CAR_Public/190307.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, March 7, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 48

                            Headlines

3M CO: 85 Suits Related to Aqueous Film Forming Foam Underway
3M CO: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Bair Hugger Claims
3M CO: Bair Hagger Suit in Ontario, Canada Ongoing
3M CO: St. John Class Action in Alabama Still Ongoing
3M CO: Stover Class Action Still On Hold

3M COMPANY: Faces McDonagh Suit Over Defective Combat Earplugs
77 GRANDVILLE INC: Underpays Bartenders, Hodges Suit Alleges
939 MITCHELL MARKET: Najera Guevara Sues Over Unpaid Wages
ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
AIR RESOURCES: Torres et al. Seek Payment for Overtime Work

ALASKA AIRLINES: Clarkson Suit Alleges USERRA Violation
AM RETAIL GROUP: Faces Ramos Suit in Sacramento State Court
AMILUC FAMILY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Waiters, Santos Says
APPLE INC: Maldonado et al. Seek to Certify Warranty Class
ASPLUNDH TREE: Asks Court to Decertify Employees Class

AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Violates Securities Laws, Hackel Suit Says
AYB FUNDING: Gou Suit Alleges Breach of Contract and Fraud
BBMC MORTGAGE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Fabricant Suit Claims
BERRI'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Perez Suit Alleges
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Shortchanges Working Students' Wages, Says Suit

C.R. ENGLAND: Removes Tolefree Suit to Eastern Dist. of California
CACTUS JACK'S: Kay Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Bold Says Insurance Renewal Notice Untimely
CASCADE CAPITAL: Kaiser Appeals Oregon Ruling to Ninth Circuit
CATHOLIC HEALTH: Underpays Nurses, Walkinshaw et al. Allege

CBS TELEVISION: Settles Overtime Wages Class Action for $9.97MM
CHOICE FOODS: Jacobo Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime for Drivers
CLAIM JUMPER: Sued by Spiker Over Unequal Access to Restaurants
COMCAST CORPORATION: Moore Sues Over TCPA Violation
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Settles Class Action Over 2014 Data Breach

COMPLIANCE ENVIROSYSTEMS: Lewis Sues Over Failure to Ensure Payment
CORNING INC: Must Face Class Action Over Biased Worker Reviews
COUNTER TOPS: Alvarez Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
CREDIT SUISSE: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Class Action
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Kuznicki Law Files Securities Class Action

DENVER, CO: Court Urged to Suspend Urban Camping Ban
DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Removes Stempien Case to N.D. California
DIRCKSEN & TALLEYRAND: Xiques Seek Unpaid Wages for Servers
DOS REALES: Olivera Seeks Final Class Cert. & Settlement Approval
EL REY: Class Action in the Works Over Wrestlers' Contracts

EQUIFAX INC: Sheppard Mullin Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
EVANSTON, IL: Faces Class Action Over Convenience Fees
EVOLENT HEALTH: Kelly Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Wages
EXXON MOBIL: Executives Avert ERISA Climate Change Class Action
FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY: Settles Sex-Abuse Claims for $61MM

FAMILY DOLLAR: Amador Asks Court to Permit Supervised Notice
FAR SEA FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Waiters, Santos Says
FIRST FEDERAL: Faces Kadow RESPA Suit Over Illegal Kickbacks
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Vaccarella Alleges Wrongful Debt Collection
FIS OPERATIONS: Underpays Pipeline Inspectors, Rivera Alleges

FORSTER & GARBUS: Leboeuf Sues over Debt Collection Practices
FORWARD AIR: Ibarra Wants to Stop Illegal Use of Biometric Data
GARDA CL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Frapanpina Suit Asserts
GENERAL ELECTRIC: April 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
GENERAL MOTORS: Massip et al. Sue over Defective Injection Pumps

GET FRESH: Memoli Wants to Stop Illegal Use of Biometric Data
GLENN M. ROSS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Tenants' Suit
GLOBAL FINANCIAL DATA: Court Certifies FLSA Collective Action
GLOBAL SPECIALTIES: Underpays Installers, Cardenas Suit Alleges
GRAIN PROCESSING: Judge Okays $50MM Pollution Case Settlement

GREAT LAKES: Volleyball Coaches Face Class Action
GREYSTONE MANAGEMENT: Underpays Apartment Managers, Maynard Says
H&R BLOCK: Benson Challenges No-Poach Agreements for Employees
HANDI-FOIL: Hickman Sues Over Illegal Biometrics Data Retention
HARVEY PALLETS: Sandoval-Osegura Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

HBLC INC: Davis Seeks to Certify FDCPA Class
HOSPICE SOURCE: Faces Gordon Labor Suit in Sacramento
IBERIA FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Extra Virgin Oil Labeling
IMPERVA INC: Poinsignon Case Settlement Wins Final Approval
INNOVATIVE HEALTH: Faces Ritu Bhambhani, M.D. Suit in Maryland

INSTACART: Faces Another Class Action Over Wages, Tips
JAMES ANDREW: Underpays Market Researchers, Grainger et al. Claim
JB HUNT: Ly & Nguyen Suit Removed to C.D. California
KANYE WEST: Settles Class Action Lawsuit for Album Promotion
KIK CUSTOM: Illegally Stores Biometric Data, Thomas Suit Claims

LANDMARK SENIOR: Faces Mangiardo Suit over Leasing Arrangement
LANNETT CO: Bid to Dismiss Amended Pennsylvania Suit Underway
LANNETT CO: Bid to Dismiss Drug Pricing-Related Suit Underway
LIBERTY COMMERCIAL: Abante Rooter Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
LOS ROBLES REGIONAL: Hospital Settles Class-Action Lawsuit

MAPLEBEAR INC: Malaspina Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MCGEE AIR: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action Lawsuit
MEDSPA DEL MAR: Faces TCPA Class Action for Unwanted Text Messages
MEMPHIS, TN: Sexual Assault Victims Seek to Revive Rape-Kit Case
MERCEDES-BENZ: Judge Restarts BlueTec Emissions Class Action

MERCK & CO: Breitner et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
MERCK & CO: Metz et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
MERCK & CO: Opatrny et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
MERCK & CO: Sherman et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
MICRON TECH: Kniffin Hits Share Drop Over Antitrust Issues

MISSOURI: Bid for Class Certification in Dalton Suit Denied
MOJAVE FOODS: Underpays Sales Representatives, Torres Says
MONSANTO COMPANY: Agneys Sue over Sale of Roundup Products
MONSANTO COMPANY: Barnes Sue over Sale of Roundup Products
MONSANTO COMPANY: Bates Sues over Sale of Roundup Products

MUGSHOTS.COM LLC: Court Narrows Production in Gabiola
NCAA: Disregards Safety of Athletes, Kloes Alleges
NCAA: Jones Seeks Redress for ECSU Players' Injuries
NCAA: Leammon Wants Amends for Chadron Athletes' Injuries
NCAA: Stroughter Sues over Health Issues of Illinois Univ Athletes

NCAA: Sweed Sues over Safety of Texas-Austin Student-Athletes
NCAA: Taylor Sues over Safety of Nebraska-Lincoln Student-Athletes
NETGEAR INC: Perros Sues over 50% Drop in Share Price
NEW YORK, NY: Fails to Timely Pay Settlements, Golding et al. Say
NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in Lisnitzer Civil Rights Suit

NEW YORK: Ex-Prisoners File Suit Over Denied Rehab, Discrimination
NORTH CAROLINA: NCPLS Appointed as Counsel in Seelig Class Suit
NVIDIA CORP: Kuznicki Law Files Securities Class Action
OCTOPUS RESTAURANT: Underpays Kitchen Staff, Ferman Alleges
PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE: Canfield Suit Alleges TCPA Violation

