaintiffs are Michigan
children and their families who claim that the Defendants are
providing them with inadequate mental health care.

The Plaintiffs bring their claim as a class action on behalf of all
current or future Michigan Medicaid beneficiaries under the age of
21 with a behavioral, emotional, or psychiatric disorder who are or
may be eligible for, but are not receiving, home and
community-based services.

The Department is responsible for facilitating the Medicaid program
throughout Michigan.  To assist in this, the Department has
contracted with ten Prepaid Inpatient Health Plans ("PIHPs") and
local County Medical Health Service Programs ("CMHSP") to provide
health services.  The Plaintiffs contend that the PIHPs are not
fulfilling Medicaid's requirements and as such, the Department
should be held responsible.  They contend that the Defendants'
failure to provide adequate mental health care services in their
homes and communities have required some Plaintiffs to enter
institutions (such as psychiatric hospitals and juvenile
delinquency facilities) while the others are at risk of requiring
institutionalization in the future.

The Plaintiffs raise six claims against Defendants for violating
the following: the federal Medicaid EPSDT Mandate, the federal
Medicaid reasonable promptness requirement, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the due
process provisions of the Medicaid Act, and due process rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment.

On Sept. 7, 2018, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claims.  The Plaintiffs filed a response and the
Defendants filed a reply.  On Oct. 29, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to file a sur-reply in opposition to the
Defendants' reply.  ON Nov. 7, 2018, the motion was denied.

The next day, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for corrected judicial
assignment from the Northern Division of the Eastern District of
Michigan to the Southern Division of the Eastern District of
Michigan. Their preference for the Southern Division is grounded on
their assertion that they believe that over half of the putative
class resides in the Southern Division.  They also prefer the
Southern Division because their lead attorney, David Honigman, has
a severe medical condition that can be exacerbated by travel to the
Bay City courthouse, and even result in death.  The Plaintiffs
contend that trying the case in the Southern Division rather than
the Northern Division would be better for Mr. Honigman's health.

After filing, the Plaintiffs' complaint was initially assigned to
the Southern Division.  One day later, a "Notice of Corrected
Judicial Assignment Due to Clerical Error" was entered by the
Court's Clerk.  The notice explained that according to
Administrative Order No. 11-AO-016, the Plaintiffs' complaint was
being reassigned to the Northern Division because of an attorney's
error.

The Plaintiffs contacted the Clerk's office and were told that the
case was reassigned because the first named Plaintiff resided in a
county within the Northern Division.  They now bring the motion to
correct the judicial assignment of the case to the Southern
Division of the Court to be randomly assigned to a judge of the
Court.

As to the Plaintiffs' motion, Judge Ludington denied it.  He finds
that even if the Plaintiffs were responsible for the assignment of
the case to the Northern Division under Rule 83.10 because of the
way in which they completed the Civil Cover Sheet, they have not
presented sufficient justification for the Court to reassign the
case.  They have provided no information as to the location of
their intended witnesses, "relevant documents," or "sources of
proof."  They have not presented any information that keeping the
case in the Northern Division would inconvenience or endanger the
wellbeing of any of them or the other six attorneys representing
them.  Accordingly, their motion for judicial reassignment will not
be granted because the factors discussed, at least at this stage of
the case's development, do not weigh in favor of reassignment.

With respect to the Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Judge
granted in part and denied in part the motion.  The Plaintiffs'
claim of the Defendants' alleged violation of 42 U.S.C.
1396a(a)(10)(A) under Count I of their complaint, and Count II of
their complaint are dismissed.

As to Count I, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs cite to the
associated House Committee Report to contend that Congress amended
the definition to require states to provide these services rather
than only paying for them.  Contrary to their argument, a state may
choose to only pay for services.  The Plaintiffs' claim alleging
that the Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. Section1396a(10)(A) is
without merit because the Plaintiffs only claim that the Defendants
have failed to provide them with services.  Failure alone to
provide services is inadequate grounds to find a violation of
Section 1396a(10)(A).  Both failure to provide services and a
failure to finance services are necessary to find a violation of
Section 1396a(10)(A) since the definition of "medical services"
permits a state to engage in either.  The Plaintiffs do not contend
that the Defendants have failed to provide financing for services.


As to Count II, he finds that the Plaintiffs do not allege that the
Defendants' violated Section 1369a(a)(8) by failing to promptly
determine their eligibility for payment of services.  Rather, they
allege that the Defendants failed to provide intensive home and
community-based mental health services to the Plaintiffs with
reasonable promptness.  The Plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a
claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/6IrUa2 from Leagle.com.

K.B. by mother, Next Friend, and guardian T.B., M.B. by mother,
Next Friend, and guaridan T.B., P.S. by guardian, M.S., G.P. by
parent and Next Friend A.P., D.P. by guardian, T.P., G.G. by mother
and Next Friend M.G. & J.W. by guardian S.P., Plaintiffs,
represented by Andrea L. Rizor, Michigan Protection & Advocacy
Service Inc., Chris E. Davis, Michigan Protection and Advocacy
Service, Emily S. Fields, Mantese Honigman P.C., Gerard V. Mantese
-- gmantese@manteselaw.com -- Mantese Honigman, P.C., John J.
Conway, III, Theresamarie Mantese -- tmantese@manteselaw.com --
Mantese Honigman & David M. Honigman -- dhonigman@manteselaw.com --
Mantese Honigman, PC.

Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Nick Lyon &
Richard Snyder, Defendants, represented by Kristin M. Heyse,
Michigan Department of the Attorney General.


MICROSOFT CORP: Khalid Says Employment Contract Anti-Competitive
----------------------------------------------------------------
ATM SHAFIQUL KHALID, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00130-RSM (W.D. Wash., Jan. 28, 2019), alleges
that the Defendant hires employees and require them to sign an
employment agreement, which includes a confidentiality agreement
and a patent assignment agreement of future inventions. The
Plaintiff had to sign both as part of the Employment Agreement.
These agreements are anti-competitive and a restraint of trade
because the assignment of future inventions is ambiguous,
overboard, violated local and federal law, including the Sherman
Act.

Microsoft Corporation develops, licenses, and supports software,
services, devices, and solutions worldwide. The company was founded
in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MILLERCOORS LLC: Faces Cardiel Labor Suit in Los Angeles
--------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Millercoors LLC. The case is captioned as HENRY CARDIEL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MILLERCOORS LLC; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV02979 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Jan. 29, 2019). The case is assigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

MillerCoors LLC produces and markets beer in the United States and
Puerto Rico. Its principal brands include Coors Light, Miller Lite,
Blue Moon, Coors Banquet, Keystone Light, Leinenkugel's, Miller
Genuine Draft, Miller High Life, Hamm's, Icehouse, Mickey's, Miller
64, Milwaukee's Best, Old English 800, and Steel Reserve. The
company also brews or distributes under the George Killian's Irish
Red and Redd's license brands, as well as the Foster's and Molson
brands. In addition, its hard cider brands comprise Crispin and
Smith & Forge; and flavored malt beverages include the Henry's hard
sodas. The company was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in
Chicago, Illinois. MillerCoors LLC operates as a subsidiary of MC
Holding Company LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
                  alvin@yeremianlaw.com


MM CUSTOM: Veloz Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------
JOSE VELOZ and GALILEO MEJIA, On Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MM CUSTOM HOUSE INC.
d/b/a SPEEDWORLD, MANUEL MASTROMIHALIS and MIKE MICHAEL, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00852 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2019), seeks
to recover damages and equitable relief based upon Defendants'
flagrant and willful violations of Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed to
him by the minimum and overtime wages provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for the
Defendants, an Auto Collision, Auto Repair, and Auto Accessory
Company and its owners/managers. Throughout their employment, the
Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and the Plaintiff did work,
more than 40 hours per week. However, the Defendants failed to pay
the Plaintiff at the minimum wage or overtime rate of pay of one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for each hour that the
Plaintiff worked per week in excess of 40, as the FLSA and the NYLL
require. Furthermore, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs
for their spread of hours in violation of NYLL. Lastly, the
Defendants failed to furnish the Plaintiff with accurate and/or any
wage statements on each payday as the NYLL requires or provide
Plaintiff with a wage notice containing the criteria enumerated
under the NYLL, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

MONARCH RECOVERY: Gould Moves for Class Certification Under FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled DONNA GOULD, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MONARCH RECOVERY
MANAGEMENT, INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and JOHN DOES, Case
No. 1:18-cv-01282-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), seeks to certify a class
defined as:

     All natural persons to whom Monarch Recovery Management,
     Inc. mailed a written communication in the form of Exhibit A
     to the Complaint to an address in the State of Wisconsin on
     or after August 20, 2017 and on or before September 10,
     2018.

Donna Gould asserts claims against Monarch under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.  The Plaintiff also seeks appointment to
represent the putative class members, and the appointment of Stern
Thomasson LLP as counsel for the class.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          3010 South Appleton Road
          Menasha, WI 54952
          Telephone (973) 379-7500
          E-mail: Francis@SternThomasson.com
                  Philip@SternThomasson.com
                  Andrew@SternThomasson.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Jones et al. Sue over Sale of Roundup Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
LISA JONES, HORACIO TORRES BONILLA, and KRISTOFFER YEE, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
vs. MONSANTO COMPANY and SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO PRODUCTS, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00102-BP (W.D. Mo., Feb. 13, 2019),
alleges unlawful promotion, marketing, and sale of various Roundup
Products, manufactured and marketed by Defendant Monsanto Company
and distributed by Scotts Miracle-Gro Products, Inc., in violation
of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the New York General
Business Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the False
Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants label, advertise, and
promote their retail Roundup (TM) products, including but not
limited to their Roundup (TM) "Garden Weeds" Weed & Grass Killer
products ("Roundup" or "Roundup Products"), with the false
statement that Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate, targets an
enzyme that is not found "in people or pets." This statement is
false, misleading, and deceptive, because the enzyme that
glyphosate targets is found in people and pets. Glyphosate targets
the EPSP synthase enzyme, which is utilized by beneficial bacteria
present, including in the gut biome, in humans and other mammals,
such as household pets. This enzyme, in beneficial bacteria, is
critical to the health and wellbeing of humans and other mammals,
including their immune system, digestion, allergies, metabolism,
and brain function.

The Defendants' false statements and omissions regarding glyphosate
and the enzyme it targets are material. There is widespread
controversy and concern around glyphosate and its effects on humans
and animals. For example, EPSP synthase is directly linked to our
general health, and the interference with the gut flora (including
EPSP synthase) can have serious effects on humans and pets.

Instead of being open and honest with consumers, Defendants have
chosen to use a false statement to market their Roundup (TM)
products. In addition to making the false statement, as further
outlined herein, Defendants omit material, contrary information
that might clarify that statement, namely, that bacteria present in
humans and animals produce and utilize the enzyme targeted by
Roundup. Because of the false statement and material omissions,
Defendants have been able to sell more Roundup Products and to
charge more for Roundup than they otherwise would have been.

The Defendants were unjustly enriched through utilizing the false
statement and omitting material contrary information. The
Plaintiffs and other Class Members who purchased the Roundup
Products suffered economic damages in a similar manner because they
purchased more Roundup Products and/or paid more for Roundup
Products than they would have had they not been deceived, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Bryce B. Bell, Esq.
          Mark W. Schmitz, Esq.
          BELL LAW, LLC
          2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: 816-886-8206
          Facsimile: 816-817-8500
          E-mail: Bryce@BellLawKC.com
                  MS@BellLawKC.com

               - and -

          Kim E. Richman, Esq.
          Clark A. Binkley, Esq.
          RICHMAN LAW GROUP
          81 Prospect Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: 718 705-4579
          Facsimile: 212 687-8292
          E-mail: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com
                 cbinkley@richmanlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Baum, Esq.
          R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
          BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI &
          GOLDMAN, P.C.
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-3233
          E-mail: mbaum@baumhedlund.com
                  bwisner@baumhedlund.com

               - and -

          Robert F. Kennedy, Esq.
          KENNEDY & MADONNA, LLP
          48 Dewitt Mills Road
          Hurley, NY 12443
          Telephone: (845) 481-2622

               - and -

          Mary C. Turke, Esq.
          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson Street #209
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 237-1775
          E-mail: mary@turkestrauss.com
                   sam@turkestrauss.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Gabrielli, Esq.
          GABRIELLI LEVITT LLP
          2426 Eastchester Rd., Ste. 103
          Bronx, NY 10469
          Telephone: (718) 708-5322
          E-mail: michael@gabriellilaw.com

               - and -

          Aimee H. Wagstaff, Esq.
          ANDRUS WAGSTAFF LLP
          7171 West Alaska Drive
          Lakewood, CO 80226
          Telephone: (720) 208-9414
          E-mail: aimee.wagstaff@andruswagstaff.com

               - and -

          Nancy G. Miller, Esq.
          MILLER FIRM LLC
          108 Railroad Avenue
          Orange, VA 22960
          Telephone: (540) 672-4224
          E-mail: nmiller@millerfirmllc.com

               - and -

          Robin L. Greenwald, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG P.C.
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 558-5500
          E-mail: rgreenwald@weitzlux.com

MOTEL 6: Judge Lists Number of Concerns with Settlement Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Vandell, writing for Arizona Republic, reports that the
class-action lawsuit against Motel 6 hit a roadblock on Jan. 29
when a federal judge listed a number of concerns he had with the
settlement agreement between the motel chain and the guests the
company is accused of reporting to Immigration and Customs
Enforcement.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF,
and the Ortega Law Firm filed the civil suit on Jan. 23, 2018 on
behalf of the plaintiffs. That came after a report from Phoenix New
Times that motel staff reported Latino guests to ICE despite
lacking evidence about their legal status.

The two parties filed a settlement agreement on Nov. 2 that
included up to $7.6 million in damages to the affected parties. The
settlement agreement divides the plaintiffs into three classes:

Class 1: Anyone who stayed at a Motel 6 between Feb. 1, 2017 and
Nov. 2, 2018, whose guest information was given to federal
immigration authorities.

Class 2: Anyone not part of Class 3 who were questioned by Federal
Immigration Authorities at a Motel 6 because a motel employee
provided their information.

Class 3: Anyone who was placed in immigration removal proceedings
after being questioned by Federal Immigration Authorities when
motel staff provided their guest information.

A list of concerns
Judge David Campbell said one of his biggest concerns was the
settlement agreement failed to show whether the relief provided is
adequate for the class members or if the different class members
are being treated equitably relative to each other.

The settlement states Class 3 members, for instance, would receive
"at least $7,500" in damages but doesn't offer an upper limit.
Judge Campbell acknowledged the agreement includes factors that
could affect what a claimant receives -- such as the number of
dependents they have or the length of their detention -- but
doesn't mention exactly how those factors will impact payouts.

Judge Campbell also told the parties that while the settlement
estimates thousands of people belong to Class 1, it doesn't provide
an estimate for those belonging to Class 2 or 3.

Judge Campbell said he needed estimates on how many Class 2 and 3
members there were, as federal law requires enough class members to
make a class-action lawsuit unfeasible.