PARACHUTE HOME: Donahue Alleges Credit Card Transaction Scam
PARSEC INC: Soltysic Sues over Collection of Biometrics Data
PERSONNEL STAFFING: Trottier Sues Over BIPA Violation
PHILIP MORRIS: Bourassa Class Action in Canada Still Ongoing
PHILIP MORRIS: Counsel Won't Pursue Jacklin Suit in Canada

PHILIP MORRIS: Dorion Class Action Remains Dormant
PHILIP MORRIS: McDermid Class Action in Canada Still Ongoing
PHILIP MORRIS: Semple Class Suit in Canada Remains Dormant
PORSCHE FINANCIAL: Two Classes of Lessees Certified in Cox Suit
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Maldonado Sues over Debt Collection Practices

PRO OIL & GAS: Underpays Wireline Operators, Rosenhoover Alleges
PROSHARES SHORT VIX: April 1 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Investors Win Securities Class Action
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Still Claims Victory Despite Jury Ruling
R.J.T. MOTORIST: Underpays Tow-Truck Drivers, Taylor Alleges

RBC: Faces Class Action Over Trailing Commissions
RED ROBIN: Court Decertifies 2,612 Arbitration Subclass Members
REDBOX AUTOMATED: Wilson Sues over Unsolicited Text Advertisements
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Russell Sues over Debt Collection Practices
RESOLUTE ENERGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action

RFC DRILLING: Juanes Claims Overtime Pay, Hits Inaccurate Pay Slips
RIWO INC: Mayer Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: BART App to Collect Less Info Under Settlement
SARA COMPANION: Jefferson Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations
SIGN IMAGE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Harrison Porter Says

SIX FLAGS: Appellate Court's Ruling in BIPA Case Reversed
SPECIALTY COMMODITIES: Quiruz Seeks Prelim. OK of $1.5-Mil. Deal
SPRING LIVING: Underpays Caregivers, Finn Suit Alleges
SQUARETRADE INC: Swinton Suit Settlement Wins Prelim. Approval
SSP AMERICA: Faces Henderson Labor Suit in Sacramento

STATE FARM MUTUAL: Removes Hupperts Suit to District of Colorado
STEAK N SHAKE: Renews Bid to Decertify Drake Collective Action
STILLMAN LAW: Perry Sues over Debt Collection Practices
SUNRISE CREDIT: Leedeman Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
TD BANK: April 15 Coin Machine Settlement Approval Hearing Set

TEXAS: LULAC Files Class Action Over Illegal Voting Claims
TIAA BANK: Martin et al. Seek OT Pay for Retail Loan Officers
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Removes Samson Suit to W.D. Washington
VALE SA: Rosen Law Firm Probes Securities Claims
VENECA PARKING: Underpays Parking Attendants, Rodriguez Says

WAL-MART STORES: Court Certifies Wage Statement Class
WALDORF ASTORIA: Underpays Housekeepers, Taylor Suit Alleges
WALMART: Faces Discrimination Case Amid Class Actions
WAYFAIR INC: March 11 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
WELBILT INC: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Action

WINCO HOLDINGS: Petersen Suit Removed to E.D. California
WORKPAC: Faces $84MM Class Action Over Casual Underpayments
YRC WORLDWIDE: Kuznicki Law Files Securities Class Action
[*] UNSW Professors Involved in Groundbreaking Class Action Report

                            *********

3M CO: 85 Suits Related to Aqueous Film Forming Foam Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that as of December 31, 2018,
85 putative class action and other lawsuits have been filed against
3M and other defendants in various state and federal courts.

3M manufactured and marketed Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) for
use in firefighting at airports and military bases from
approximately 1963 to 2000. As of December 31, 2018, 85 putative
class action and other lawsuits have been filed against 3M and
other defendants in various state and federal courts in Arizona,
Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington where current or former
airports, military bases, or fire training facilities are or were
located.

In these cases, plaintiffs typically allege that certain PFAS used
in AFFF contaminated the soil and groundwater where AFFF was used
and seek damages for loss of use and enjoyment of properties,
diminished property values, investigation costs, remediation costs,
and in some cases, personal injury and funds for medical
monitoring.

Several companies have been sued along with 3M, including Ansul Co.
(acquired by Tyco, Inc.), Angus Fire, Buckeye Fire Protection Co.,
Chemguard, National Foam, Inc., and United Technologies Corp.

In December 2018, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation granted motions to transfer and consolidate all AFFF
cases pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina to be managed in a multi-district
litigation (MDL) proceeding to centralize pre-trial proceedings. As
of December 31, 2018, there were 85 cases in the MDL.

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M CO: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Bair Hugger Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the Minnesota Court of
Appeals affirmed the Minnesota state court orders that excluded
plaintiffs' expert testimony and granted 3M's motion for summary
judgment on general causation, dismissing all 61 cases pending
before the state court in Minnesota.

As of December 31, 2018, the Company is a named defendant in
lawsuits involving approximately 5,015 plaintiffs (compared to
approximately 4,270 plaintiffs at December 31, 2017) who allege the
Bair Hugger (TM) patient warming system caused a surgical site
infection. Nearly all of the lawsuits are pending in federal court
in Minnesota.

The plaintiffs claim they underwent various joint arthroplasty,
cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical
site infections due to the use of the Bair Hugge(TM) patient
warming system (the Bair Hugge(TM) product line was acquired by 3M
as part of the 2010 acquisition of Arizant, Inc., a leading
manufacturer of patient warming solutions designed to prevent
hypothermia and maintain normal body temperature in surgical
settings).

The complaints seek damages and other relief based on theories of
strict liability, negligence, breach of express and implied
warranties, failure to warn, design and manufacturing defect,
fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation/concealment, unjust
enrichment, and violations of various state consumer fraud,
deceptive or unlawful trade practices and/or false advertising
acts.

One case, from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee is a putative nationwide class action. The U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) granted the plaintiffs'
motion to transfer and consolidate all cases pending in federal
courts to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to
be managed in a multi-district proceeding during the pre-trial
phase of the litigation.

In 2017, the U.S. District Court and the Minnesota state courts
denied the plaintiffs' motions to amend their complaints to add
claims for punitive damages. At a joint hearing before the U.S.
District Court and the Minnesota State court, on the parties'
motion to exclude each other's experts, and 3M's motion for summary
judgment with respect to general causation, the federal court did
not exclude the plaintiffs' experts and denied 3M's motion for
summary judgment on general causation.

In January 2018, the state court, in hearing the same arguments,
excluded plaintiffs' experts and granted 3M's motion for summary
judgment on general causation, dismissing all 61 cases pending
before the state court in Minnesota. Plaintiffs appealed that
ruling and the state court’s punitive damages ruling.

In January 2019, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the
Minnesota state court orders in their entirety. The plaintiffs have
indicated that they intend to seek review by the Minnesota Supreme
Court.

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M CO: Bair Hagger Suit in Ontario, Canada Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues to
defend itself against a putative class action related to the
company's Bair Hugger(TM)patient warming system, pending before the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

In June 2016, the Company was served with a putative class action
filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for all Canadian
residents who underwent various joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular,
and other surgeries and later developed surgical site infections
due to the use of the Bair Hugger(TM)patient warming system.

The representative plaintiff seeks relief (including punitive
damages) under Canadian law based on theories similar to those
asserted in the MDL. No liability has been recorded for the Bair
Hugge(TM) litigation because the Company believes that any such
liability is not probable and estimable at this time.

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M CO: St. John Class Action in Alabama Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the St. John class action
litigation is still pending in the Circuit Court of Morgan County,
Alabama.