"I don't know how I can determine that a class representative is
adequate when I don't know who they are and I don't know anything
about them," Judge Campbell said. "I've got John Doe names. I don't
know who these people are. I don't even know if they're still in
the U.S."

In addition to the monetary damages, the settlement agreement also
requires Motel 6 to train its staff on policies that would defer
requests from federal immigration authorities to the company's
legal department and set up a 24-hour helpline for employees with
questions.

Judge Campbell said he needed estimates on the scale and costs of
implementing these new requirements of the company.

Judge Campbell also said the agreement fails to prove how,
effectively, the courts would notify and distribute money to
affected parties -- the Class 3 members in particular.

"There's no indication of the extent to which defendants had
information about whose names were given to federal enforcement
authorities," Judge Campbell said. "There's nothing in the briefs
about where Class 3 members are now. Are they in the removal
process? If so, do you know where they're located? How do we give
notice to them? How do we give money to them?"

Judge Campbell listed several other concerns, including whether
returned or undistributed money still will be allowed to go into a
separate fund that later distributes the money to a court-approved
organization. The U.S. Supreme Court is debating whether that
should be allowed in the case Frank v. Gaos and its decision could
affect the settlement in its current state.

Response from the defense

Thomas Saenz, president of MALDEF, told Campbell that payouts to
Class 3 members would be at least $7,500 and cap out at $100,000
depending on the factors.

He also told the judge that guest lists from Motel 6 could give the
court a rough estimate in the number of Class 1 members, but it
couldn't prove which guests authorities contacted and what
ultimately happened to the guests afterward.

Mr. Saenz said he could get additional data as possible class
members contact his office, but didn't have ready access to the
appropriate federal data. He said he would attempt to clarify
aspects of the agreement that Campbell pointed out.

Mr. Saenz requested Judge Campbell give his office two months to
change and resubmit materials.

Judge Campbell agreed, giving the plaintiffs a deadline of March 29
and scheduled a future hearing for April 16 at 2 p.m.

Mr. Saenz met with reporters after the hearing and said he remained
confident despite Judge Campbell's decision.

"It does mean a bit of a delay in getting the relief for folks who
we think are very much entitled to relief from what Motel 6 did,"
Mr. Saenz said. "But I'm confident that we'll get there and get a
process in place that will allow all of the folks who were affected
by this practice (to receive compensation)."

He said he respected Judge Campbell's questions and concerns
regarding the rules surrounding class-action cases and would do
what's necessary to reach a final resolution.

"Obviously would lie if I didn't tell you I wish we got out of here
with preliminary approval, but I don't think that what's been put
in front of us is insurmountable." [GN]


NEW PRIME INC: Haworth Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rocky L. Haworth, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. New Prime, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 19-cv-03025 (W.D. Mo., January 22, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and related penalties and damages owed pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

New Prime is into long-haul trucking where Haworth worked as a
driver. Their drivers earn 14 cents per mile but Defendant failed
to compensate its drivers for time rendered transporting cargo;
waiting time; paperwork and logging; truck inspections; fueling up
the truck; and performing routine maintenance. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew R. Crimmins, Esq.
      Virginia Stevens Crimmins, Esq.
      CRIMMINS LAW FIRM, LLC
      214 S. Spring Street
      Independence, MO 64050
      Tel: (816) 974-7220
      Fax: (855) 974-7020
      Email: m.crimmins@crimminslawfirm.com
             v.crimmins@crimminslawfirm.com

             - and -

      Garrett M. Hodes, Esq.
      HODES LAW FIRM, LLC
      900 Westport Road, 2nd Floor
      Kansas City, MO 64111
      Tel: (816) 931-1718
      Fax: (816) 994-6276
      Email: garrett@hodeslawfirm.com


NICOR ENERGY: Vectren Customers May Receive Settlement Payouts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Gnau, writing for Dayton Daily News, reports that some
customers of Vectren may receive settlements from a class-action
lawsuit filed over a third-party "line protection" charge.

An Indiana customer of Vectren sued over the charge in May 2017,
alleging that Nicor Energy Services Co., of Illinois, worked with
Vectren to impose unregulated charges on Vectren customers.

Lead plaintiff Kristyn Plummer alleged in her complaint that her
bill for February 2017 contained a charge of $45.50 for "Vectren
Home Solutions."

Vectren entered into a relationship with Nicor that allowed Nicor
to charge Vectren customers for Nicor charges on Vectren bills, the
suit alleged.

The suit showed a copy of the "balance due" section of Plummer's
bill, including a small-print disclaimer that said failing to pay
would not result in service disconnection."

Nicor's plans are not insurance, but are essentially valueless
repair plans that consumers would not knowingly purchase because
these plans are unnecessary, expensive, and provide very little
coverage, if any at all," the suit charged.

Nicor Energy Services Co. was the sole defendant in the lawsuit.
"Vectren Energy Delivery of Ohio was not a party in the
Plummer/Pyles vs. Nicor settlement," Vectren said in a statement."


Customers who voluntarily elected these services may be receiving
distributions as a result of the recent settlement in the class
action law suit in which Vectren was not named."One reader
contacted Cox Media Group Ohio to say he received a settlement
check for $60.85.

According to a web site answering questions about the settlements,
defendants decided to settle the suit without admitting
wrongdoing.

"The defendant denies all claims and allegations of wrongdoing
asserted in the actions and contends that it acted lawfully and
that it did not violate any applicable law," one statement on the
web site says. "Notwithstanding the denial of liability and alleged
unlawful conduct, the defendant has decided it is in its best
interest to settle the actions to avoid the burden, expense, risk,
and uncertainty of continuing the litigation."

The site says Ohio consumers may be affected by the settlement if
they paid the disputed charge on a Vectren bill between Jan. 1,
2012 and Oct. 10, 2018.It appears federal court in Indiana gave
preliminary approval for the settlement agreement in October 2018.

A Vectren spokeswoman said a response may be forthcoming later.
This story will be updated. [GN]


NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY: Agency Faces Derr et al. Suit in E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northumberland County
Children and Youth Services. The case is captioned as GRACE M.
DERR; WILLIAM J. DERR; and STEPHEN A. DERR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES (NCCYS);
NORTHUMBERLAND COMMISSIONERS; FAMILIES UNITED NETWORK; RICHARD J.
SCHOCH; SAMUEL J. SHICACATANO; KIMBERLY BEST; KATRINA GOWNLEY;
CATHY GEMBERLING; SELISSA MAUGER; LISA SCHAFFERR; MARIE MILKE;
AMANDA WILLIARD; KATHY HOLLABAOUGH; JILL SNYDER; SHAWN HOMAN;
MONIKA HOMAN and KIMBERLY BILLS CARPENTER, Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-00417-MAK (E.D. Pa., Jan. 28, 2019). The case is assigned
to Mark A. Kearney,

Northumberland County Children and Youth Services (NCCYS) is a
county-administered, state-mandated, social service agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


NUTRISYSTEM INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Jan. 29 disclosed that it filed a
class action lawsuit against Nutrisystem, Inc. ("Nutrisystem" or
the "Company") (NasdaqGS: NTRI) and its board of directors (the
"Board"), on behalf of a class consisting of all public
stockholders of Nutrisystem who have been harmed by Nutrisystem in
connection with alleged violations of Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").


On December 9, 2018, Nutrisystem, Tivity Health, Inc. ("PARENT"),
and Sweet Acquisition, Inc., a direct wholly-owned Subsidiary of
PARENT ("Merger Sub") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the "Merger Agreement"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger
Sub will merge with and into Nutrisystem, with Nutrisystem
surviving the merger and becoming a direct, wholly-owned Subsidiary
of PARENT (the "Proposed Transaction").

The Complaint alleges that on January 7, 2019, in order to convince
Nutrisystem's public common stockholders to vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction, PARENT filed a materially incomplete and
misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement (the "Proxy") with the
SEC, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
As stated in the Proxy, upon completion of the Proposed
Transaction, each share of Nutrisystem common stock will be
converted into the right to receive $38.75 in cash, without
interest, and 0.2141 of a share of Tivity Health common stock (the
"Merger Consideration"). The Complaint alleges that the Proxy
contains materially incomplete and misleading information
concerning: (i) the valuation analyses prepared by the Company's
financial advisor, Evercore Group L.L.C. ("Evercore"), in support
of their fairness opinion and (ii) the absence of an analysis of
PARENT.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the April 1, 2019
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]


NZONE GUIDANCE: Hiser and Ace Seek to Certify FLSA Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHEN HISER and DANA ACE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NZONE
GUIDANCE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01056-RP (W.D. Tex.,
Feb. 13, 2019), the Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of
these FLSA classes:

   MWD Class:

   "all MWD Operators employed by, or working on behalf of, Nzone
while classified as independent contractors and paid a day rate at
any time during the last three years"; and

   Directional Driller Class:

   "all Directional Drillers employed by, or working on behalf of,
NZone while classified as independent contractors and paid a day
rate at any time during the last three years."

According to the complaint, in approximately April 2017, Hiser
began working for NZone as an MWD Operator. Thereafter, in
approximately April 2018, Ace began working for Nzone as a
Directional Driller. As an MWD Operator and Directional Driller,
Hiser and Ace performed the same general duties as other NZone day
rate contractors, which included rigging up, operating oilfield and
drilling machinery, steering the drill, collecting and relaying
data, and sending reports to NZone management. The Plaintiffs also
worked towards the same common goal of drilling efficient and
effective wells. In addition to performing similar job duties, the
Plaintiffs who worked for NZone all worked similar hours.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs were generally working at least
12-hour shifts, for seven days a week, for at least two weeks at a
time. The entire time Hiser and Ace worked for NZone, they and
other NZone MWD Operators and Directional Drillers were paid a day
rate (a flat sum of money for each day worked regardless of the
number of hours they actually worked) for all hours worked,
including those hours in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.
NZone never paid the Plaintiffs overtime compensations, despite
these workers regularly working well in excess of 40 hours each
week. The Plaintiffs also never received any guaranteed
compensation for the days or weeks they did not work, the lawsuit
says.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 325-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 325-3300
          E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com
          E-mail: litkin@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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

OMNICARE INC: $1.3MM Deal in Esomonu FCRA Suit Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IJEOMA ESOMONU, Plaintiff, v. OMNICARE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-02003-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California granted in part and denied in part Esomonu's motion
for final approval of class action settlement and for attorneys'
fees.

On May 4, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the the action against
Defendant, alleging that its hiring practices violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").  The Plaintiff then amended the
complaint on July 21, 2016, adding additional state law claims,
including violations of California's Consumer Credit Reporting
Agencies Act ("CCRAA"), and California's Investigative Consumer
Reporting Agencies Act ("ICRAA").

The Plaintiff alleges that she was employed by the Defendant in the
State of California.  When she applied for employment with the
Defendant, she was required to fill out and sign a background check
authorization form and a waiver of liability.  She alleges that the
disclosures required under the FCRA were embedded with extraneous
information" in these forms rather than contained in a stand-alone
document.  The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant failed
to inform her that she had a right to request a summary of her
rights under the FCRA.  She accordingly alleges that the Defendant
obtained credit and background reports on her -- as well as on
other prospective, current, and former employees -- in violation of
federal and state law.  The Defendant answered the complaint on
Aug. 12, 2016, denying all claims and asserting several affirmative
defenses.

On June 13, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a first motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement.  The Court
raised several concerns about the settlement agreement in the two
hearings on the motion for preliminary approval.  Consequently, the
Court denied the Plaintiffs' first motion for preliminary approval
on March 31, 2017.

On May 25, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a second motion for
preliminary approval, which explicitly recognized that any
incentive award paid to the named Plaintiff was subject to the
Court's approval.  The Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval on Aug. 21, 2018.

Following the first preliminary settlement and with the assistance
of a private mediator, the parties entered into the settlement
agreement at issue in the pending motion.

The key terms are:

     a. Class Definition: The Settlement Class consists of all
persons who (1) received Omnicare's background disclosure forms
from May 4, 2010 through May 25, 2018 and (2) had a consumer
report, investigative consumer report, consumer credit report, or
other background check prepared on them that Omnicare procured.

     b. Settlement Benefits: All Settlement Class Members who do
not opt out will receive a settlement cash payment of a pro rata
share of the net settlement fund, which totals $1.3 million, minus
attorneys' fees and costs, settlement administration costs, and the
Named Plaintiff's enhancement payment.

     c. Release: Settlement Class Members who do not choose to opt
out will release any claim for an alleged violation of any
provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the California Consumer
Credit Reporting Agencies Act, California Civil Code section 1785,
the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act,
California Civil Code section 1786, et seq., California Business
and Professions Code section 17200, et seq., or any comparable
provision of federal, state or local law in any way relating to or
arising out of the procurement of, use of, disclosure of intent to
procure, or authorization to procure or use a consumer report,
investigative consumer report, credit check, background check,
criminal history report, reference check, or similar report that
could have been asserted based on the facts alleged in the
pleadings.

     d. Class Notice: Dahl Administration, LLC, a third-party
settlement administrator, sent class notices via U.S. mail to each
member of the class, using a class list provided by the Defendant.
The notice included the nature of the action, a summary of the
settlement terms, instructions on how to object to and opt out of
the settlement, including relevant deadlines, and the released
claims.

     e. Opt-Out Procedure: The parties proposed that any putative
class member who does not wish to participate in the settlement
must have signed and postmarked a written request for exclusion
within 30 days of the mailing of the class notice.

     f. Incentive Award: The Plaintiff asks the Court to award the
named Plaintiff an incentive award of $20,000.

     g. Attorneys' Fees and Costs: The Plaintiff applies for
attorneys' fees in the amount of $433,333.33, and costs and
expenses in the amount of $21,374.63.

     h. Settlement Administrator Expenses: The Plaintiff applies
for settlement administrator expenses in the amount of $80,000.

After considering and weighing the factors, Judge Gilliam finds
that the settlement agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable,
and that the settlement class members received adequate notice.
Accordingly, he granted the Plaintiff's motion for final approval
of class action settlement.

Next, he finds that the Class counsel has provided itemized
documentation demonstrating that the amount requested covers
expenses of filing, document delivery, and travel.  The Defendant
does not oppose the class counsel's request.  The Judge finds the
amount requested by the counsel reasonably incurred, and he granted
the motion for costs in the amount of $21,374.63.

Finally, the Judge finds that the $20,000 incentive payment request
grossly disproportionate: it is inappropriate to award more than
1,000 times the average recovery projected for other class members
to the Named Plaintiff on the record.  However, because the Named
Plaintiff did add value to the class action, the Judge authorized
payment of the presumptively reasonable enhancement award of
$5,000.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Gilliam granted in part and denied in
part Esomonu's motion for final approval of class action settlement
and for attorneys' fees.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 8, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/uxfhza from Leagle.com.

Ijeoma Esomonu, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Omnicare, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Chad Daniel Bernard -- BernardC@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
P.C. & Scott Philip Jang -- scott.jang@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson
Lewis P.C.


OPEN DEALER: Thornburg Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN THORNBURG, Plaintiff, v. OPEN DEALER EXCHANGE,
LLC, d/b/a 700 Credit, Defendant/Third-Party
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Third-Party
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Case No. 17-06056-CV-SJ-ODS (W.D.
Mo.), Judge Otrie D. Smith of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, St. Joseph Division, granted the
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification, Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement, Appointment of Class
Representative, and Appointment of Class Counsel.

In October 2017, Thornburg filed the putative class action against
Open Dealer, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") in that Open Dealer failed to follow reasonable procedures
to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the information
contained in a consumer report produced on the Plaintiff's behalf.
Since that time, Open Dealer filed a third-party complaint against
Trans Union, LLC, which then filed a counterclaim against Open
Dealer.

Now pending is the Plaintiff's Motion.  The Smith Judge has
reviewed the Plaintiff's motion, the suggestions in support
thereof, and the settlement agreement. Having done so, he granted
the Plaintiff's motion.

The Judge conditionally certified the Settlement Class for
settlement purposes only, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2), and defined the Settlement Class as all
consumers in the United States who were the subject of an Open
Dealer consumer report issued between April 4, 2015, and the date
the Court enters its Final Judgment and Order, and which included
the notation Chg-Off or Repo.

At this time, the Judge finds notice to Settlement Class members is
unnecessary.

For purposes of the preliminary approval, for all matters related
to the settlement, and until further Order of the Court, the Judge
appointed Thornburg as the Class Representative of the Settlement
Class, and Jason Brown and Jayson Watkins of the law firm of Brown
and Watkins LLC as the Class Counsel.

A Final Approval Hearing will be held at 9:00 a.m. on June 27,
2019.

Submissions by the parties relative to the settlement and Final
Approval Hearing (e.g., memoranda in support of the settlement,
application for attorneys' fees and expenses, application for
payment of services rendered by Class Representative) will be filed
by no later than May 30, 2019.  A fully executed copy of the
Agreement will also be filed by no later than May 30, 2019.

Pursuant to the Agreement and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
("CAFA"), Open Dealer will send via certified first-class mail,
Federal Express, or a similar delivery method a notice of the
settlement to the appropriate federal and state officials by no
later than 10 days after the Plaintiff filed the pending motion.
By no later than March 15, 2019, Open Dealer will file a
declaration attesting to service of all CAFA notices.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/3u29cs from Leagle.com.

John Thornburg, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Jason Brown --
brown@brownandwatkins.com -- Brown & Watkins, LLC & Jayson A.
Watkins -- watkins@brownandwatkins.com -- Brown & Watkins, LLC.

Open Dealer Exchange, LLC, doing business as, Defendant,
represented by Ronald A. Norwood -- rnorwood@lewisrice.com -- Lewis
Rice LLC & Philip J. Mackey -- pmackey@lewisrice.com -- Lewis Rice
LLC.

Open Dealer Exchange, LLC, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by
Ronald A. Norwood, Lewis Rice LLC & Philip J. Mackey, Lewis Rice
LLC.

Trans Union, LLC, Third Party Defendant, represented by Albert E.
Hartmann -- ahartmann@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, pro hac
vice, Bruce Van Baren -- bvanbaren@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP,
pro hac vice, Michael Charles O'Neil, Reed Smith LLP, pro hac vice
& Todd A. Lubben, Brown & James, PC.

Trans Union, LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by Albert E.
Hartmann, Reed Smith LLP, Bruce Van Baren, Reed Smith LLP, Michael
Charles O'Neil, Reed Smith LLP & Todd A. Lubben, Brown & James,
PC.

Open Dealer Exchange, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by Ronald
A. Norwood, Lewis Rice LLC & Philip J. Mackey , Lewis Rice LLC.


PAM TRANSPORT: Must Face Drivers' FLSA Class Action, Court Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Prevost, writing for Freight Waves, reports that a federal
judge in Arkansas has said that paying drivers by the mile and not
by the hour violates the Fair Labor Standards Act. U.S. District
Judge Timothy Brooks reaffirmed that PAM Transport violated federal
labor laws when they didn't pay their trucker employees at least
minimum wage for every non-sleeping hour spent in their truck. In
October 2018, Judge Brooks upset many in the trucking community
when he ruled that PAM Transport would have to pay their drivers at
least minimum wage for 16 hours each day that they work. There are
3,000 truck drivers in the class-action suit against PAM. Judge
Brooks also allowed the lawsuit to be a class-action suit that can
be tried under Arkansas law. Justin Swidler, the attorney
representing the truck drivers in the PAM case, told Business
Insider that's significant because Arkansas has stronger labor laws
than the federal government. [GN]


PINNACLE STAFFING: Bid to Transfer Cody to District of Kansas Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CORTEZ CODY, Plaintiff, v. PINNACLE STAFFING GROUP,
Defendant, Case No. 18-06185-CV-SJ-ODS (W.D. Mo.), Judge Ortrie D.
Smith of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, St. Joseph Division, denied without prejudice the
Defendant's Motion for Transfer of Venue.

On Nov. 9, 2018, Plaintiff Cody filed a putative class action
against Defendant PSG in the Circuit Court of Clinton County,
Missouri, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA").  Cody contends PSG took an adverse action against him
when it decided not to hire him based upon information in a
consumer report.  He also claims PSG violated the FCRA by (1) not
giving him a reasonable opportunity to review and challenge the
consumer report, (2) not providing a summary of FCRA rights to him
before PSG took the adverse action, and (3) not furnishing copy of
the consumer report to him before PSG took the adverse action.

On Dec. 17, 2018, PSG removed the matter to the Court.
Contemporaneously, PSG moved to transfer the case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1391(b) and 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).  After Cody failed
to timely respond to PSG's motion, the Court directed Cody to show
cause why PSG's motion should not be granted.  Thereafter, Cody
filed his opposition to PSG's motion.  PSG filed its reply.

Judeg Smith finds that although PSG argues its only connection with
the State of Missouri for purposes of the action is that the
Plaintiff resides there, PSG does not discuss or address its
contacts, or lack thereof, with the Western District of Missouri.
Thus, PSG has not established venue is improper under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1391(b)(1).  For this reason, teh Judge denied PSG's motion
to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391.

Teh Judge also finds that PSG fails to set forth how PSG and
Pinnacle Employer Group ("PEG") are "affiliated" with one another,
or what a "sister affiliate" is.  And PSG fails to set forth any
legal basis for the Court to enforce an agreement between Cody and
PEG in a legal action brought by Cody against PSG.  Although Cody
briefly raised this particular issue in his opposition to the
pending motion, PSG did not address this particular issue in its
reply.  Without a legal basis permitting PSG to enforce a forum
selection clause in an agreement between Cody and PEG, the Judge
has no choice but to deny PSG's motion to transfer venue.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Smith denied PSG's motion to
transfer venue without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2019 Order and Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/SYTPAj from Leagle.com.

Cortez Cody, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Jason Brown --
brown@brownandwatkins.com -- Brown & Watkins, LLC & Jayson A.
Watkins -- watkins@brownandwatkins.com -- Brown & Watkins, LLC.

Pinnacle Staffing Group, Defendant, represented by Byron A. Bowles
-- bbowles@mvplaw.com -- Jared Cluck -- jcluck@mvplaw.com --
McAnany, Van Cleave & Phillips, PA. & Gregory P. Goheen --
ggoheen@mvplaw.com -- McAnany, Van Cleave & Phillips, PA..


PLANET FITNESS: Request for TCPA Class Action Arbitration Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Dominic, writing for Club Industry, reports that a federal
judge denied Planet Fitness' arbitration request over a proposed
class action regarding the company's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), according to documents
filed with the District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The proposed lawsuit will go to court on behalf of the original
plaintiff and thousands of Planet Fitness members who he claims to
represent.

Plaintiff Jonnathan Ramos, a Planet Fitness member from 2015 to
2018, is alleging that Planet Fitness' automated text messages
caused him actual harm, including invasion of his privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass,
conversion, inconvenience and disruption to his daily life.

After cancelling his membership, Mr. Ramos received the following
automated text message on Aug. 10, 2018: "Planet Fitness:
JONNATHAN! We're making it easier than ever to come back to PF. For
a limited time you can rejoin for $1 Down and get ONE MONTH FREE.
Use promo code BACK2PF10 for our classic membership or BACK2PFBC
for the PF Black Card! Text STOP to opt-out or HELP for help.
Rejoin Now."

Mr. Ramos filed his lawsuit on Aug. 23, 2018, arguing that the Aug.
10 text message violated the TCPA. Planet Fitness attempted to
compel arbitration via the arbitration clause in the membership
agreement Ramos signed in 2015. However, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes said Ramos was no longer bound by the
agreement, according to court documents.

In her ruling, Judge Otazo-Reyes cited a precedent established in a
2018 federal appeals case, "Gamble v. New Eng. Auto Fin., Inc.,"
and said the Aug. 10 text message relates to "post-agreement
conduct."

Reyes states: "Here, neither the Agreement nor the Arbitration
Provision contemplates future TCPA claims; thus, as in Gamble, the
Text Consent Provision constitutes a 'separate stand-alone
provision.' Therefore, Plaintiff's claim 'arises not from the
[Agreement] or any breach of it, but 'from post-agreement conduct
that allegedly violates a separate, distinct federal law.'"

She continues: "Here, the 'post-agreement conduct' was the sending
of the Text Message, an action that occurred after the Agreement
had been terminated by Plaintiff. Because the Text Consent
Provision was not part of the Agreement, and the Text Message
constituted post-agreement conduct, Plaintiff's TCPA claim is not
arbitrable pursuant to the Arbitration Provision."

A court date has not been set for Ramos' proposed class action
suit.

Several health clubs have already been caught up in TCPA lawsuits
in recent years, including Gold's Gym, 24 Hour Fitness, Town Sports
International, Workout World, Crunch Fitness and Life Time, the
latter of which settled its case for $15 million. [GN]


POPSUGAR INC: O'Brien Suit Remanded to Santa Clara Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CATHY O'BRIEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. POPSUGAR INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04405-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motion to remand to
Santa Clara Superior Court.

On June 7, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed suit against POPSUGAR,
alleging that POPSUGAR misappropriated the identities and
likenesses of internet bloggers, or "influencers," by creating
separate profiles used for POPSUGAR's commercial gain.  The
Plaintiffs alleged state law class action claims under the
California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California common law
right of publicity, and for common law intentional interference
with a contractual relationship and unjust enrichment.  They did
not bring any federal claims.

Th Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that POPSUGAR opened a
"Looks" section of its website, and featured "influencer profiles,
along with images from their Instagram posts."  They further allege
that, for each influencer that PopSugar 'featured' on its website,
it also included their personas, likenesses, logos, and blog
titles.  The complaint goes on to list types of content that
POPSUGAR allegedly misappropriated.

On July 20, 2018, the Defendants removed the action to federal
court, invoking federal question jurisdiction based on the
Copyright Act's complete preemption of the Plaintiffs claims.  On
Aug. 16, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the pending motion to remand.
The Defendants contend that the Court has jurisdiction over the
Plaintiffs' claims because each of their claims is preempted by the
Copyright Act.

Judge Gilliam finds that the subject matter of the Plaintiffs'
contract interference claim is not limited to the use of their
photographs.  The contract claim additionally relies on the
unauthorized removal of third-party affiliates' links that were
associated with the photographs.  The removal of those links is a
key component to the Plaintiffs' claim, and is separate from the
reproduction of their photographs.  For this reason, he holds that
the Plaintiffs' contract interference claim is not preempted by the
Copyright Act.

Next, the complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs and the Class
Members have conferred a benefit upon the Defendants, and the
Defendants have received and retained money from affiliates, all of
which belong to the Plaintiffs and the Class Members as a result of
the Defendants' co-opting their content, likenesses, and identities
and replacing their affiliate links with those of its own.  These
allegations are entirely co-extensive with the Plaintiffs' contract
interference claim, described.  As with the contract interference
claim, an integral component of the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment
claim is separate and separable from the unauthorized used of their
photographs.  For that reason, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs'
unjust enrichment claim is not preempted by the Copyright Act.

Finally, the Judge finds that fhe same reasons discussed with
respect to the Plaintiffs' right of publicity claim, the
Plaintiffs' UCL claim relies on additional rights separate from the
infringement of their copyrighted images.  Therefore, to the extent
the Plaintiffs' UCL claim relies upon their non-preempted state law
claims, the UCL claim is also not preempted.

Because none of the Plaintiffs' state law claims are preempted by
the Copyright Act, Judge Gilliam granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
remand the case.  The clerk is directed to remand the case to Santa
Clara County Superior Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/iIfjJF from Leagle.com.

Cathy O'Brien, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated & Laura Adney, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael Lawrence
Schrag -- mls@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP, Adam Wade
Pittman, Cory Watson, P.C., pro hac vice, Brett Cooper Thompson,
Cory Watson, P.C., pro hac vice, F. Jerome Tapley, Cory Watson,
P.C., pro hac vice, Hirlye R. Ryan Lutz, III, Cory Watson, P.C.,
pro hac vice & Steven Augustine Lopez -- sal@classlawgroup.com --
Girard Gibbs LLP.

Popsugar Inc. & Popsugar Media Inc., Defendants, represented by
Travis S. Silva -- tsilva@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters
LLP, Bevan Augusta Dowd -- bdowd@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest and
Peters LLP & Benedict Y. Hur -- bhur@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest &
Peters LLP.


PROPEL PROPERTY: 4th Cir. Affirms Denial of Dismissal Bid in Curtis
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARRY CURTIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PROPEL PROPERTY
TAX FUNDING, LLC; PROPEL FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 17-2114 (4th Cir.), Judge Allyson
K. Duncan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
affirmed the district court's (i) decision that Curtis has standing
under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ("EFTA"), and (ii) denial
of Propel's motion to dismiss Curtis' Truth in Lending Act ("TILA")
and EFTA claims.

Propel entered into a Tax Payment Agreement ("TPA") with Appellee
Curtis pursuant to Virginia Code section 58.1-3018.  Curtis sued
Propel on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, alleging violations of the TILA, the EFTA, and the
Virginia Consumer Protection Act ("VCPA").

Curtis owed $13,734.43 in residential property taxes to the city of
Petersburg, Virginia and entered into a TPA with Propel to finance
payment of them.  The parties agree that the TPA at issue operates
in conformity with Virginia's statutory framework.  For instance,
the TPA requires Curtis to pay an origination fee equal to ten
percent of his tax obligation, which is the maximum origination fee
allowed under the statute.  The TPA also sets Curtis' interest rate
at 10.95%, below the statutory maximum of 16%, and specifies that
no interest will accrue during the first six months of the
agreement, as the statute requires.  The TPA requires Curtis to
repay Propel in monthly installments for 96 months, which is the
maximum period allowed by the statute.