As previously reported, a former employee filed a putative class
action lawsuit in 2002 in the Circuit Court of Morgan County,
Alabama (the "St. John case"), seeking unstated damages and
alleging that the plaintiffs suffered fear, increased risk,
subclinical injuries, and property damage from exposure to certain
perfluorochemicals at or near the Company's Decatur, Alabama,
manufacturing facility.

The court in 2005 granted the Company's motion to dismiss the named
plaintiff's personal injury-related claims on the basis that such
claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the state's
Workers Compensation Act. The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended
complaint in November 2006, limiting the case to property damage
claims on behalf of a putative class of residents and property
owners in the vicinity of the Decatur plant.

In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
additional defendants, including BFI Waste Management Systems of
Alabama, LLC; BFI Waste Management of North America, LLC; the City
of Decatur, Alabama; Morgan County, Alabama; Municipal Utilities
Board of Decatur; and Morgan County, Alabama, d/b/a Decatur
Utilities.

In 2005, the judge in a second putative class action lawsuit filed
by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated
compensatory and punitive damages involving alleged damage to their
property from emissions of certain perfluorochemical compounds from
the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility that
formerly manufactured those compounds (the "Chandler case"),
granted the Company's motion to abate the case, effectively putting
the case on hold pending the resolution of class certification
issues in the St. John case.

Despite the stay, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking
damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage on behalf
of the named plaintiffs and the members of a putative class. No
further action in the case is expected unless and until the stay is
lifted.

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

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M CO: Stover Class Action Still On Hold
----------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the Stover class action
lawsuit is still on hold pending the resolution of the class
certification issues in the St. John case.

In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County (the "Stover case") seeking compensatory damages and
injunctive relief based on the application by the Decatur utility's
wastewater treatment plant of wastewater treatment sludge to
farmland and grasslands in the state that allegedly contain PFOA,
PFOS and other perfluorochemicals.

The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons
within the State of Alabama who have had PFOA, PFOS, and other
perfluorochemicals released or deposited on their property. In
March 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the case transferred
from Franklin County to Morgan County.

In May 2010, consistent with its handling of the other matters, the
Morgan County Circuit Court abated this case, putting it on hold
pending the resolution of the class certification issues in the St.
John case.

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

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M COMPANY: Faces McDonagh Suit Over Defective Combat Earplugs
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS MCDONAGH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY, Case No. 9:19-cv-80253-DMM (S.D. Fla., Feb.
22, 2019), arises out of alleged serious and permanent personal
injuries, including hearing loss, sustained by the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated veterans relating to the use of defective
earplugs made by 3M.

Mr. McDonagh brings this federal complaint against 3M: (1) on his
own behalf to recover damages for his personal injuries incurred
while in training and/or on active military duty, resulting from
the Defendant's defective and unreasonably dangerous product, the
Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs (Version 2 CAEv.2) ("Dual-ended
Combat Arms(TM) earplugs"), and (2) on behalf of himself and all
other similarly-situated individuals, requested to establish a
Court-supervised fund to provide medical monitoring to active-duty
and veteran service members of the armed forces of the United
States of America due to their increased risk from using 3M's
defective products, and to extend some of the claims deadlines for
fraudulent tolling.

The Defendant's Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM) earplugs were standard
issue in certain branches of the military (including the
Plaintiff's) between at least 2003 to at least 2015.  Thus, the
Plaintiff contends, the Defendant's Dual-ended Combat Arms(TM)
earplugs caused at least tens of thousands of soldiers to suffer
significant hearing loss, and additional injuries related to
hearing loss, including pain and suffering and loss of the
pleasures of life.  He asserts that this is a huge issue for the
Department of Veteran Affairs, as recent data indicates that as
many as 52% of combat soldiers may suffer hearing loss,
representing what is possibly the largest ongoing medical cost for
the military.

3M Company is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the state of Delaware with its principal place of business in
St. Paul, Minnesota.

Among other things, 3M is in the business of designing,
manufacturing, and selling worker safety products, including
hearing protectors and respirators.  The Defendant has a dominant
market share in virtually every safety product market, including
hearing protection. The Defendant is one of the largest companies
in the country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
          Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq.
          Joseph M. Kaye, Esq.
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1423
          E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
                  howard@moskowitz-law.com
                  adams@moskowitz-law.com
                  joseph@moskowitz-law.com

               - and -

          R. Seth Crompton, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM, LLC
          300 N. Tucker Blvd., Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-8111
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5554
          E-mail: scrompton@allfela.com


77 GRANDVILLE INC: Underpays Bartenders, Hodges Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
SHANELL HODGES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 77 GRANDVILLE, INC.; KRIS ELLIOTT; and DAX
HYLARIDES, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00081 (W.D. Mich., Feb. 4,
2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours,
overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest
periods.

The Plaintiff Hodges was employed by the Defendants as bartender.

77 Grandville, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
the State of Michigan. The Company is engaged in the restaurant
business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Bradley K. Glazier, Esq.
         Robert M. Howard, Esq.
         BOS & GLAZIER, P.L.C.
         990 Monroe Avenue, N.W.
         Grand Rapids, MI 49503
         Telephone: (616) 458-6814


939 MITCHELL MARKET: Najera Guevara Sues Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Najera Guevara, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 939 Mitchell Market Inc. (d/b/a
Panini Grill), 937 First Avenue Food Corp. (d/b/a Panini Grill),
Surinder Singh, Mohammad Choudry, Tony Doe, and Samy Doe,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01914 (S.D. N.Y., February 28, 2019)
brought this action on behalf of himself, and other similarly
situated individuals, for unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for
violations of the N.Y. Labor Law  NYLL"), and the "spread of hours"
and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor,
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Najera appropriately for
any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium.

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

Plaintiff Najera is a former employee of Defendants and was
ostensibly employed as a delivery worker.

Defendants own, operate, or control a deli/sandwich shop, located
at 937 First Avenue, New York, NY 10022 under the name "Panini
Grill".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned JULIAN ROZANI, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS CORPORATION, STONELEIGH RECOVERY ASSOCIATES,
LLC, and ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS INVESTMENTS, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00280-WED (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order on Feb. 21, 2019, certifying classes in this
case, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and
appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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


AIR RESOURCES: Torres et al. Seek Payment for Overtime Work
-----------------------------------------------------------
KING TORRES and ESTHER HUERTA, on Behalf of Themselves and all
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AIR RESOURCES
AMERICAS LLC, theDefendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00526 (S.D. Tex., Feb.
15, 2019), seeks to recover overtime compensation, other wages,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs of court, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest and injunctive relief under the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are former and current
non-exempt employees of Air Resources, who were paid on an hourly
basis by Defendant. Air Resources manages these same employees at
the various projects where it assigns them to work. They are
employees of Air Resources. The Plaintiffs worked more than 40
hours in a work week for Defendant, but were not paid the overtime
rate of pay. The Plaintiffs were not compensated on a salary basis.
Air Resources does not compensate its non-exempt employees at a
rate of time and a half their regular rate of compensation for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Instead, Air
Resources has a written policy and/or implemented practice of
paying its non-exempt employees for overtime hours at their regular
rate of pay, bthe lawsuit says.

Air Resources operates with the function of placing employees in
the energy, process and infrastructure industries.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com

ALASKA AIRLINES: Clarkson Suit Alleges USERRA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Casey Clarkson, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. and Horizon Air Industries,
Inc., and Alaska Airlines Pension Benefits Administrative
Committee, Case No. 2:19-cv-00005 (E.D. Wash., January 7, 2019), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Horizon has not given its pilots full
credit for the flight hours that the pilots would have flown during
periods of military leave, causing pilots to be demoted from the
position of Regular Line Holder in the month following a period of
military leave or requiring the pilots to work additional hours to
avoid such a demotion.