Curtis nevertheless challenges the TPA and its associated documents
as violating TILA, EFTA, and VCPA.  He brought a proposed class
action against Propel in federal district court, alleging
violations of TILA, EFTA, and VCPA.

Propel moved to dismiss Curtis' claims under TILA and EFTA,
contending that the TPA is not a consumer credit transaction
governed by those statutes.  The district court denied Propel's
motion and sua sponte certified two rulings for interlocutory
review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b): (1) its determination
that Curtis has standing to proceed on his EFTA claims against
Propel and (2) its decision that these TPAs are consumer credit
transactions for purposes of TILA and EFTA.

Propel makes two arguments on appeal.  First, Propel contends that
Curtis does not have standing to bring a claim under EFTA because
he did not adequately allege that Propel required him to agree to
EFTs or that he made or attempted to cancel any EFT payments.
Second, Propel contends that Curtis' complaint does not state a
claim for relief under either TILA or EFTA because the TPA is not a
consumer credit transaction within the terms of those statutes.

Judge Duncan affirmed the district court's determination that
Curtis has standing to proceed on his claims under EFTA because,
viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to Curtis, he has
alleged that he suffered an injury in fact.  Because Propel
allegedly required Curtis to agree to preauthorized EFTs, when the
time comes for Curtis to pay Propel, he will either need to make an
EFT payment or attempt to withdraw his EFT authorization in
response.  Therefore, Curtis' injury is "actual or imminent" for
purposes of standing.

In addition, the Judge concludes that the TPA entered into pursuant
to Virginia Code section 58.1-3018 at issue in case is a consumer
credit transaction subject to TILA and EFTA.  Curtis' residential
property tax obligation as financed by Propel is consumer debt
because it is unconnected with any sort of business transaction or
profit motive.  The debt at issue is not the tax that Curtis owes
to the locality.  Instead, it is one level removed -- it is Curtis'
obligation to Propel, a third party, to repay Propel's financing of
Curtis' tax obligation.  Thus, even to the extent that In re
Stovall holds that property taxes are not consumer debts, that
holding is inapplicable.  She therefore affirmed the district
court's denial of Propel's motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim under those statutes.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/C9ytk8 from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Charles Kalman Seyfarth -- cseyfarth@ohaganmeyer.com --
O'HAGAN MEYER PLLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants.

Thomas Dean Domonoske, CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.,
Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Elizabeth Scott Turner -- eturner@ohaganmeyer.com --
O'HAGAN MEYER PLLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants.

Dale W. Pittman, THE LAW OFFICE OF DALE W. PITTMAN, P.C.,
Petersburg, Virginia, for Appellee.


PROSHARES TRUST II: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Jan. 29 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of ProShares
Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF ("SVXY" or the "Fund")
(NASDAQ:SVXY) pursuant to the May 15, 2017 Registration Statement
and/or between May 15, 2017 and February 5, 2018 (the "Class
Period"). This action was filed in the Southern District of New
York and is captioned Ford v. ProShares Trust II, et al., No.
19-cv-00886.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased shares of SVXY pursuant to the Registration
Statement and/or during the Class Period to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than 60 days from January 30, 2019. If you wish
to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. You
can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/proshares/.

The complaint charges ProShares Trust II, ProShares Capital
Management LLC, certain of their officers and/or directors and the
underwriters of SVXY shares offered for sale during the Class
Period with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
the Securities Act of 1933. The CBOE Volatility Index, or "VIX,"
seeks to measure the expected volatility of the S&P 500. The Fund
is benchmarked to the S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures Index (the
"Index"), an investable index of VIX futures contracts. The
investment objective for the Fund during the Class Period was to
achieve results for a single day that matched (before fees and
expenses) the inverse (-1x) of the daily performance of the Index.

The complaint alleges that, in the Registration Statement and
during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding
the risks of investing in the Fund. Specifically, the Registration
Statement failed to disclose that the Fund was threatened with
catastrophic losses as a result of the Fund's flawed design and the
low-volatility environment and acute liquidity risks that existed
during the Class Period. In addition, during the Class Period
defendants made substantially similar false and misleading
statements as those contained in the Registration Statement in
numerous financial reports and draft prospectuses and registration
statements filed with the SEC.

On Monday, February 5, 2018, the stock market declined, with the
S&P 500 Index ("SPX") dropping 4% amid concerns about rising bond
yields and higher inflation. The market turbulence triggered the
flaw concealed in the SVXY, as the crowded market for VIX futures
contracts spiraled out of control. The VIX rocketed upward to a
high of 38.80 during the day, from a close of 17.31 on Friday,
February 2, 2018 -- a 124% daily spike. The Index experienced a
similar surge, as the price of the VIX futures contracts on which
it was based jumped at the end of the trading day. The price of
SVXY shares, which track the inverse of the Index, declined. By the
close of trading on February 5, 2018, the price of SVXY had dropped
to $71.82 per share, from the prior close of $105.60 per share, a
32% decline. By market open on February 6, 2018, the price of SVXY
shares had plummeted to a low of $11.11, a one-day decline of 90%
from the prior day's high of $107.19 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
SVXY shares pursuant to the Registration Statement and/or during
the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by
Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting
investor class actions including actions involving financial
fraud.

Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading law firms representing
investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices,
Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class
action recoveries in history. For five consecutive years, ISS
Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual
SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in both amount
recovered for shareholders and total number of class action
settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the
securities laws and recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf
of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for
defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in
implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the
financial markets for investors worldwide. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. [GN]


R.J. REYNOLDS: Sheffield's Punitive Damages Award Affirmed in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Appellant, v. MARY E.
SHEFFIELD, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF VALTON
SHEFFIELD, Appellee, Case No. 5D17-2521 (Fla. Dist. App.), Judge
James A. Edwards of the District Court of Appeal of Florida for the
Fifth District Judge Edwards affirmed in part and reversed in part
the $5 million punitive damages award; and remanded for further
proceedings.

Valton Sheffield was first diagnosed with primary lung cancer in
1994, nearly 10 years after he quit smoking.  He had a portion of
the affected lung removed and then underwent radiation and chemical
therapies, which purportedly cured him of that first cancer.  In
2003, he was again diagnosed with lung cancer and underwent similar
treatment.  Three years later, in 2006, he was once again diagnosed
with lung cancer and passed away in 2007.

His widow, Mary Sheffield, was named personal representative of his
estate.  On behalf of the Estate, she timely filed a wrongful death
action seeking compensatory and punitive damages from several
tobacco companies, including Appellant, R.J. Reynolds, based on her
claim that her husband's death was the result of smoking the
Defendants' addictive, harmful cigarettes.  The Estate's complaint
contained counts sounding in negligence, strict liability, fraud by
concealment, and conspiracy to commit fraud, and further alleged
that Mr. Sheffield was a member of the so-called Engle class.

Following trial, the jury returned one verdict finding liability
against Reynolds and awarding $1.8 million in compensatory damages,
and a second verdict awarding $5 million in punitive damages
against Reynolds.

The issue Judge Edwards addresses in the Engle-progeny wrongful
death case is whether to apply the punitive damages statute in
place at the time of the decedent's death or to instead apply the
punitive damages statute in place when the Engle class was
recertified in 1996.  Based on the statute's specific language and
well-established Florida law, he holds that the applicable version
of the punitive damages statute is the 1999 version of section
768.73, Florida Statutes, which was in effect when the instant
wrongful death cause of action accrued on the date of decedent's
death.  

The Judge holds that the Estate's wrongful death cause of action
accrued on the date of Mr. Sheffield's death in 2007, making the
1999 version of section 768.73, Florida Statutes, applicable to the
punitive damages issues in the case and to the possible retrial of
those issues.  He finds that the trial court erred by applying the
pre-1999 version of that statute.  He reversed that portion of the
judgment awarding punitive damages and remanded to the trial court
for further proceedings consistent with his Opinion, which may
include a new trial regarding only punitive damages issues.  He
affirmed the remainder of the final judgment after carefully
considering the additional issues raised by Reynolds.

The Judge is aware that three other district courts of appeal have
reached a different conclusion on this issue; therefore, certified
his Opinion in the case directly and expressly conflicts with the
decisions of R.J. Reynolds v. Konzelman, 248 So.3d 134 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2018); R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Evers, 232 So.3d 457 (Fla.
2d DCA 2017); and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Allen, 228 So.3d 684
(Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

For these reasons, Judge Edwards affirmed in part and reversed in
part.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 8, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/NcSfkk from Leagle.com.

Troy A. Fuhrman -- troy.fuhrman@hwhlaw.com -- and Marie A. Borland
-- marie.borland@hwhlaw.com -- of Hill Ward Henderson, Tampa, Brian
C. Lea -- blea@jonesday.com -- Pro Hac Vice, of Jones Day, Atlanta,
and Charles R. A. Morse -- cramorse@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day,
New York, for Appellant.

David J. Sales, and Daniel R. Hoffman, of David J. Sales, P.A.,
Sarasota, and Melvin B. Wright, and Lisa Thomas, of Colling,
Gilbert Wright & Carter, LLC, Orlando, for Appellee.


RANDALL-REILLY LLC: Fabricant Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant and Keith Hobbs, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Randall-Reilly, LLC and
Yodel Technologies, LLC, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-00009 (M.D. Ga., January 22, 2019), seeks injunctive relief,
statutory damages, treble damages and all other relief for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Randall-Reilly provides marketing services to companies in the
automobile industry. It employed Yodel Technologies to conduct
telemarketing campaigns in order to promote its business. Fabricant
and Hobbs claims to have received auto-dialed telemarketing calls
on their phones. Fabricant's phone is registered in the National
Do-Not-Call registry. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven H. Koval, Esq.
      THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
      3575 Piedmont Road
      Building 15, Suite 120
      Atlanta, GA 30305
      Telephone: (404) 513-6651
      Facsimile: (404) 549-4654
      Email: Steve@KovalFirm.com


REALPAGE INC: Monfort Sues over Credit Background Checks
--------------------------------------------------------
LAKENYA K. MONFORT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REALPAGE, INC. doing business as:
Leasing Desk, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00479-ELR-AJB (N.D. Ga.,
Jan. 29, 2019) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The case is assigned to Judge Eleanor L. Ross and referred to
Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman.

RealPage, Inc. provides software and data analytics for the real
estate industry in the United States. RealPage, Inc. was founded in
1998 and is headquartered in Richardson, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Jackson Cole, Esq.
          MCRAE BERTSCHI & COLE, LLC
          1350 Center Drive, Suite 200
          Dunwoody, GA 30338
          Telephone: (678) 999-1105
          Facsimile: (404) 525-4347
          E-mail: cjc@mcraebertschi.com

               - and -

          Craig Edward Bertschi, Esq.
          MCRAE BERTSCHI & COLE, LLC
          1350 Center Drive, Suite 200
          Dunwoody, GA 30338
          Telephone: (678) 999-1102
          E-mail: ceb@mcraebertschi.com


RUSS & DAUGHTERS: Settles Former Employees' Wage, OT Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bowery Boogie reports that it looks like Russ & Daughters was the
recent target of a class action lawsuit and subsequent settlement.

A tipster, whose former roommate previously worked for the
105-year-old Lower East Side appetizing company, sent a copy of the
document. The notice summarizes the allegations of a onetime Russ &
Daughters employee who worked at the Jewish Museum outpost on the
Upper East Side. Namely that the business failed to "pay the proper
minimum wages and overtime due to a policy of time-shaving, and
failed to meet the New York Labor Law requirements on wage
statements and notices."

The complaint names Fourth on Fifth LLC, Niki Russ Federman, and
Joshua Russ Tupper as defendants in the case.

The mailer further states that the class includes those who worked
for any of the three Russ & Daughters establishments between
September 14, 2011 and July 20, 2018. Pool of available settlement
money to split is $250,000. [GN]

SCOUT BOATS: Website not Accessible to Blind, Bishop Says
---------------------------------------------------------
CEDRIC BISHOP AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the the Plaintiffs, v. SCOUT BOATS, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01321-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2019), alleges that
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website at WWW.SCOUTBOATS.COM to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, a violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired
and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to
read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the
terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with
visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in
that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or
equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have
limited vision. Others have no vision.  Based on a 2010 U.S. Census
Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United
States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind,
and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015
report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the
State of New York.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: 212 228 9795
          Facsimile: 212.982.6284
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com



SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Quaile Sues over Workers' Compensation Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD H. QUAILE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. S19C-02-028 ESB (Del. Super. Ct.,
Feb. 12, 2018), seeks declaratory and other relief arising from the
Defendant's alleged violations of 19 Del. C. section 2362.

The case is a class action brought on behalf of all persons whose
Delaware workers' compensation claim was first submitted to
Sedgwick at any time since February 12, 2016, where Sedgwick
responded to the submission with a standardized "checklist" form
Sedgwick provides third-party claims administration (or "TPA")
services to Delaware workers' compensation insurers. Under Delaware
law, a TPA's duty of good faith and fair dealing is coextensive
with that of the insurer. See Thomas v. Harford Mut. Ins. Co., 2003
WL 21742143 (Del. Super. Ct. July 25, 2003).

Since at least February 2016, Sedgwick has handled large volumes of
Delaware workers' compensation claims as TPA on behalf of one or
more insurers.  According to the lawsuit, Sedgwick routinely and
wrongfully purports to satisfy the requirements of 19 Del. C.
section 2362(a) by sending claimants a standardized "checklist"
form that Sedgwick refers to as a "Section 2362 Notice." In
situations where Sedgwick has failed to reached a determination
regarding the compensability of the claimant's workplace accident
and/or injuries within the statutory 15-day window.

The harm caused by Sedgwick's use of the offending form is concrete
and substantial, the lawsuit contends. First, in cases where the
claim is or should be covered, Sedgwick's use of the form
necessarily delays the processing of the claim; and this naturally
imposes hardship on the claimant. Delays in the provision of
covered wage replacement benefits can be devastating to an injured
worker's financial condition, causing harm not just to the worker
but to his or her family, including dependent children. Delays in
the payment of covered medical services, or in furnishing covered
medical supplies, can jeopardize and delay an injured worker's
access to needed health care. And unless an injured worker knows
the reasons why compensability of a workers' compensation claim has
been denied, or why Sedgwick purports to be unable to determine the
claim's compensability, the worker is deprived of a fair and
meaningful chance to contest (or even meaningfully evaluate)
Sedgwick's position. That is why, as a matter of hornbook law,
insurers bear a duty to inform claimants of coverage determinations
with reasonable promptness, and in a manner that allows the
claimant to protect his or her rights.

In addition, Sedgwick uses its "Section 2362 Notice" form as a
means of avoiding, and effectively repealing, the Delaware General
Assembly's mandate that insurers -- and, by extension, their TPAs
-- attempt in good faith to reach coverage determinations within 15
days of first notice of injury. By routinely avoiding the statutory
15-day deadline, Sedgwick subverts the public policy that underlies
Delaware's workers' compensation scheme, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          John S. Spadaro, Esq.
          JOHN SHEEHAN SPADARO, LLC
          54 Liborio Lane
          Smyrna, DE 19977
          Telephone: (302) 235-7745

SERVICE KING: Removes Ajemyan et al. Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case HAGOP AJEMYAN, and HUGO GUTIERREZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. SERVICE KING PAINT & BODY, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No.
18STCV09333) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on January 28, 2019. The clerk of court for the Central
District of California assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00644-CAS-KS. The
case is assigned to Judge Dale S. Fischer, and referred to
Magistrate Karen L. Stevenson.