The Plaintiff also alleges that both Alaska and Horizon, sister
airlines that are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Alaska Air Group,
have failed to provide the regular wages or salaries to employees
when they take short-term military leave, although both companies
provide regular wages or salary pay to employees who take other
comparable forms of non-leave.

The Plaintiff Casey Clarkson was a member of the Washington Air
National Guard from at least the beginning of his employment with
Alaska and Horizon until June 30, 2018. Clarkson worked for
Defendant Horizon Air Industries, Inc. as a turboprop passenger
aircraft pilot beginning in November 2013 until he was hired by
Defendant Alaska Airlines, Inc., to pilot 737 passenger jets on
November 6, 2017. He is currently employed by Alaska.

The Defendant Alaska Airlines, Inc. is an Alaska corporation that
is licensed to conduct business in the State of Washington and
conducts business in the Eastern District of Washington.

The Defendant Horizon Air Industries, Inc. is a Washington
corporation that is licensed to conduct business in the State of
Washington and conducts business in the Eastern District of
Washington.

The Defendant Alaska Airlines Pension/Benefit Administrative
Committee is the Plan Administrator. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Z. Crotty, Esq.
      CROTTY & SON LAW FIRM, PLLC
      905 W. Riverside Ave, Suite 404
      Spokane, WA 99201
      Tel: (509) 850-7011
      E-mail: matt@crottyandson.com

          - and -

      Thomas G. Jarrad, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS JARRARD, PLLC
      1020 N. Washington Dt.
      Spokane, WA 99201
      Tel: (425) 239-7290
      Fax: (509) 326-2932
      E-mail: tjarrard@att.net


AM RETAIL GROUP: Faces Ramos Suit in Sacramento State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AM Retail Group Inc.
The case is captioned as MARIA RAMOS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AM RETAIL GROUP INC.;
and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00250084-CU-NP-GDS
(Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 6, 2019).

AM Retail Group Inc. operates retail stores in the United States.
Its stores offer men and women outerwear, as well as fashion
accessories, such as handbags, briefcases, and travel items;
handcrafted shoe; and women’s athletic and performance wear. The
company was incorporated in 2008 and is based in Brooklyn Park,
Minnesota. AM Retail Group Inc. operates as a subsidiary of G-III
Apparel Group, Ltd. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Kearney, Esq.
          KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD, LLP
          3436 N. Verdugo Road, Suite 230
          Glendale, CA 91208
          Telephone: (213) 473-1900
          Facsimile: (213) 473-1919


AMILUC FAMILY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Waiters, Santos Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY SANTOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMILUC FAMILY, INC.; MAHMOOD KAZEMZADEH; and
DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV03707 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 6, 2019) is an action against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize
and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements,
and reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Santos was employed by the Defendants as waiter.

Amiluc Family, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
the State of California. The Company is engaged as a restaurant.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          John A. Young, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  jyoung@mahoney-law.net


APPLE INC: Maldonado et al. Seek to Certify Warranty Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit VICKY MALDONADO AND JUSTIN CARTER,
individually and on behalf of themselves and allothers similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. APPLE INC., APPLECARE SERVICE
COMPANY, INC., AND APPLE CSC, INC., the Defendants, Case
3:16-cv-04067-WHO (N.D. Cal.),the Plaintiffs will move the Court on
May 15, 2019, for an order:

   1. certifying a Class of:

      "all individuals who purchased AppleCare or
      AppleCare+, either directly or through the iPhone
      Upgrade Program, on or after January 1, 2009, and
      received a remanufactured replacement Device";

   2. appointing Vicky Maldonado and Justin Carter as class
      representatives; and

   3. appointing Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol
      Shapiro LLP as Lead Class Counsel for the proposed
      Class.

The case involves Apple Inc.'s decision to breach its promises to
all consumers who purchased AppleCare or AppleCare+ and who
received a remanufactured device. Apple sells extended warranties
on its popular iPhones and iPads called AppleCare and AppleCare+.
These programs promised all consumers that if their device is
defective or becomes damaged, they would receive a replacement
device that is "new or equivalent to new in performance and
reliability." But Apple does not honor this promise to anyone who
receives a replacement device because Apple provides replacement
devices that are not equivalent to new in performance and
reliability. Apple's replacement devices are largely remanufactured
devices, meaning they contain used parts. Remanufactured devices
with used parts are not equivalent to new as they fail at a rate
significantly higher than new devices. And Apple has no reliable or
sound basis to promise "new or equivalent to new" as its testing
procedures for these replacement devices do not determine if the
devices are actually equivalent to new.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Robert B. Carey, Esq.
          Michella A. Kras, Esq.
          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  rob@hbsslaw.com
                  michellak@hbsslaw.com
                  shanas@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Renee F. Kennedy, Esq.
          P.O. Box 2222
          Friendswood, TX 77549
          Telephone: (832) 428-1552
          E-mail: kennedyrk22@gmail.com

ASPLUNDH TREE: Asks Court to Decertify Employees Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit MILTON ANTONIO BELLOSO, Individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT, CO. 1 and ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-02020-PGB-GJK (M.D. Fla.), the
Defendants move the Court on Feb. 25, 2019 for decertification of
the class conditionally certified on August 24, 2018 in this
collective action.

Belloso filed a collective action complaint on behalf of himself
and "others similarly situated" for alleged violations of the Fair
Labor and Standards Act ("FLSA"). Belloso alleges he was not
compensated for work at the rate of one and one-half times his
hourly rate for work as a General Foreperson ("GF") in excess of 40
hours per week in violation of the FLSA. More specifically, Belloso
asserts he was: (1) subjected to Asplundh's common policy of
prohibiting GFs from recording all hours and time worked; and (2)
subjected to Asplundh's common policy of requiring Gfs to deduct a
30 minute lunch break each day even though GFs did not take a lunch
break or had their lunch breaks interrupted.

On August 24, 2018, the Court conditionally certified the following
class:

   "all Employees of Asplundh who: (1) are or were employed as GFs
   in Regions 50, 52, and 55 during the preceding three (3) years;

   (2) were paid an 'hourly rate'; and (3) worked more than forty
   hours in a work week without being paid proper overtime
   compensation."[CC]

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Ben W. Subin, Esq.
          David E. Cannella, Esq.
          Luis J. Gonzalez, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          200 S. Orange Avenue, Ste 2600
          Orlando, FL 32802-1526
          Telephone: (407) 425-8500
          E-mail: ben.subin@hklaw.com
                  david.cannella@hklaw.com
                  luis.gonzalez@hklaw.com

AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Violates Securities Laws, Hackel Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID HACKEL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., MICHAEL BAILEY, MATTHEW
DALLAS, and KEITH S. EHRLICH, Case No. 1:19-cv-01722 (S.D.N.Y.,
February 25, 2019), alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants violated securities laws by making materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies.

Specifically, according to the complaint, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the TIVO-3 trial was inadequately designed to address the OS
concerns regarding AVEO's lead candidate drug, tivozanib, from the
TIVO-1 trial presented in the June 2013; (ii) tivozanib had
insufficient survival data to meet U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approval following its initial 2013 rejection; (iii)
this lack of sufficient survival data would put tivozanib at
greater risk of delayed FDA approval; and (iv) as a result, AVEO's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

AVEO is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices
located in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

AVEO is a biopharmaceutical company incorporated in 2001.  The
Company develops and commercializes a portfolio of targeted
medicines for oncology and other areas of unmet medical need.  AVEO
markets and develops its lead candidate drug, tivozanib (registered
under the trademarked name FOTIVDA), which is an oral, once-daily
medication for treating renal cell carcinoma ("RCC").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


AYB FUNDING: Gou Suit Alleges Breach of Contract and Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------
GUILING GOU, "JOHN DOE 1-10" and all those similarly situated v.
AYB FUNDING 100, LLC, AYB FUNDING 100 GP, LLC, U.S. IMMIGRATION
FUND-NY, LLC, NICHOLAS A. MASTROIANNI, II, Case No. 651144/2019
(N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., February 25, 2019), seeks injunctive
relief, declaratory judgment and monetary damages in an amount to
be determined at trial.

The nature of the action includes breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, securities fraud and unclean hands.

AYB Funding 100, LLC, and AYB Funding 100 GP, LLC, are Delaware
Limited Liability Companies.

U.S. Immigration Fund-NY, LLC, provides immigration services.  The
Company offers opportunities for foreign investors and their
families to obtain permanent United States residency, as well as
green cards through visa program.  Nicholas A. Mastroianni, II, is
the Company's chairman and CEO.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Janet Nina Esagoff, Esq.
          ESAGOFF LAW GROUP, P.C.
          10 Bond Street- Suite 118
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (844) 4 LAW FIX
          Facsimile: (844) 400-7770
          E-mail: janet@esagoff.com


BBMC MORTGAGE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Fabricant Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BBMC MORTGAGE, LLC; and PLATEAU DATA
SERVICES, LLC d/b/a RATEMARKETPLACE, Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-00240-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

BBMC Mortgage, LLC is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Delaware. The Company is a digital marketing consultancy,
offering Web Development, Data Management Services, and Internet
Marketing. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert H. Stempler, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT STEMPLER, APC
          8200 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2331
          Telephone: (323) 486-0102
          E-mail: SoCallConsumerLawyer@gmail.com

               - and -

          Philip A. Bock, Esq.
          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          Mara A. Baltabols, Esq.
          BOCK HATCH LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          E-mail: tod@classlawyers.com


BERRI'S PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Perez Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BERRI'S PIZZA WESTWOOD, INC., a California corporation;
BERRI'S KITCHEN HOLLYWOOD, LLC, a California corporation; RHB
GROUP, LLC, a California corporation; RAPHAEL BERRY, an individual;
and DOES 1-100, Case No. 19STCV05944 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., Feb. 22, 2019), alleges that during the Plaintiff's
employment with the Defendants, he often worked more than eight
hours in a day and 40 hours in a week without proper overtime
compensation.

Berri's Pizza Westwood, Inc., Berri's Kitchen Hollywood, LLC, and
RHB Group, LLC, are corporations with their principal place of
business located in Los Angeles, California.  Raphael Berry is an
owner, director, officer and/or managing agent of the Defendant
Corporations.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants
are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Defendants own, control and operate a restaurant business with
four locations in the Los Angeles area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Bazerkanian, Esq.
          C&B LAW GROUP, LLP
          714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 714
          Los Angeles, CA 90015-1439
          Telephone: (213) 986-3430
          Facsimile: (213) 986-9860
          E-mail: Jack@cblawgroup.com

               - and -

          Caleb Liang, Esq.
          Kevin B. Kelly, Esq.
          LTL ATTORNEYS LLP
          300 South Grand Ave., 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 612-8900
          Facsimile: (213) 612-3773
          E-mail: caleb.liang@ltlattorneys.com
                  kevin.kelly@ltlattorneys.com


BROWN UNIVERSITY: Shortchanges Working Students' Wages, Says Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maxwell D. Kozlov and Benjamin D. Bosis, individually and on behalf
of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Brown
University in Providence in the State of Rhode Island and
Providence Plantations, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00028 (D. R.I.,
January 24, 2019), seeks compensatory, liquidated and punitive
damages, counsel fees, costs and other equitable relief arising out
of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Rhode Island
Payment of Wages Act.

Plaintiffs are students of Brown University who worked in their
cafeteria. They allege they were not compensated for a minimum
shift pay of three hours every time they were "on-call" and were
not paid when they did not "clock-in" despite rendering actual
physical work during that period. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard A. Sinapi, Esq.
     SINAPI LAW ASSOCIATES, LTD.
     2374 Post Road Suite 201
     Warwick, RI 02886
     Phone: (401) 739-9690
     Fax: (401) 739-9490
     Email: ras@sinapilaw.com


C.R. ENGLAND: Removes Tolefree Suit to Eastern Dist. of California
------------------------------------------------------------------
C.R. England, Inc. removes case, RONNIESA TOLEFREE, an individual,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. C.R. ENGLAND, INC., and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00295-JAM-CKD (E.D.
Cal. Feb. 15, 2019), Case No. 3 34-2018-00245670 from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:19-cv-00295-JAM-CKD to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that C.R. England failed to provide off-duty
rest periods or to pay compensation in lieu, failed to pay minimum
wages in violation of Labor Code, failed to pay all wages due at
the time of termination from employment, failed to furnish timely
and accurate wage statements, in violation of the California Labor
Code, the lawsuit says.

C.R. England, Inc. is an American family-owned trucking company
founded in 1920. The company provides temperature-controlled
transportation services throughout North America.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Drew R. Hansen, Esq.
          Seth M. Goldstein, Esq.
          NOSSAMAN LLP
          18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 833 7800
          Facsimile: (949) 833 7878
          E-mail: dhansen@nossaman.com
                  sgoldstein@nossaman.com

CACTUS JACK'S: Kay Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------
Valerie Kay, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Cactus Jack's of Conway, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-00053, (E.D. Ark., January 24, 2019) seeks monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.

Defendant owns and/or operates Cactus Jack's Mexican restaurant in
Faulkner County, located at 755 Club Lane in Conway where Kay
worked as a server. Kay claims to have spent more than 20% of her
time performing non-tipped duties for Defendant such as opening and
closing the restaurant, rolling silverware, performing side work,
and other non-tipped duties, which usually is in excess of forty
hours per week but did not receive overtime pay for this. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Bold Says Insurance Renewal Notice Untimely
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BOLD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE, INC. D/B/A
BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA; and DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV03748 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Feb. 6, 2019) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as remedies
to correct the Defendants' practice of providing inadequate notice
of renewal premium increases. The Plaintiff also seeks to enjoin
the Defendants from providing inadequate notice of increased
renewal premiums to its individual/family health plan subscribers
and to enjoin the collection of inadequately noticed increases in
renewal premiums.

According to the complaint, the Defendants systematically refused
to comply in timely providing renewal premium notices to
subscribers of its various individual/family health plans and
charging each of those subscribers a renewal premium in excess of
each subscriber's prior year's premium. Such tardy renewal premiums
are not effective but the Defendants nevertheless demanded payment
of such renewal premiums in order to keep those policies in force.
By making such demands, the Defendants collected premiums from
unsuspecting subscribers far in excess of what the law entitled
them to receive.

California Physicians' Service, Inc., doing business as Blue Shield
of California Inc., offers health plans to individuals and families
in California. The company provides health, dental, vision,
Medicaid, and Medicare healthcare service plans in California. It
also helps members to find dentists, vision care, pharmacies,
medical facilities, and medical equipment and supplies. Its
products are offered through local agents and brokers. California
Physicians' Service, Inc. was founded in 1938 and is based in San
Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S.Gianelli, Esq.
          Timothy J. Morris, Esq.
          Howard Loring Rose, Esq.
          GIANELLI & MORRIS, A LAW CORPORATION
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 489-1600
          Facsimile: (213) 489-1611
          E-mail: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com
                  tim.morris@gmlawyers.com


CASCADE CAPITAL: Kaiser Appeals Oregon Ruling to Ninth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Michael Kaiser and Margaret J. Loewen filed an appeal
from a Court ruling in their lawsuit titled Michael Kaiser, et al.
v. Cascade Capital, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00744-AC, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland.