Service King Paint & Body, LLC is engaged in the business of auto
body repair and painting, in Richardson, Texas. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
          Tim L. Johnson, Esq.
          Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq.
          Nikolas T. Djordjevski, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 652-3100
          Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
          E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
                  tim.johnson@ogletree.com
                  jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com
                  nikolas.djordjevski@ogletree.com


SKINNYCORP LLC: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Dawson Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN DAWSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SKINNYCORP, LLC d/b/a THREADLESS, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01394-AT (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2019),
alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website at www.threadless.com to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, a violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired
and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to
read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the
terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with
visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in
that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or
equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have
limited vision. Others have no vision.  Based on a 2010 U.S. Census
Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United
States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind,
and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015
report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the
State of New York.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12 th Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com

SRAH BAKERY: Settlement of Polanco et al. Suit Wins Initial Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, KELLY POLANCO, ANA MENDEZ, and ADELINA
MELARA on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. SRAH BAKERY, INC. d/b/a STRAUSS BAKERY, G.E.S.
BAKERY, INC., TZVI GOLDSTEIN, and ELLIOT BERMAN, the Defendants,
Case No. No. 18-cv-02530 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Brian M.
Cogan entered an order on Feb. 13, 2019:

   1. granting preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement;

   2. granting class certification under Fed. R. Civ.P.23(b)(3) for
settlement purposes only;

   3. appointing Law Offices of Jeffrey E. Goldman as class
counsel;

   4. approving Notice of Proposed Class Action Lawsuit
Settlement;

   5. directing Settlement Class Members to have 90 days from the
mailing of the Notice to object to the settlement or opt out of the
class; and

   6. scheduling a Fairness Hearing to take place on May 30, 2019,
at 10 o'clock in the morning at which the Court will consider
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement, attorneys'
fees and costs, and enhancement awards.[CC]

STAGER TRAVEL: Lim et al. Seek Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
PIM-PIM LIM, YANJUN ZHOU AND YIWEN ZHU, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. STAGER TRAVEL &
CHARTERS INC., AEOLUS COACHLINES LLC, RICHARD WAI KIONG CHAN, YI
JUN CHEN, and FRANK WAIYIN CHAU, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01370 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2019), seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and/or attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law.

The action alleges that the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their
employees, including Plaintiffs, compensation for all hours worked,
minimum wage, and overtime compensation for all hours worked over
40 each workweek  and spread of hours, as well as failing to
provide their employees, including the Plaintiffs, with wage notice
at the time of hiring and wage statements, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Xiaoxi Liu, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Avenue
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353-6288

T-MOBILE USA: $980K Black Labor Suit Settlement Has Prelim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESSE BLACK, Plaintiff, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-04151-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California granted the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement.

On Jan. 31, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the putative labor and
employment class action in Alameda Superior Court, alleging that he
worked for T-Mobile as a Senior Field Technician and was denied
adequate overtime compensation as well as meal and rest periods
from approximately 2008 through 2015.

On the basis of these facts, the Plaintiff asserts nine causes of
action on behalf of himself and the putative class for: (1) unpaid
overtime; (2) unpaid minimum wage; (3) failure to provide meal
periods; (4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) failure to
provide accurate wage statements and maintain payroll records; (6)
failure to pay wages upon termination; (7) failure to provide
reporting time pay; (8) unlawful business practices; and (9) unfair
business practices.  On July 21, 2017, Defendant removed the state
court action to the Court.

Following extensive formal discovery and with the assistance of a
mediator, the parties eventually entered into a settlement
agreement on Oct. 10, 2018.

The key terms are:

     a. Class Definition: The settlement includes all means all
persons who have worked for the Defendant as non-exempt,
hourly-paid field technicians in California at any time from Feb.
1, 2013 through the date of Preliminary Approval.

     b. Settlement Benefits: The Defendant will pay a total
settlement amount of $980,000, including settlement payments to all
the Class Members totaling an estimated $594,580, administrative
costs estimated at $10,000, incentive awards, any attorneys' fees
and costs award, and a payment of $18,750 to the Labor Workforce
Development Agency pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of
2004.  The individual settlement payments will be calculated
proportionately based on the number of workweeks a class member
worked during the class period.  The individual settlement amounts
will average approximately $2,970.

     c. Release: All settlement class members will release all
claims, rights, demands, liabilities, and causes of action, arising
from, or related to, the claims alleged or which could have been
alleged in the proposed First Amended Complaint based on the same
set of operative pleaded facts.

     d. Class Notice: A third-party settlement administrator will
send class notices via U.S. mail to each member of the class, using
a class list provided by the Defendant.  The notice will include:
the nature of the action, a summary of the settlement terms, and
instructions on how to object to and opt out of the settlement,
including relevant deadlines.

     e. Opt-Out Procedure: The parties propose that any putative
class member who does not wish to participate in the settlement
must sign and postmark a written request for exclusion to the
settlement administrator no later than 30 days after the date
notice is mailed.

     f. Incentive Award: The Named Plaintiff will apply for an
incentive award of no more than $10,000, subject to the approval of
the Court.

     g. Attorneys' Fees and Costs: The Plaintiff will file an
application for attorneys' fees not to exceed one third of the
settlement fund ($326,667), and costs not to exceed $20,000.

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.

Judge Gilliam granted the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement.  He appointed Black as the
class representative, and Capstone Law APC as the class counsel.

The parties are directed to meet and confer and stipulate to a
schedule of dates for each of the following events, which will be
submitted to the Court within seven days of the date of the Order:

     a. deadline for Settlement Administrator to mail notice to all
putative class members;

     b. filing Deadline for attorneys' fees and costs motion;

     c. filing deadline for incentive payment motion;

     d. deadline for the class members to opt-out or object to
settlement and/or application for attorneys' fees and costs and
incentive payment; and

     e. filing deadline for final approval motion Final fairness
hearing and hearing on motions.

The parties are further directed to implement the proposed class
notice plan.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 8, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/vSlGF2 from Leagle.com.

Jesse Black, Plaintiff, represented by Arnab Banerjee --
Arnab.Banerjee@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC.

T-Mobile USA, Inc, Defendant, represented by Gregory G. Iskander --
giskander@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Keith Adam Jacoby
-- kjacoby@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Sophia Behnia --
sbehnia@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Perry Kim Miska --
pmiska@littler.com -- Jr., Littler Mendelson, P.C.


TBC CORP: Sued for Failing to Collect Safety Recall Data
--------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that independent
tire retailer TBC Corp. is accused in a new lawsuit of failing to
collect federally-required information from customers that could be
crucial in the event of safety recalls.

Bruce Exum Jr. and Emilie Palmer say TBC and its subsidiary
National Tire and Battery failed to give their customers tire
registration forms. These forms provide tire manufacturers with the
customers' contact information, so they can be reached in case
their tires need to be recalled. [GN]


TEXAS: Court Denies Certification of Lynn Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the case, CARROLL RAY LYNN JR, v. LORIE DAVIS, Civil Action No.
M-18-162 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Micaela Alvarez of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Mcallen Division, denied
Lynn's Motion for Class Action Certification.

Petitioner Lynn's Motion for Class Action Certification had been
referred to the Magistrate Court for a report and recommendation.
On Jan. 28, 2019, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and
Recommendation, recommending that the Petitioner's Motion be
denied.  The time for filing objections has passed and no
objections have been filed.  However, the Petitioner has filed a
motion requesting the case remain on the docket as a 28 U.S.C.
Section 2254 motion.  

Judge Alvarez holds that the disposition of the motion for class
action certification does not dispose of anything other than that
motion.  Thus, the case remains on the docket.  As to the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), she has reviewed the Report and
Recommendation for clear error.  Finding no clear error, she
adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
Accordingly, she denied the Petitioner's Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/vNMUn1 from Leagle.com.

Carroll Ray Lynn, Jr, Plaintiff, pro se.

Lorie Davis, Defendant, represented by Benjamin Graham Lancaster,
Office of the Attorney General & Edward Larry Marshall, Office of
the Attorney General.


THGPP LLC: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Dawson Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN DAWSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THGPP LLC d/b/a LOOKFANTASTIC.COM, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01342 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 12, 2019),
alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website at www.lookfantastic.com to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, a violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired
and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to
read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the
terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with
visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in
that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or
equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have
limited vision. Others have no vision.  Based on a 2010 U.S. Census
Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United
States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind,
and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015
report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the
State of New York.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12 th Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Davis Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems
Inc. The case is styled as May Davis individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Transworld Systems
Inc., JH Portfolio Debt Equities, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00898-MKB-SJB (E.D. N.Y., Feb. 14, 2019).

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

Transworld Systems Inc. provides accounts receivable, debt
recovery, and past due accounts services for businesses, medical
companies, dental companies, education facilities, Fortune 500
companies, and small businesses in the United States and
internationally.

JH Portfolio Debt Equities LLC is a debt buyer who files collection
lawsuits against consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
     Barshay Sanders, PLLC
     100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 203-7600
     Fax: (516) 281-7601
     Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


TRINITY CAPITAL: Loar Balks at Merger with Enterprise Financial
---------------------------------------------------------------
BERNICE LOAR, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TRINITY CAPITAL CORPORATION, GREGORY G.
ANTONSEN, JAMES F. DEUTSCH, JAMES E. GOODWIN JR., JOHN S. GULAS,
JEFFREY F. HOWELL, SAMUEL T. HUBBARD JR., ARUTHUR B. MONTOYA, JR.,
LESLIE NATHANSON JURIS, ANTHONY R. SCAVUZZO, AND CHARLES A.
SLOCOMB, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01340 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 12,
2019), alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. section
240.14a-9, in connection with a proposed acquisition of Trinity by
Enterprise Financial Services, Inc.

According to the complaint, on November 1, 2018, Trinity and its
wholly-owned subsidiary bank, Los Alamos National Bank, entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Enterprise Financial
Services Corp and Enterprise???s wholly owned subsidiary bank,
Enterprise Bank & Trust.  The Merger Agreement provides for the
merger of Trinity with and into Enterprise, with Enterprise
surviving the merger.  Under the terms of the Merger Agreement,
each share of Trinity common stock will be converted into the right
to receive: (i) $1.84 in cash (the "Cash Consideration"); and (ii)
0.1972 shares of Enterprise common stock.

On January 31, 2019, to convince Trinity???s public common
shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the
Defendants authorized the filing of a materially incomplete
and misleading Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement with the
SEC, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections for
Trinity and Enterprise; (ii) the valuation analyses performed by
Trinity???s financial advisor, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.
("KBW"), in support of its fairness opinion; and (iii) the
background process leading up to the Proposed Transaction. The
special meeting of the Company???s shareholders to vote on the
Proposed Transaction is scheduled for March 5, 2019.

Trinity Capital Corporation operates as the bank holding company
for Los Alamos National Bank that provides various banking products
and services to individuals, businesses, and government
organizations.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

ULTA SALON: Removes Scarpino Case to California Central District
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. removed the case captioned
as, VICTORIA ROWE, PAULINA SCARPINO, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, vs. ULTA, INC.,
and DOES 1 to 100, the Defendants, Case. No. 18STCV08559 (Filed
Dec. 14, 2018), from the Los Angeles Superior Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 12,
2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:19-cv-01074 to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts eight causes of action: California Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 penalties; meal period
violation; rest period violation; wage and hour violation; wage
statement penalty; work expenditure reimbursement; waiting time
penalty; and violation of Unfair Competition Law.

Ulta sells beauty products in its stores. The products come from
more than 10 500 brands. Ulta allows the brands to send their own
representatives to work in Ulta stores to promote the brands'
products. Ulta currently operates 150 stores in California.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          David D. Kadue, Esq.
          David D. Jacobson, Esq.
          Jinouth D. Vasquez Santos, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: dkadue@seyfarth.com
                  djacobson@seyfarth.com
                  jvasquezsantos@seyfarth.com

UNITED STATES: Back Pay for Investigative Specialists Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF NO. 1, PLAINTIFF NO. 2, and PLAINTIFF NO. 3, the
Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00242-EDK (Fed. Cl., Feb. 12, 2019), seeks to recover from
Defendant back pay, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The case is a civil action brought by Plaintiffs who are employees
of the Defendant United States of America, in its Department of
Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Plaintiffs are or
were employed as Investigative Specialists ("IS") in occupational
series GS-1801, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Linda Lipsett, Esq.
          Jules Bernstein, Esq.
          Michael Bernstein, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN & LIPSETT, P.C.
          1130 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 950
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 296-1798
          Facsimile: (202) 496-0555
          E-mail: chouse@bernsteinlipsett.com
                  chouse@bernsteinlipsett.com

               - and -

          Daniel M. Rosenthal, Esq.
          Alice Hwang, Esq.
          JAMES & HOFFMAN, P.C.
          1130 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 950
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 496-0500
          Facsimile: (202) 496-0555
          E-mail: dmrosenthal@jamhoff.com
                  achwang@jamhoff.com

UXIN LIMITED: Faces Securities Class Action Over IPO
----------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody ("SS&B") on Jan. 28 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Uxin Limited ("Uxin" or the "Company") (NYSE:UXIN),
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's June 27, 2018, initial
public offering ("IPO").

The investigation concerns whether Uxin's filings with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the IPO
contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted material
information, thereby injuring investors.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Uxin's securities
pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO may contact Stull, Stull &
Brody, by email to UXIN@ssbny.com, by telephone at 1-212-687-7230,
Ext. 147, or by fax to 1-212-490-2022.  

You may retain Stull, Stull & Brody, or other counsel of your
choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

SS&B has litigated class actions for violations of securities laws
and breaches of fiduciary duty on behalf of defrauded investors
over the past 40 years and has obtained court approval of
substantial settlements on numerous occasions.  SS&B has offices in
New York and California.  SS&B's website (www.ssbny.com) has
additional information about the firm. [GN]


VALET PARKING: Fails to Pay Overtime to Attendants, Garcia Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS GARCIA GARCIA, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. VALET
PARKING PROFESSIONALS LLC, an Illinois limited liability company,
ABSOLUTE VALET PARKING CORP., an Illinois corporation, and LUIS M.
GONZALEZ, an individual, Case No. 1:19-cv-00828 (N.D. Ill.,
February 8, 2019), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance
for the Defendants' alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff and other
valet parking attendants overtime premium for hours worked over 40
in a workweek.

Valet Parking Professionals LLC is an Illinois limited liability
company that is engaged in the valet parking business and operates
multiple valet parking locations at restaurants and businesses
located throughout this judicial district, including a location
adjacent to the Chicago Cut Steakhouse in Chicago, Illinois.

Absolute Valet Parking Corp. is an Illinois corporation that
operated a valet parking business including multiple valet parking
locations at restaurants and businesses located throughout this
judicial district, including a location adjacent to the Chicago Cut
Steakhouse in Chicago, Illinois.  Luis M. Gonzalez is the owner and
manager of Valet Parking Professionals and Absolute Parking.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
          Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
          NOLAN LAW OFFICE
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 322-1100
          Facsimile: (312) 322-1106
          E-mail: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com
                  sengelson@nolanwagelaw.com


VBFS INC: Aguilar to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Lorena Martinez Aguilar and Manuel Carranza Cayetano, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VBFS
Inc., Virgilio Branco and Fernando Pinho Sanches, Defendants, Case
No. 19-cv-00621 (S.D. N.Y., January 22, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages and redress for failure to
provide itemized wage statements pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located at 529 Broome
Street, New York, NY 10013 under the name "M&M Market Deli" where
Plaintiffs worked as delivery workers and cashiers. They worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
spread-of-hours and overtime compensation for the hours that they
worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping
of the hours worked. Their actual duties, in payroll records, were
as a delivery worker instead of as a non-tipped employee, thus
allowing Defendants to pay them above the tip-credit rate, but
below the minimum wage. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Cerveny's Bid to Certify Class Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin dismisses the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification in the lawsuit captioned MANDY
CERVENY v. VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01486-WED
(E.D. Wisc.).

On September 6, 2018, Plaintiff Mandy Cerveny filed an amended
motion to certify class, according to the Order.  She also sought
to seal portions of the motion and supporting documents.  The
parties then requested that the matter be referred to mediation.

The Court stayed briefing on the motion pending completion of the
mediation.  The parties did not settle the matter at the mediation,
and on January 29, 2019, the Court held a telephonic status
conference to discuss further scheduling.

The Court set March 29, 2019, as the deadline for Ms. Cerveny to
file an amended motion for class certification.  In light of this
new schedule, Ms. Cerveny's pending motion for class certification
is moot and dismissed as such.

Ms. Cerveny's motion to restrict documents to case participants is
granted.  The documents filed as ECF Nos. 35, 36, and 37-7 shall be
restricted to case participants.  Documents filed as ECF Nos. 35-1
and 36-1 shall be accessible to the public, according to the
Order.[CC]


VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA: Court Denies 2nd Bid to Remand Kelly Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER KELLY, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-5672 (E.D. Pa.), Judge
Mitchell S. Goldberg of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (i) denied the Plaintiff's Second Renewed
Motion to Remand; and (ii) denied as moot the Defendants' Motion to
Preclude the Introduction of Testimony by Certain Witnesses.  The
Defendants will file a response to the Complaint within 21 days
from the date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/B8MaRh from Leagle.com.

CHRISTOPHER KELLY, INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by DAVID S. SENOFF --
dsenoff@anapolweiss.com -- Anapol Weiss, CLAYTON PATRICK FLAHERTY
-- cflaherty@anapolweiss.com - ANAPOL WEISS, HILLARY B. WEINSTEIN
-- hweinstein@anapolweiss.com -- ANAPOL WEISS & SOL H. WEISS --
sweiss@anapolweiss.com -- ANAPOL WEISS.

VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA, LLC & VERIZON ONLINE PENNSYLVANIA
PARTNERSHIP, Defendants, represented by BRADLY A. NANKERVILLE --
nankervilleb@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, BRIAN T. FEENEY
-- feeneyb@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, ERIC D. WONG --
wonge@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG & PHILIP R. SELLINGER --
sellingerp@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG.

VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, represented by BRIAN T. FEENEY,
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP.


VERIZON WIRELESS: Arbitration Bid Denial in Bateman Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VERIZON WIRELESS PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS, LP,
Appellant, v. CHRISTOPHER BATEMAN, Appellee, Case No. 2D18-161
(Fla. Dist. App.), Judge Edward C. LaRose of the District Court of
Appeal of Florida for the Second District affirmed the trial
court's nonfinal order denying Vertizon's motion to compel
arbitration.

In 2011, Mr. Bateman obtained cell phone service from Verizon.  Mr.
Bateman agreed to the terms of Verizon's Customer Agreement.  The
Customer Agreement included an arbitration provision and stated
that Verizon could unilaterally change the Customer Agreement at
any time.  Verizon revised the arbitration provision in 2012.

Mr. Bateman cancelled his Verizon service in March 2013.  A little
more than a year later, Mr. Bateman filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy
petition.  He identified Verizon as a general unsecured creditor
for $481.  In August 2014, the bankruptcy court discharged Mr.
Bateman's debts, including the Verizon debt.  As a result, Verizon
was prohibited from trying to collect the discharged debt from Mr.
Bateman.

After the bankruptcy discharge, Verizon allegedly hired a debt
collector, Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., to send Mr. Bateman a debt
collection notice.  In mid-January 2015, Convergent sent a notice
telling Mr. Bateman that he owed Verizon $568.02 but that
Convergent would settle the claim for about $200.

Mr. Bateman sued Verizon and Convergent in federal district court,
alleging that Verizon violated the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act ("FCCPA"), and that Convergent violated the FCCPA and
the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  After Mr.
Bateman voluntarily dismissed his federal claim, the district court
dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Mr. Bateman then sued Verizon in state court.  He alleged that
Verizon attempted to collect a debt previously discharged in the
bankruptcy court, in violation of the FCCPA.  He sought to proceed
on a class-action basis.

Verizon moved to compel arbitration.  The trial court denied
Verizon's motion, citing Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., and Harrier v.
Verizon Wireless Pers. Communications LP ("Harrier I"),
reconsideration denied.  The trial court found that Harrier I was
analogous to the action and particularity persuasive.

Mr. Bateman also filed class claims in the bankruptcy court,
seeking to hold Verizon in contempt for allegedly violating the
discharge order.  Verizon unsuccessfully tried to stay the
bankruptcy claims and compel arbitration.

Verizon challenges the trial court's nonfinal order denying its
motion to compel arbitration.

Judge LaRose concludes that the trial court erred in denying the
motion to compel arbitration by applying Harrier I's flawed
reasoning.  He explained that the bankruptcy order discharged Mr.
Bateman's personal liability as to his debts, not the entire
Customer Agreement and arbitration provision therein.  The
arbitration provision remained valid even in the absence of a
reaffirmation agreement.  Nevertheless, bound as they are by
Seifert, the Judge affirmed the trial court's denial of Verizon's
motion to compel arbitration because Mr. Bateman's FCCPA claims do
not have a significant relationship to the Customer Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 8, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Vrnwso from Leagle.com.

R. Eric Bilik -- ebilik@mcguirewoods.com -- Emily Y. Rottmann --
erottmann@mcguirewoods.com -- and Daniel Mahfood of McGuire Woods
LLP, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Katherine Earle Yanes -- kyanes@kmf-law.com -- and Brandon K.
Breslow -- bbreslow@kmf-law.com -- of Kynes, Markman & Felman,
P.A., Tampa; and Brian L. Shrader and Gus M. Centrone of Dunlap
Bennett & Ludwig, PLLC, Tampa, for Appellee.


VESTIAIRE COLLECTIVE : Website not Accessible to Blind, Dawson Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN DAWSON, on behalf oft himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. VESTIAIRE COLLECTIVE USA, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01388-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2019),
alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website at www.vestiairecollective.com to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people, a violation of the Plaintiff's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impaired
and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to
read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the
terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with
visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in
that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or
equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have
limited vision. Others have no vision.  Based on a 2010 U.S. Census
Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United
States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind,
and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015
report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the
State of New York.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12 th Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com

VIRGINIA BEACH: Marcotte Nixed from Andreana Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Raymond A. Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, dismissed Plaintiff
Margaret S. Marcotte from the case, JOSEPH H. ANDREANA, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. VIRGINIA
BEACH CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, and, SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF
VIRGINIA BEACH, Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-574 (E.D.
Va.).

The action stems from a series of allegations of age discrimination
against Virginia Beach public schools.  Andreana claims that in
2015, Virginia Beach City Public Schools and the School Board of
Virginia Beach informed all 104 Computer Resource Specialist
("CRS") employees that the position would cease to exist, and the
Defendants would create only 84 Information Technology Specialist
("ITS") positions.  The Defendants allegedly required all former
CRSs to reapply to the new ITS positions, directly competing with
other employees and the general public.  Of the 104 former CRSs, 99
of them applied to be ITSs, while there were 100 other applicants.

The Defendants used a "screening and evaluation process and policy"
in selecting candidates for the ITS positions.  The Plaintiffs
claim that this process and policy was willfully discriminatory
because it disregarded older candidates in favor of younger ones.
They allege that the Defendants selected individuals for the ITS
position based on age, even though they allegedly were better
qualified and met all expectations in carrying out their duties as
CRSs.  As a result of this alleged discrimination, the Plaintiffs
allegedly were forced to accept positions with the Defendants at
lower pay or retire.

Andreana filed his Complaint for the collective action on behalf of
himself on Nov. 7, 2017.  He alleged three claims under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA"): disparate
treatment, disparate impact, and pattern and practice
discrimination.

On Nov. 20, 2017, Marcotte filed her individual action.  She
alleges claims for disparate treatment, disparate impact, and
retaliation under the ADEA for similar conduct from 2015 through
2017.  On Jan. 2, 2018, Marcotte amended her Complaint.  In her
Amended Complaint, she dropped her disparate impact claim but
continued with the two other claims.  The same attorney represents
both Andreana's collective action and Marcotte's individual
action.

On May 9, 2018, the Court issued two Orders in the instant case.
In its first Order, the Court conditionally certified the
collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).  In its second
Order, it granted in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss.  On
May 23, 2018, the Court approved Andreana's collective action
notice.  All additional Plaintiffs needed to file their notices to
opt in by Aug. 21, 2018.  Marcotte joined the collective action to
pursue her 2015 disparate treatment and disparate impact claims on
June 4, 2018.

On Sept. 14, 2018, the Counsel filed Motions to Consolidate in both
cases.  In these motions, the Counsel sought to consolidate
Marcotte's 2015-2017 disparate treatment claim in her individual
action with the instant collective action, while still allowing
Marcotte's 2015-2017 retaliation claim to continue in the
individual action.  On Dec. 17, 2018, the Court denied the Motion
in the Andreana case because the consolidation would be claim
splitting.  On Jan. 2, 2019, Chief Judge Davis denied the Motion in
the Marcotte case based on the reasoning of the Dec. 17, 2018
Andreana Order.

On Dec. 31, 2018, the Defendants filed a letter with the Court, in
which they informed the Court that Marcotte has refused to choose
whether to pursue her claims in one action or the other.  On Jan.
14, 2019, the Court issued an order in the Andreana collective
action that directed Marcotte to elect within 10 days whether she
wished to pursue her disparate treatment claim in the collective
and therefore drop the claim from her individual action, or if she
wished to drop out of the collective action and pursue her
disparate treatment claim in her individual action.

On Jan. 24, 2019, the Counsel filed Marcotte's response and
indicated that consolidating the claims was not claim splitting.
The Counsel stated that Marcotte refuses to "make a forced
election" and will continue pursuing her disparate treatment claim
in both actions.  The Counsel has filed neither a motion for
reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) nor a
notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)
with respect to either the Andreana Dec. 17, 2018 Order or the
Marcotte Jan. 2, 2019 Order.

Judge Jackson finds that if Marcotte were to remain in the
collective action and had to drop her disparate treatment claim
from her individual action, she would only be able to pursue such
claims for the 2015 year and would be barred by res judicata from
pursuing her 2016 and 2017 claims.  Allowing her to pursue the
disparate treatment claim in her first-filed individual action
would allow her to pursue her claim for all three years.  The Judge
understands that there will be two cases with overlapping subject
matter before it.  However, Marcotte would now only be involved in
one action, so there will be no duplicitous production of discovery
and other filings that relate to her specific claims.  Judicial
economy must sometimes bend towards the equitable discretion the
Court possesses over managing its docket.

For these reasons, Judge Jackson dismissed Marcotte from the
collective action.  She may any and all available claims in her
individual action that is also pending before the Court.  The Judge
directed the Clerk to provide a copy of the Order to the parties.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/KMrnJF from Leagle.com.

Joseph H. Andreana, Marie Gerdes, Philip M Hull, Lyn E Hebert,
Robert Thomas Bernhard, Jr., Gary Lennon, Victoria P Wilmouth,
Deborah J Sholar, Patricia Kay Fesser, Mary-Ellen Davis, Gary Viado
& Mary N. Smead, Plaintiffs, represented by James Richard Theuer --
jim@theuerlaw.com -- James R. Theuer, PLLC.

Virginia Beach City Public Schools, Defendant, represented by Ann
Katherine Sullivan -- slesoken@asksullivan.com -- Sullivan Law
Group, P.L.C., Deborah Yeng Collins, Sullivan Law Group, P.L.C. &
Melissa Morris Picco, Sullivan Law Group, P.L.C..

School Board of the City of Virginia Beach, Defendant, represented
by Ann Katherine Sullivan, Sullivan Law Group, P.L.C., Deborah Yeng
Collins, Sullivan Law Group, P.L.C. & Melissa Morris Picco,
Sullivan Law Group, P.L.C..


WAL-MART STORES: Parker Granted Leave to Amend Suit to Cure Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CYNTHIA PARKER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:18-CV-00465-JAR (E.D. Mo.),
Judge John A. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiffs
leave to amend their complaint to cure defents

The Plaintiffs are four individuals -- residents of Florida,
Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, respectively -- seeking to
represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased glucosamine
dietary supplements at Wal-Mart.  They assert that glucosamine
sulfate has been shown to reduce the pain of osteoarthritis, in
knees in particular, and can be equally as effective as Tylenol and
some nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.  The Plaintiffs allege,
however, that the Defendant's glucosamine supplement label lists
glucosamine sulfate as an ingredient when in fact the supplements
contain glucosamine hydrochloride and potassium sulfate, less
expensive ingredients with no proven efficacy.  

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant has long known that there
is scant or conflicting evidence about the effectiveness of
glucosamine hydrochloride for the treatment of osteoarthritis, and
knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known,
that its representations regarding the Glucosamine dietary
supplements it sold were false or deceptive. Put simply, the
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's mislabeled glucosamine
supplements induced them to purchase a product that was ineffective
and unfit for treating their joint pain and seek monetary damages
as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

The Plaintiffs advance seven specific claims for relief: (i) Count
I ??? Breach of implied warranties in violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"); (ii) Count II ??? Breach of
implied warranties in violation of Florida, Missouri, Tennessee,
and Wisconsin state law; (iii) Count III ??? Unjust enrichment or
quasi-contract; (iv) Count IV ??? Negligent misrepresentation; (v)
Count V ??? Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act; (vi) Count VI ??? Violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act; and (vii) Count VII ??? Unfair trade
practices in violation of Wisconsin state law.

The Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' claims are all subject to
dismissal because they are preempted by federal law or fail on
their merits and adds that Plaintiffs lack standing to seek
equitable relief.

Judge Ross concludes that the Plaintiffs do not state a facially
plausible MMWA claim and that their state-law claims are preempted
to the extent they seek to impose liability based on the
Defendant's allegedly misleading label.  In addition, he concludes
that Counts I, II, V, and VI, as alleged, lack merit.  For these
reasons, he will grant the Plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint to cure the defects, if they can.

Accordingly, the Judge granted the Plaintiffs leave to file an
amended complaint within seven days of the date of the Order.  If
they fail to file an amended complaint in the time specified, he
will grant the Defendant's motion and dismiss the complaint without
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 12, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/GjLIBE from Leagle.com.

Cynthia Parker, Reba Garth, Margaret Herrin & Shirley Reinhard,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Eric S. Johnson --
ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com -- SIMMONS AND HANLY, LLC, Gregory F.
Coleman -- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- GREG COLEMAN LAW PC, Adam A.
Edwards -- adam@gregcolemanlaw.com -- GREG COLEMAN LAW PC, Lisa A.
White -- lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com -- GREG COLEMAN LAW PC & Mark E.
Silvey -- mark@gregcolemanlaw.com -- GREG COLEMAN LAW PC.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ann E.
Sternhell-Blackwell -- liz.blackwell@bclplaw.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP
& Darci F. Madden -- dfmadden@bclplaw.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP.


WALMART INC: Court Grants Bid to Dismisses Doe RICO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANE DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WALMART INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-02125-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy H. Koh
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division, (i) granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss,
and denied as moot the Defendants' motion to transfer.

Plaintiffs Jane Doe, Mary Moe, and John Roe bring the putative
class action suit against the Defendants, alleging that the
Defendants have violated 18 U.S.C. Section 1962, et seq., the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").

The Plaintiff Jane Doe, a resident of Loganville, Georgia, was
accused of shoplifting from a Walmart store in Snellville, Georgia.
Plaintiff Mary Moe, a resident of Hilliard, Florida, was accused
of shoplifting from a Walmart store in Jacksonville, Florida.
Plaintiff John Roe, a resident of Houston, Texas, was accused of
shoplifting from a Walmart store in Alvin, Texas.

The Plaintiffs were given a choice: either participate in a program
run by non-party Corrective Education Co., LLC ("CEC"), or be
referred to law enforcement.  CEC offers a program in which
participants take an online life-skills course for a fee of $400 or
$500.  To be eligible to participate in the CEC program,
participants must sign an admission of guilt over the shoplifting
allegations, which would not be used if the participants complete
the CEC program.

All the three Plaintiffs chose to participate in the CEC program in
lieu of a law enforcement referral.  In total, Plaintiff Doe has
paid $500 to CEC, Plaintiff Moe has paid $400 to CEC, and Plaintiff
Roe has yet to make any payments to CEC, which has sent Roe's CEC
account to collections.  The crux of the Plaintiffs' claims is that
the Defendants conspired with each other to extort unlawful
payments from the Plaintiffs and the putative class members through
a pattern of racketeering activity.  The Defendants allegedly
coerced thePlaintiffs and the putative class members into making
payments to CEC by threatening to report the Plaintiffs and other
Class members to criminal authorities for alleged shoplifting.

On April 9, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their first complaint.  On
June 6, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint.  On
July 12, 2018, they voluntarily dismissed without prejudice their
claims against Defendant DSW, Inc. and Abercrombie & Fitch
Management Co.

On Oct. 17, 2018, the Defendants filed their omnibus motion to
dismiss or transfer. On Nov. 28, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the Defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss or
transfer.  On Jan. 4, 2019, the Defendants filed their reply.

In the omnibus motion to dismiss, the Defendants assert numerous
grounds on which to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative,
transfer the action to the District of Utah.  First, various they
argue that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over most
Defendants.  Second, various Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs
lack standing to assert their RICO claim against most Defendants.
Third, all the Defendants move to dismiss the action for failure to
state a RICO claim.  Fourth, in the event the Court does not
dismiss the action, various Defendants move to transfer the case to
the District of Utah.  Fifth, the Individual Defendants move to
dismiss under forum non conveniens.

Judge Koh denied the Plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional
discovery.  Where a plaintiff's claim of personal jurisdiction
appears to be both attenuated and based on bare allegations in the
face of specific denials made by the defendants, a court need not
permit even limited discovery.  In the case, the claims of personal
jurisdiction are attenuated because there are no allegations
whatsoever of a nationwide RICO conspiracy amongst the Defendants.
Thus, no jurisdictional discovery is warranted.

Next, the Judge granted the motion to dismiss for lack of standing
with respect to Burlington Coat Factory, Bloomingdales, Kroger,
Sportsman's Warehouse, 99 Cents Only, Save Mart, and Decathlon.
Because further amendment of the complaint would be futile because
the Plaintiffs' alleged injuries are not traceable to these
dismissed Defendants under controlling Ninth Circuit precedent in
Perez, she denied leave to amend.  Furthermore, because she
dismissed these Defendants on Article III grounds, the Judge need
not address the question of whether these Defendants had statutory
standing.

Because the Plaintiffs have not specified which portion of the RICO
statute the Defendants are alleged to have violated, the Judge
granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a RICO claim as
to all the Defendants.  Because she has already granted the motion
to dismiss with prejudice for lack of standing over Burlington Coat
Factory, Bloomingdales, Kroger, Sportsman's Warehouse, 99 Cents
Only, Save Mart, and Decathlon, amendment of the allegations as to
these Defendants is futile, and thus is denied.  Accordingly, the
Judge granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a RICO
claim as to Burlington Coat Factory, Bloomingdales, Kroger,
Sportsman's Warehouse, 99 Cents Only, Save Mart, and Decathlon with
prejudice.

As to the Individual Defendants and Walmart, she granted leave to
amend because granting the Plaintiffs an additional opportunity to
amend the complaint would not be futile, cause undue delay, or
unduly prejudice the Defendants, and the Plaintiffs have not acted
in bad faith.

The Individual Defendants, Walmart, Sportsman's Warehouse, Save
Mart, 99 Cents Only, and Decathlon argue that if the case is not
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, it should be transferred to the
District of Utah.  As the Judge held, the case is being dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction as to all the Defendants except 99 Cents
Only, Save Mart, and Decathlon (which did not challenge
jurisdiction).  Thus, she need not address these Defendants'
transfer arguments and denied the motion to transfer as moot.

Finally, the Individual Defendants move to dismiss under the
doctrine of forum non conveniens.  She denied as moot the motion to
dismiss under forum non conveniens as she has already dismissed the
Individual Defendants from the case on other grounds.  However, if
the remaining Defendants file another forum non conveniens motion,
Walmart must establish why it is a beneficiary of the Plaintiffs'
contracts with CEC.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Koh granted the motion to dismiss
without prejudice as to the Individual Defendants and Walmart.  She
granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice as to Defendants
Burlington Coat Factory, Bloomingdales, Kroger, Sportsman's
Warehouse, 99 Cents Only, Save Mart, and Decathlon.  She denied the
motion to transfer and the motion to dismiss under the doctrine of
forum non conveniens as moot.  

If the Plaintiffs elect to file an amended complaint against the
Individual Defendants and Walmart, they must do so within 30 days
of the Order.  If they fail to file an amended complaint within 30
days or fail to cure the deficiencies identified in the Order, the
case will be dismissed with prejudice.  The Plaintiffs may not add
new causes of action or new parties without stipulation or leave of
the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 8, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/r0sxEd from Leagle.com.

Jane Doe, Mary Moe & John Doe, Plaintiffs, represented by Joel
Anderson Fleming -- joel@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP, Jacob
Allen Walker -- jake@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP, Jason M.
Leviton -- jason@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP, pro hac vice
& Whitney E. Street -- whitney@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton
LLP.

John Roe, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Anderson Fleming, Block &
Leviton LLP & Jacob Allen Walker, Block & Leviton LLP.

Walmart Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew David Yaphe --
andrew.yaphe@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk, David B. Toscano --
david.toscano@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP, pro hac
vice, James P. Rouhandeh -- rouhandeh@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk
and Wardwell LLP, pro hac vice, Jana Balik FitzGerald --
janafitzgerald@paulhastings.com -- & Neal Alan Potischman --
neal.potischman@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk & Wardwell.

Darrell Huntsman, Glenn Bingham, Brian Ashton, Jeffrey S. Mitchell,
Richard Haddrill, Chris Cottrell, Jeff Powers, Tim Hickey & Jeff
Stringer, Defendants, represented by Kaitlyn M. Murphy, Boies,
Schiller and Flexner LLP, Samuel Shayon Ungar, Boies Schiller
Flexner LLP & Scott E. Gant, Boies, Schiller and Flexner LLP, pro
hac vice.

Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Amy P. Lally, Sidley Austin LLP, Jaime Allyson
Bartlett, Sidley Austin LLP & Sarah Alison Hemmendinger, Sidley
Austin LLP.

Bloomingdales, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael C.
Christman, Macy's Law Department.

The Kroger Co., Defendant, represented by Megan O'Neill, Willenken
Wilson Loh & Delgado LLP & William Alexander Delgado, Willenken
Wilson Loh & Delgado LLP.

Sportsman's Warehouse, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andre
Michael Picciurro, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, Jason
Frederick Meyer, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP & Jeffery Todd
Konold, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukani, LLP.

Decathlon Capital Partners, LLC, Defendant, represented by Ronald
Jason Scholar, Cota Huber LLP, Alexander Duncan Chiquoine,
Fredrikson and Byron, P.A., pro hac vice & Kevin Charles Riach,
Fredrikson and Byron, P.A., pro hac vice.

99 Cents Only Stores LLC, Defendant, represented by Joseph Daniel
Lee, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP & Malcolm A. Heinicke, Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP.

The Save Mart Companies. Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel R.
Fong, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP, J. Barrett Marum,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tenaya M. Rodewald,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.


WALMART, INC: Sued over Systematic Overcharging of Packaged Foods
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VASSILIOS KUKORINIS, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WALMART, INC., a Delaware corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 9:19-cv-80221-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 13,
2019), seeks to address and remedy the unfair, deceptive and
unconscionable business practices Walmart, Inc. has engaged in with
respect to its systematic overcharging for beef, pork, poultry,
fish, and other types of packaged food.

Accoridng to the complaint, from February 13, 2015, to the present,
Walmart advertised false unit prices for Weighted Goods placed on
sale close to their respective expiration dates. Walmart advertised
those Weighted Goods at specific unit sale prices, but upon closer
inspection, the final sale prices did not coincide with the unit
sale prices based on the weight of the products as represented on
the original labels. As a result, Walmart consumers did not receive
the promised value for the Weighted Goods they purchased.

For example, on November 18, 2018, Walmart sold a package of
chicken tenders that weighed 1.18 pounds, at a unit price of $5.78
per pound, that originally retailed for $6.82. Walmart provided
this information on the original label of the chicken tenders. As
the product's expiration date approached, Walmart reduced the unit
sale price to $3.77 per pound, which should have resulted in a
reduced sale price of $4.45. Instead, the sale price was $5.93,
which Walmart charged upon checkout. As a result, Walmart obtained
$1.48 (i.e., the difference between $5.93 and $4.45) more than what
was justified by the unit sale price. Based upon the unit sale
price, a reasonable consumer would have expected to receive 1.57
pounds of chicken tenders, but instead only received 1.18 pounds,
the lawsuit explains.

Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores. Headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas, the company
was founded by Sam Walton in 1962 and incorporated on October 31,
1969.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Ryan McGee, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 222-2434
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  rmcgee@forthepeople.com

WELLS FARGO: Coordes Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo &
Company. The case is styled as Monty Coordes, Michelle Coordes
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00052 (E.D. Wash., Feb. 15, 2019).

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

Wells Fargo & Company is an American multinational financial
services company headquartered in San Francisco, California, with
central offices throughout the United States. It is the world's
second-largest bank by market capitalization and the fourth largest
bank in the US by total assets.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Chanele N Reyes, Esq.
     Keller Rohrback LLP - AZ
     3101 N. Central Ave, Suite 1400
     Phoenix, AZ 85012
     Phone: (602) 248-0088
     Email: creyes@kellerrohrback.com

          - and -

     Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
     Derek W Loeser, Esq.
     Keller Rohrback LLP
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101-3052
     Phone: (206) 623-1900
     Fax: (206) 623-3384
     Email: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
            dloeser@kellerrohrback.com


WELLS FARGO: Court Certifies Class, Subclass in Kang Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES C. KANG, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-06220-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labdon
Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted Kang's motion for class
certification with minor modifications to Kang's proposed class and
subclass definitions.

Kang filed the action on Oct. 27, 2017.  Kang claims that Defendant
Wells Fargo is liable for numerous violations of California state
wage and hour laws with respect to its California-based mortgage
sales force.  Notably, he asserts that individuals employed in the
positions of Home Mortgage Consultant, Home Mortgage Consultant,
Jr., Private Mortgage Banker, and Private Mortgage Banker, Jr.
("HMCs") are subject to a common compensation plan under which all
hourly wages are "clawed back" from earned sales commissions.
Because all wages come out of sales commissions, Kang alleges, HMCs
are not paid for tasks unrelated to sales which Wells Fargo
requires them to do.  Kang also asserts that Wells Fargo's
compensation plan promises a certain amount of vacation, also
referred to as paid time off ("PTO"), but that Wells Fargo "claws
back" vacation pay from earned sales commissions.  As a result,
Kang alleges, HMCs do not actually receive their promised vacation
pay.

Based on these allegations, Kang asserts claims on behalf of
himself and other California-based HMCs for: (1) failure to pay
minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime wages; (3) failure to
pay vacation time; (4) failure to pay all wages owed every pay
period; (5) failure to pay all wages due at separation; and (6)
violation of California's Unfair Competition Act.

Kang now seeks an order certifying the following class and
subclass:

     a. Class: All non-exempt employees for Wells Fargo who at any
time during the period beginning Oct. 27, 2013 through the date
notice is mailed to the Class worked for Wells Fargo in California
in the job titles of Home Mortgage Consultant, Home Mortgage
Consultant, Jr., Private Mortgage Banker, or Private Mortgage
Banker, Jr.

     b. Vacation/Separation Pay SubClass: All non-exempt employees
for Wells Fargo who at any time during the period beginning Oct.
27, 2013 through the date notice is mailed to the Class worked for
Wells Fargo in California in the job titles of Home Mortgage
Consultant, Home Mortgage Consultant, Jr., Private Mortgage Banker,
or Private Mortgage Banker, Jr, and whose employment with Wells
Fargo terminated.