The lawsuit alleges breach of consumer credit laws.

The appellate case is captioned as Michael Kaiser, et al. v.
Cascade Capital, LLC, et al., Case No. 19-35151, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by March 25, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on April 24, 2019;

   -- Appellants Michael Kaiser and Margaret J. Loewen's opening
      brief is due on June 3, 2019;

   -- Appellees Cascade Capital, LLC and Gordon, Aylworth & Tami
      P.C.'s answering brief is due on July 3, 2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants MICHAEL KAISER and MARGARET J. LOEWEN, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Bret Knewtson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BRET KNEWTSON
          3000 NE Stucki Avenue, Suite 230-M
          Hillsboro, OR 97124
          Telephone: (503) 846-1160
          Facsimile: (503) 922-3181
          E-mail: bknewtson@yahoo.com

               - and -

          John Gear, Esq.
          JOHN GEAR LAW OFFICE, LLC
          161 High Street SE, Suite 208B
          Salem, OR 97301-3610
          Telephone: (503) 569-7777
          E-mail: John@JohnGearLaw.com

               - and -

          Mark Passannante, Esq.
          BROER & PASSANNANTE, P.S.
          1001 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1220
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503)294-0910
          Facsimile: (503) 243-2717
          E-mail: Markpassannante@msn.com

Defendants-Appellees CASCADE CAPITAL, LLC, and GORDON, AYLWORTH &
TAMI P.C. are represented by:

          Peter D. Eidenberg, Esq.
          Kelly F. Huedepohl, Esq.
          KEATING JONES HUGHES, PC
          200 SW Market Street, Suite 900
          Portland, OR 97201
          Telephone: (503) 222-9955
          E-mail: peidenberg@keatingjones.com
                  khuedepohl@keatingjones.com


CATHOLIC HEALTH: Underpays Nurses, Walkinshaw et al. Allege
-----------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLE WALKINSHAW; TYSHA BRYANT; APRIL ENDICOTT; HEATHER NABITY;
MEGHAN MARTIN; ALANDREA ELLWANGER; and TROY STAUFFER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
CATHOLIC HEALTH INITIATIVES, Defendant, Case No.
4-19-cv-03012-JMG-SMB (D. Neb., Feb. 6, 2019) is an action against
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class minimum
wages and overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as nurse.

Catholic Health Initiatives operates as a healthcare system in the
United States. The company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered
in Englewood, Colorado. As of February 1, 2019, Catholic Health
Initiatives operates as a subsidiary of Dignity Health. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kathleen M. Neary, Esq.
          Vincent M. Powers, Esq.
          POWERS LAW
          411 South 13 th Street, Suite 300
          Lincoln, NE 68508
          Telephone: (402) 474-8000
          E-mail: kathleen@vpowerslaw.com
                  powerslaw@me.com


CBS TELEVISION: Settles Overtime Wages Class Action for $9.97MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernie Pazanowski, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that the
class action settlement between CBS Television Studios and workers
seeking overtime wages was approved by a federal district court in
New York Feb. 5.

The $9.97 million settlement, which included $3.32 million in
attorneys' fees, is procedurally and substantively fair, the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York said.

The suit was filed by parking production assistants, who secure
lots and streets on production sites during the filming of
television shows. They claimed CBS didn't properly pay them
overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York law.

The settlement is procedurally fair because it was reached through
arm's-length negotiations after being evaluated by experienced
counsel on both sides, the opinion by Judge Robert W. Lehrburger
said.

The settlement is substantively fair because the issues in the case
were complex and the class reacted positively to the settlement,
the court said. It reflects the risks in proceeding with the suit,
and each class member will recover 100 percent of their overtime
damages, the court said.

The fee award was approved because it reflected the significant
amount of time class counsel spent investigating the claims,
assessing viable parties, meeting with over 100 possible class
members, and collecting and reviewing thousands of pages of data,
the court said.

Counsel should also be awarded for being expedient, the court said.
Also, no class member objected to the fee award, and courts
regularly grant awards of one-third the settlement in wage and hour
cases, the court said.

Valli Kane & Vagnini, LLP represented the workers. Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP (New York) represented CBS.

The case is Hines v. CBS Television Studios, S.D.N.Y., No.
15-cv-07882, 2/5/19. [GN]


CHOICE FOODS: Jacobo Seeks Unpaid Wages & Overtime for Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARCO JACOBO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CHOICE FOODS, INC. and DOES 1 to 20,
the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV04741 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 13,
2019), seeks special and general damages, exemplary damages,
penalties, fines, statutory fees, attorneys' fees, equitable and
injunctive relief on behalf of himself, other current and former
employees of the Defendants, pursuant to the California Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf and on behalf of
all current and former employees of the Defendant that were
employed in California four years before the date this action was
filed to the present who have been discriminated, retaliated and/or
harassed as they complained of, refused to or were victims of
illegal activity within the meaning of California Labor Code.
Jacobo was a non-exempt employee of the Defendant, paid on an
hourly basis as a Driver. Plaintiff worked 40 plus hours a week on
a regular basis for Defendant in their distribution
center/warehouse. He allegedly received incorrect wage statements
in violation of California Labor Code in that the wage statements
did not contain necessary information required including, but not
limited to, information regarding accrued sick pay time was not
included on the wage statements and overtime wages, paid in cash,
were accompanied by inadequate wage statements that failed to show
hours worked and overtime wages/calculation of overtime wages.
Plaintiff was paid overtime wages in cash and separately from
regular wages. The overtime wage statements were wholly
insufficient, had multiple deficiencies and failed to include much
of the required information including failure to provide: gross
wages earned, total hours worked by the Employee, all deductions,
net wages earned, the inclusive dates of the period for which the
Employee is paid, the name of the Employee and only the last four
digits of his or her social security number or an employee
identification number other than a social security number, the name
and address of the legal entity that is the employer, and all
applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the
corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the
employee. The Plaintiff received incorrect wage statements for
regular pay as well, in violation of California Labor Code. The
wage statements did not contain necessary information required
including, but not limited to, accrued sick pay time not included
on the wage statement.

Choice Foods in Los Angeles is a food service and distribution
company promoting environmental friendly products, healthy
nutrition and exquisite tastes.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Sandra H. Castro, Esq.
          Kathleen A. Castro, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SANDRA H. CASTRO, INC.
          3200 Inland Empire Blvd., Ste. 265
          Ontario, CA 91764
          Telephone: (909) 989-2700
          Facsimile: (909) 989-2733
          E-mail: castro@lawservicesonline.com
                  kathleen@l awservicesonline.com

               - and -

          Kristen B. Brown, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KRISTEN B. BROWN
          900 W. 17th St., Ste. C
          Santa Ana, CA 92706
          Telephone No: (714) 564-7695
          Facsimile No: (714) 766-8440
          E-mail: krisbrownesq@yahoo.com

CLAIM JUMPER: Sued by Spiker Over Unequal Access to Restaurants
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACK SPIKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. CLAIM JUMPER RESTAURANT (SACRAMENTO), LLC, Case No. 19STCV05844
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 22, 2019), alleges that
the Defendant discriminates against people who are disabled in ways
that block them from equal access to, and use of its restaurants.

Mr. Spiker alleges that the Defendant violates the Unruh Civil
Rights Act, the California Disabled Persons Act and the Americans
with Disabilities Act by, inter alia, failing to operate its
services on a nondiscriminatory basis and failing to ensure that
persons with disabilities have nondiscriminatory access to its
locations.

Claim Jumper is a California limited liability company.  The
Company operates at least 20 restaurants in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534-2590
          Facsimile: (310)247-0160
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


COMCAST CORPORATION: Moore Sues Over TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Nekeyia Moore, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Comcast Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01470 (N.D. Ill., February 28, 2019) brought this class
action against the Defendant under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA").

The Defendant routinely violates the TCPA by using an automatic
telephone dialing system, and a prerecorded or artificial voice, to
place non-emergency calls to telephone numbers assigned to a
cellular telephone service without prior express consent, in that
Defendant places autodialed calls, and delivers prerecorded or
artificial voice messages, to wrong or reassigned cellular
telephone numbers.

Plaintiff suffered actual harm as a result the Defendant's calls in
that she suffered an invasion of privacy, an intrusion into her
life, and a private nuisance, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who at all relevant times resided in
Chicago, Illinois.

Defendant is a corporation headquartered in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
     Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC
     401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
     Austin, TX 78701
     Phone: (512) 803-1578
     Fax: (561) 961-5684
     Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

          - and -

     Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
     Kozonis & Klinger, Ltd.
     4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300
     Chicago, IL 60630
     Phone: 312.283.3814
     Fax: 773.496.8617
     Email: gklinger@kozonislaw.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Settles Class Action Over 2014 Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Stinnett, writing for Nashville Business Journal, reports that
Community Health Systems Inc. has settled a class-action lawsuit
related to a 2014 data breach that impacted 4.5 million patients.

Affected patients will be eligible for up to $5,000 each in
reimbursements for losses related to the breach, according to a
Dec. 10 filing with the U.S. District Court's Northern District of
Alabama. CHS's total payout for claims related to the case is not
to exceed $3.1 million, according to the filing.

Patients have until Aug. 1 to make a claim and until May 18 to opt
out of the settlement, according to the filing. The court has
preliminarily approved the settlement but will hold a hearing on
Aug. 13 to enter a final judgement.

Healthitsecurity.com first reported the settlement.

CHS (NYSE: CYH) is Nashville's second-largest publicly traded
health care company, with $15.35 billion of revenue in 2017,
according to Nashville Business Journal research.

Through a spokesperson, CHS declined comment beyond what is
available in public filings.

Franklin-based CHS disclosed the breach in a 2014 filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. The company said Chinese
hackers used "sophisticated malware and technology" to snare
HIPAA-protected information, including patient names, addresses,
birthdays, telephone numbers and Social Security numbers.

The breach affected approximately 4.5 million individuals who
received services from CHS-affiliated physicians in the previous
five years; it was the second-largest health care data breach at
the time.

Shortly after the disclosure, a class-action lawsuit was filed
against CHS claiming the company's delay in confirming the attack
-- which took place in April and June of 2014, but was not
confirmed until July and not reported to the SEC until August --
"deprived millions of former patients of critical time to protect
themselves from identity theft."

The case was brought by 40 named patients from 24 states.

The settlement is the latest in a string of litigation for CHS,
including a dispute with fellow Franklin-based hospital company
Quorum Health Corp., which spun out of CHS, that was settled by an
arbitrator in January.

CHS was sued by Microsoft in federal court in March, alleging
"willful copyright infringement and willful breach of its
contractual obligations." CHS and Microsoft settled the matter out
of court and the case was dismissed in November.

In September, CHS agreed to pay the Department of Justice $262
million to settle an investigation into whether Health Management
Associates Inc., which CHS bought in 2014, improperly billed the
government for certain inpatient admissions following emergency
room visits. The alleged conduct occurred before CHS bought HMA.

For more on CHS, the company's leadership team and its investors,
check out our cover story from December. [GN]


COMPLIANCE ENVIROSYSTEMS: Lewis Sues Over Failure to Ensure Payment
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Lewis, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Compliance Envirosystems, LLC,
Suez Water Environmental Services, Inc., and Suez Water Long
Island, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 602878/2019 (Sup. Ct. N.Y.,
Nassau Cty., February 28, 2019) brought this action on behalf of
Named Plaintiff and a putative class of individuals who performed
construction related work for the Defendant to recover wages and
benefits which Named Plaintiff and members of the putative class
were contractually entitled to receive for work performed in public
sewers, including but not limited to, work performed in Nassau
County.

Because of CES's policy and practice, Named Plaintiff and members
of the putative class were paid less than the prevailing wage and
supplemental benefit rate for all hours worked on the Public
Projects.

Accordingly, Suez Defendants failed to ensure payment of prevailing
wages and supplemental benefits as required by the contract it had
with the government entity and subcontract with CES, says the
complaint.

Named Plaintiff is an individual residing in the State of New York
who was employed by CES to perform construction related work for on
Public Works Projects.

Compliance Envirosystems, LLC is a business incorporated under the
laws of the State of Louisiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
     Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
     VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
     40 Broad, 7th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 943-9080
     Email: lambinder@vandallp.com


CORNING INC: Must Face Class Action Over Biased Worker Reviews
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a New York federal judge rejected Corning
Inc.'s bid to end a proposed class action alleging it denies black
workers equal access to higher pay bands and networking
opportunities. [GN]


COUNTER TOPS: Alvarez Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Franco Francisco Ampie Alvarez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Counter Tops of Broward Corp, Master Millwork
Design & Build LLC, Nestor M. Bernachea, Thiago Rodrigues, Case No.
1:19-cv-20054 (S.D. Fla., January 4, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have employed several
other similarly situated employees like the Plaintiff who have not
been paid overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess
of 40 hours weekly from the filing of this complaint back three
years.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a carpenter from on or
about March 10, 2018, through on or about December 10, 2018.

The Defendants are Countertop contractors that regularly transact
business within Dade County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CREDIT SUISSE: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP on Feb. 4 disclosed that it filed
a securities class action lawsuit captioned Rubinstein v. Credit
Suisse Group AG No. 1:19-cv-01069 (S.D.N.Y.) on behalf of
purchasers of VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Medium Term Exchange
Traded Notes ("ZIV") (NASDAQ:ZIV) between June 30, 2017 and
February 5, 2018 (the "Class Period") alleging violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false or misleading statements relating to the
risks of investing in ZIV including that: (i) the inverse ETNs was
not appropriate for managing daily trading risks; (ii) Credit
Suisse had designed the ZIV to fail under certain market
conditions; (iii) Credit Suisse had offered and sold more inverse
ETNs than the market could bear which would enable Credit Suisse to
cause the collapse of the inverse ETNs when the opportunity
presented itself; and (iv) Credit Suisse could actively manipulate
inverse ETNs by precipitating an acute liquidity event in
volatility markets including markets for VIX futures. The price of
ZIV dropped from $85.41 to $68.50 on abnormally high trading volume
between February 2, 2018 and February 6, 2018 when these previously
undisclosed adverse facts became known.

The Securities Act and the Exchange Act as amended by the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA") permit any
investor who purchased ZIV 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 February 4, 2019. If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, you may contact plaintiff's counsel, Jeffrey
S. Abraham or Matthew E. Guarnero of Abraham, Fruchter and Twersky,
LLP at (212) 279-5050 or by email at info@aftlaw.com.

Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP -- http://www.aftlaw.com-- is a
New York-based law firm with extensive experience in shareholder
and securities class action cases. The firm has been ranked among
the leading class action law firms in terms of recoveries achieved
for shareholders. [GN]


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Kuznicki Law Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in
these companies during the dates listed below are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible appointment as lead plaintiff
and a preliminary estimate of their recoverable losses.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in the respective securities during the class periods.
Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No classes have yet been
certified in the actions below. Appointment as lead plaintiff is
not required to partake in any recovery.