Having considered the parties' briefing as well as the oral
arguments presented at the hearing on Nov. 29, 2018, Judge Freeman
granted Kang's motion for class certification as to all claims of
the complaint, with minor definitions modifications, to the
following class and subclass:

     a. Class: All non-exempt employees of Wells Fargo who at any
time during the period beginning Oct. 27, 2013 through the date
notice is mailed to the Class worked for Wells Fargo in California
in the job titles of Home Mortgage Consultant, Home Mortgage
Consultant, Jr., Private Mortgage Banker, or Private Mortgage
Banker, Jr. (the Class).  Employees who were hired or rehired on or
after Dec. 11, 2015 are excluded from the Class.

     b. Vacation/Separation Pay SubClass: All non-exempt employees
of Wells Fargo who at any time during the period beginning Oct. 27,
2013 through the date notice is mailed to the Class worked for
Wells Fargo in California in the job titles of Home Mortgage
Consultant, Home Mortgage Consultant, Jr., Private Mortgage Banker,
or Private Mortgage Banker, Jr, and whose employment with Wells
Fargo terminated.  Employees who were hired or rehired on or after
Dec. 11, 2015 are excluded from the Class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 6, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/m9nU2a from Leagle.com.

James C Kang, Plaintiff, represented by Paul Daniel Stevens --
pstevens@stevenslc.com -- Stevens LC & Joshua H. Haffner --
jhh@haffnerlawyers.com -- Haffner Law PC.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Jason Patrick
Brown, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Paul Berkowitz --
pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter Hampton
LLP & Thomas Roy Kaufman -- tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com --
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP.


WELLS FARGO: Jay Schmidt Moves to Certify Class in CS Wang Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jay Schmidt Insurance Agency, Inc., moves the Court to
enter an order certifying the case styled as CS WANG & ASSOCIATE,
et al. v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-11223
(N.D. Ill.), as a class action.

Jay Schmidt also asks the Court to enter an order (i) designating
all Plaintiffs as the class representatives, and (ii) appointing
the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
          Jacie C. Zolna, Esq.
          Benjamin R. Swetland, Esq.
          Jessica C. Chavin, Esq.
          MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES LLC
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-2100
          E-mail: mcherry@cherry-law.com
                  jzolna@cherry-law.com
                  bswetland@cherry-law.com
                  jchavin@cherry-law.com

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., is represented by:

          Anthony C. Porcelli, Esq.
          Claire E. Brennan, Esq.
          POLSINELLI PC
          150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 873-3629
          E-mail: aporcelli@polsinelli.com
                  cbrennan@polsinelli.com

               - and -

          John W. Peterson, Esq.
          Matthew S. Knoop, Esq.
          POLSINELLI PC
          401 Commerce Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (816) 360-4218
          E-mail: john.peterson@polsinelli.com
                  mknoop@polsinelli.com

Defendant Fifth Third Bancorp is represented by:

          George James Tzanetopoulos, Esq.
          Kiley C. Keefe, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
          191 North Wacker Drive, #3100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 416-6200
          E-mail: gtzanetopoulos@bakerlaw.com
                  kkeefe@bakerlaw.com

Defendant Ironwood Financial, LLC, is represented by:

          James R. Figliulo, Esq.
          James H. Bowhay, Esq.
          Peter A. Silverman, Esq.
          FIGLIULO & SILVERMAN
          10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 251-4600
          E-mail: jfigliulo@fslegal.com
                  jbowhay@fslegal.com
                  psilverman@fslegal.com

               - and -

          Charles M. Merkel, Jr., Esq.
          Charles M. Merkel, III, Esq.
          MERKEL & COCKE, P.A.
          PO Box 1388
          Clarksdale, MS 38614
          Telephone: (662) 627-9641
          E-mail: cmerkel@merkel-cocke.com
                  Cmerkel3@merkel-cocke.com


WORLD FINANCIAL: Removes Yeomans et al. Case to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
World Financial Group, Inc. and World Financial Group Insurance
Agency, Inc. removed the case captioned as, TRICIA YEOMANS, ISMAIL
CHRAIBI, ADRIAN RODRIGUEZ, ROBERT JENKINS, and DOROTHY JENKINS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. WORLD FINANCIAL GROUP INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., a
California corporation; WORLD FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., a Georgia
corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
CGC-18-572397 (Filed Dec. 28, 2018), from the San Francisco County
Superior Court to the Northern District of California on Feb. 13,
2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:19-cv-00792-JSC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class are citizens
of a State different from any Fefendant; the number of members of
the putative class is over 100; and the matter in controversy
exceeds the sum or value of $5 million, exclusive of interest and
costs.

The complaint asserts these claims on a class basis: declaratory
relief; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to properly pay
overtime; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest
periods; failure to maintain adequate records; failure to reimburse
for necessary business expenses; failure to provide adequate wage
statements; unlawful deductions from wages; waiting time penalties;
unfair competition; quantum merit/unjust enrichment; intentional
misclassification; and violation of Private Attorneys General Act,
the lawsuit says.

World Financial Group Insurance Agency offers life insurance and
segregated funds.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
          Marlene M. Moffitt, Esq.
          Tim L. Johnson, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: 858 652 3100
          Facsimile: 858 652 3101
          E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
                  marlene.moffitt@ogletree.com
                  tim.johnson@ogletree.com

WYETH INC: Untimeliness of Claim in Diet Drugs Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: DIET DRUGS
(PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. NORMA SCHLAGER, Appellant, Case No. 17-1625 (3d Cir.),
Judge Jane Richards Roth of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit affirmed the District Court's determination that Norma
Schlager is not entitled to additional benefits under the Diet Drug
Nationwide Class Action Settlement Agreement because her claim was
untimely.

In November 1999, Wyeth, Inc., entered into a nationwide class
action settlement regarding its marketing of two "Diet Drugs,"
fenfluramine (marketed as Pondimin) and dexfenfluramine (marketed
as Redux).  The settlement arose out of multidistrict products
liability litigation alleging a link between Diet Drug ingestion
and development of valvular heart disease.  The Settlement
Agreement required Wyeth to contribute funds to a Settlement Trust,
which was tasked with administering the claims process, determining
eligibility for benefits, and paying benefits to eligible
claimants.

A qualifying claimant's recovery under the Settlement Agreement is
determined by two damage matrices, Matrix A and Matrix B.  Each
matrix includes "five levels' of possible benefits" corresponding
generally with the type and severity of medical conditions" that
the claimant has experienced.  

Because the Settlement Agreement initially did not impose a Green
Form filing deadline, the District Court issued Pretrial Order
8559, known as "Court Approved Procedure 16" (CAP 16), on Nov. 8,
2010.  CAP 16 bars a Category One class member who has not
submitted a completed Green Form by either Nov. 8, 2014, or within
four years of being diagnosed with a high-level condition --
whichever comes later -- from obtaining high-level matrix
benefits.

Schlager took Diet Drugs in the 1990s.  In April 2003, she
submitted a Green Form to the Trust seeking level II matrix
benefits.  She did not opt out of the Seventh Amendment.  As a
result, in March 2005, the Trust informed her that she qualified as
a Seventh Amendment Category One class member.  After processing
her claim, the Fund Administrator sent Schlager a letter in March
2008 informing her that she was entitled to a $2,000 Minimum
Payment Amount.

On Sept. 2, 2010 -- two months before the District Court approved
CAP 16 -- Schlager underwent valvular heart surgery.  Years passed
before Schlager (or her son) informed the Trust of her heart
surgery or sought supplemental benefits in connection with the
surgery.

In January 2015 -- more than two months after the filing deadline
-- Schlager submitted to the Trust an incomplete Green Form seeking
level III benefits.  In March 2015, the Trust advised Schlager that
her claim was being tentatively denied because she had not
submitted a completed Green Form by the CAP 16 filing deadline
(i.e., Nov. 8, 2014).  In June 2015, after Schlager contested the
tentative denial, the Trust issued a "final determination" in which
it denied Schlager's claim for benefits as untimely.

Schlager appealed to the District Court and requested that her
challenge to the Trust's final determination proceed to
arbitration, as contemplated by the Settlement Agreement.  The
court referred her claim to arbitration.  On Oct. 27, 2015, before
the arbitration had begun but well after the filing deadline,
Schlager submitted a completed Green Form to the Trust, again
seeking level III benefits in connection with her heart surgery.
Recognizing the untimeliness of her claim, Schlager filed a
"Motion/Petition for Relief" from the filing deadline set out in
CAP 16.

The District Court denied the motion in a pretrial order,
concluding that her claim was time-barred.  The arbitration hearing
took place in August 2016.  The arbitrator issued a report on Sept.
19, 2016, upholding the Trust's determination that Schlager's claim
for benefits was untimely.  On March 9, 2017, the District Court
issued an order, affirming the arbitrator's ruling that Schlager's
claim was untimely and that she was not entitled to equitable
tolling of the filing deadline.

Schlager now appeals.  At issue on appeal is Schlager's entitlement
to Seventh Amendment high-level matrix benefits at severity level
III.  The Trust, arbitrator, and District Court concluded that she
was not entitled to those benefits because her claim was untimely.


Judge Roth agrees.  She finds that Schlager has been assisted by
her son, an attorney, since she first began seeking benefits.  The
record does not establish that he was incapacitated or prevented
from preparing and filing a Green Form on her behalf, as he did in
January and October 2015, at any point during the 15-month filing
period.  Moreover, Schlager did not submit a fully completed Green
Form until more than seven months after the Trust first notified
her that the untimely Green Form she had submitted in January 2015
"was neither completed nor signed by" a cardiologist.  Thus,
Schlager did not act with the diligence required to receive the
benefit of equitable tolling.  For these reasons, the District
Court did not err in concluding that the record does not
demonstrate how or why Schlager's medical condition prevented her
from submitting a completed Green Form within the deadlines set
forth by CAP 16.  The Judge affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 8, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/0Z3Fqe from Leagle.com.


YANGTZE RIVER: Behrendsen Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Behrendsen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Yangtze River Port and Logistics Limited,
Xiangyang Liu, Xin Zheng, and Tsz-Kit Chan, Case No. 1:19-cv-00024
(E.D. N.Y., January 2, 2019), seeks to recover damages caused by
the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Yangtze securities
between February 2, 2016 and December 5, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements during the class period.

The Plaintiff purchased Yangtze securities during the class
period.

The Defendant Yangtze is a Nevada corporation with headquarters in
New York City. Yangtze operates through its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Wuhan Yangtze River Newport Logistics Co., Ltd.
incorporated in the People's Republic of China which is a logistics
and port management company that engages in the business of real
estate and infrastructural development and operating a port
logistics center in the PRC. Yangtze reached the U.S. markets
through a reversed merger. Yangtze's securities trade on NASDAQ
under the ticker symbol "YRIV."

The Defendant Xiangyao Liu served as the company's chief executive
officer and chairman of the board during the class period.

The Defendant Xin Zheng served as the company's chief financial
officer from the beginning of the class period until May 2017.

The Defendant Tsz-Kit Chan served as the Company's CFO since May
2017. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 686-1060
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
              lrosen@rosenlegal.com


[*] Number of Securities Class Actions Drops Slightly in 2018
-------------------------------------------------------------
The pace of federal securities class actions continued at
near-record levels in 2018, according to a report issued on Jan. 30
by Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law School Securities
Class Action Clearinghouse. Core filings increased for the fifth
consecutive year, while a slight decrease in the number of federal
filings related to mergers and acquisitions caused a minor decline
from 2017's record total.

The report, Securities Class Action Filings -- 2018 Year in Review,
shows that plaintiffs filed a total of 403 securities class actions
in 2018 compared to 412 in 2017. The number of core filings
increased from 214 to 221 -- the highest level since 2008, when
securities class actions surged due to volatility in U.S. and
global financial markets. Federal M&A filing volume was the
second-highest on record, despite declining from 198 to 182.

A long-term decrease in the number of companies listed on major
U.S. exchanges contributed to greater litigation risk. In 2018, the
likelihood that a listed company would be targeted in a core filing
was greater than in any previous year. In addition, one in about 11
S&P 500 companies (9.4 percent) was sued in 2018.

The frequency of filings involving larger companies combined with
the high number of filings overall pushed market capitalization
losses in dispute to more than $1 trillion. Aggregate market
capitalization losses at the ends of class periods were a
record-setting $330 billion.

"Securities class action filings related to stock price drops
reached levels not seen since the peak of the financial crisis,
with the annual likelihood of such filings against exchange-listed
companies at an all-time high," said Alexander "Sasha" Aganin, a
vice president at Cornerstone Research.

"Equally interesting is the pure size of individual market
capitalization losses associated with the cases filed in 2018,"
said John Gould, a senior vice president at Cornerstone Research.
"Twenty-seven filings from companies in industries ranging from
healthcare and technology to natural resources and broadcasting and
cable TV were associated with market capitalization losses of over
$10 billion."

Combined federal Section 11 and state 1933 Act claims in state
courts also peaked in 2018. "Section 11 claims, based on the
Securities Act of 1933, are increasing in state court filings after
the U.S. Supreme Court's Cyan ruling in March of last year," said
Professor Joseph Grundfest, director of the Stanford Law School
Securities Class Action Clearinghouse. "For example, we saw no 1933
Act filings in New York in 2017. In 2018, we saw 13 of these cases
-- all filed after the Court's ruling."

Key Trends

   * The number of mega Maximum Dollar Loss filings (MDL of at
least $10 billion) and mega Disclosure Dollar Loss filings (DDL of
at least $5 billion) increased dramatically in 2018.

   * Core filings against non-U.S. companies fell for the first
time since 2013.

   * Core filings against biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and
healthcare companies declined from 66 in 2017 to 56 in 2018, yet
remained above historical averages.

   * Core filings against technology and communications sector
filings increased.

   * Ninth Circuit core filings reached historic levels.

Plaintiffs filed nine lawsuits related to initial coin offerings or
cryptocurrency in 2018, up from five in 2017. However, eight were
filed in the first half of 2018 and only one in the second half, as
ICO markets began to cool in 2018.

Cyan Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund

In March 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion
allowing plaintiffs to assert claims under the Securities Act of
1933 (1933 Act) in state courts. Under the 1933 Act, Section 11
allows investors to pursue damages for alleged misrepresentations
or omissions in securities registration statements. It is generally
believed that the ruling will lead to more securities class action
filings in state courts based on this claim.

                   About Cornerstone Research

Cornerstone Research -- http://www.cornerstone.com-- provides
economic and financial consulting and expert testimony in all
phases of complex litigation and regulatory proceedings. The firm
works with an extensive network of prominent faculty and industry
practitioners to identify the best-qualified expert for each
assignment. Cornerstone Research has earned a reputation for
consistent high quality and effectiveness by delivering rigorous,
state-of-the-art analysis for 30 years. The firm has 700 staff and
offices in Boston, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, New York, San
Francisco, Silicon Valley, and Washington.

            About the Stanford Law School Securities
                Class Action Clearinghouse

The Securities Class Action Clearinghouse (SCAC) is an
authoritative source of data and analysis on the financial and
economic characteristics of federal securities fraud class action
litigation. The SCAC maintains a database of more than 4,000
securities class action lawsuits filed since passage of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The database also
contains copies of complaints, briefs, filings, and other
litigation-related materials filed in these cases. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***