Dentsply Sirona, Inc. (NASDAQ: XRAY)

A class action has commenced on behalf of shareholders in Dentsply
Sirona, Inc. including (i) all persons who purchased the common
stock of Dentsply Sirona, Inc. (NASDAQ: XRAY) between February 20,
2014 and August 7, 2018; (ii) all Dentsply International Inc.
shareholders who held shares as of the record date of December 2,
2015 and were entitled to vote with respect to the Acquisition at
the January 11, 2016 special meeting of Dentsply International Inc.
shareholders; and (iii) all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Dentsply International in exchange for
their shares of common stock of Sirona in connection with the
Acquisition. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: According to the complaint, during the Class Period,
Defendants attributed the Company's financial performance to the
Company's "innovation," "operational improvement efforts," "new
products," and "continued investments in sales and marketing" and
told investors that these factors helped the Company succeed
despite the "highly competitive" market for its products. In
reality, the Company's financial results had been buoyed by an
anticompetitive scheme among the Company's three primary
distributors that suppressed competition in the dental supply
market and artificially inflated the price of dental supplies sold
by Dentsply. Further, Defendants concealed that an exclusive
distribution arrangement that Sirona had with one of its
distributors, Patterson Companies, Inc. ("Patterson"), required
Patterson to regularly make large minimum purchases regardless of
demand and, as a result, by 2015, Patterson had been supplied with
so much excess inventory that it could not be sold. This
channel-stuffing rendered the Company's reported sales, financial
results and guidance materially false and misleading.  In addition,
the Company represented that it reported its financial statements,
including its goodwill, in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles, or GAAP. In fact, the Company's reported
goodwill was artificially inflated and not reported in accordance
with GAAP because it did not reflect the financial impact of the
anticompetitive scheme.

         Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
         Kuznicki Law PLLC
         445 Central Avenue, Suite 334
         Cedarhurst, NY 11516
         Phone: (347) 696-1134
         Cell: (347) 690-0692
         Fax: (347) 348-0967
         Email: dk@kclasslaw.com [GN]


DENVER, CO: Court Urged to Suspend Urban Camping Ban
----------------------------------------------------
Chris Walker, writing for Westword, reports that the lawyer
representing Denver's homeless population in a federal class-action
lawsuit that claims the city violates certain constitutional rights
when it sweeps homeless encampments is asking the court to suspend
Denver's urban camping ban a week before and during the trial,
which starts on March 19.

Jason Flores-Williams, the attorney arguing on behalf of the
homeless, submitted a motion to District Court Judge William
Martinez, February 4, arguing that Denver's camping ban could
prevent witnesses from testifying in the case.

"There is a virtual fence around Downtown Denver," Mr.
Flores-Williams writes in the motion. "Plaintiffs are chased from
the Downtown area to the outer reaches of the City so that they
cannot get to the Courthouse to provide evidence and testimony.
Plaintiffs' property is seized so that that they are forced to
choose between using their voice or losing their possessions."

Mr. Flores-Williams says he's not seeking to have the court review
or consider the constitutionality of Denver's camping ban, which
was eliminated from the scope of the lawsuit during pre-trial
hearings in 2017 and 2018. But suspending, or at least tweaking,
the ordinance isn't unheard of, he argues, citing a December 2016
executive order from Mayor Michael Hancock that prohibited police
officers from confiscating blankets or tents when enforcing the
camping ban after a pair of controversial videos went viral.

Mr. Flores-Williams contends that a suspension of the camping ban,
from March 12 through the end of the trial on March 29, is a
reasonable request and within the power of the court to enforce.

Responding on behalf of the city, Theresa Marchetta, the director
of communications for the Mayor's Office, wrote Westword on Feb. 4
saying, "There is no need to suspend enforcement of city laws or
disrupt normal city operations. The city does not target
individuals for arrest in order to prevent them from testifying.
That is an unfounded claim.

The class-action lawsuit has involved some unusual motions as a
result of the plaintiffs' homeless status. For example, Martinez
has allowed individuals who don't have IDs inside the federal
courthouse, which requires identification for entrance, during the
trial.

The case has slowly advanced toward a jury-trial showdown for
years; Mr. Flores-Williams filed the suit after a number of
high-profile homeless sweeps in late 2016, and in 2017, the federal
court allowed every person experiencing homelessness in Denver to
serve as plaintiffs in the case.

Both Mr. Flores-Williams and the city filed motions for summary
judgment in 2017, believing their respective arguments were strong
enough to avoid a full jury trial, but Martinez dismissed the
requests.

At the conclusion of his filing this morning, Mr. Flores-Williams
writes, "Thousands of hurting and exhausted homeless people have
believed and struggled for three years to provide evidence and
testimony to this Court. Now, all they are asking for is three
weeks so that they can do so with dignity. Three weeks to provide
evidence, three weeks to give their testimony, three weeks in which
they aren't treated as the unwanted, nor harassed, nor tired, nor
poor, nor any of the things that this country used to welcome and
now abuses, but citizens going to their Courthouse with the rights
afforded everyone else." [GN]


DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Removes Stempien Case to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
DeVry University, Inc. removes case, LISA STEMPIEN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
DEVRY UNIVERSITY, INC., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. RG19002623 (Filed Jan. 15, 2019), was removed from the Alameda
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on Feb. 15, 2019. The Northern District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-00830-DMR to the
proceeding.

The complaint purports to allege five claims for relief: failure to
pay wages for all hours worked; failure to authorize and permit
paid rest breaks or pay missed rest period premiums; failure to pay
compensation due upon termination; failure to reimburse for
business-related cell phone usage; and unfair, unlawful, or
fraudulent business practices.

DeVry University is a for-profit college based in the United
States. The school was founded in 1931 by Herman A. DeVry as
DeForest Training School and officially became DeVry University in
2002.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Andrew M. McNaught, Esq.
          Parnian Vafaeenia, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          E-mail: amcnaught@seyfarth.com
                  pvafaeenia@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Coby Turner, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 448-0159
          Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
          E-mail: cturner@seyfarth.com

DIRCKSEN & TALLEYRAND: Xiques Seek Unpaid Wages for Servers
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS XIQUE and JUAN XIQUE, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. DIRCKSEN & TALLEYRAND INC.
d/b/a RIVER CAFE and MICHAEL "BUZZY" O'KEEFE, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01472 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 15, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid wages as a result of the violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law

According to the class suit, the Defendant fails and refuses to pay
its employees at the legally required minimum wage for all hours
worked and one and one half times this rate for work in excess of
40 hours per workweek, and to allow non-tipped employees to share
in other employees' tips.

Dircksen & Talleyrand Inc. is a New York Corporation that operates
River Cafe restaurant at Water Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Galen J. Criscione, Esq.
          CRISCIONE RAVALA, LLP
          250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10177
          Telephone: 212-920-7142
          E-mail: GCriscione@lawcrt.com

DOS REALES: Olivera Seeks Final Class Cert. & Settlement Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned ANATOLIO PENA OLIVERA and
MARIA FERNANDA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf all others
similarly situated v. DOS REALES, INC. and ALVARO QUEZADA, Case No.
2:17-cv-02203-KGS (D. Kan.), submit their Unopposed Motion for
Final Class Certification and Settlement Approval.

The lawsuit is a wage-and-hour collective action that the Court
conditionally certified under the Fair Labor Standards Act in
October 2018.  Having distributed notice of this collective action
to putative participants, filing executed opt-in forms, and with
the opt-in period now closed, the Plaintiffs now seek final
certification along with approval of a collective settlement in
this matter.

The case involves FLSA claims stemming from errors in the
Defendants' central payroll system that resulted in underpayment of
proper compensation to servers at the Defendants' two restaurant
locations.  The Plaintiffs identified FLSA violations on the face
of their paystubs by comparing calculations of hours worked, tips
generated, and overtime wages with applicable requirements for
those categories under the FLSA.

After the Plaintiffs filed suit, the parties promptly opened
discussions about the nature of the wage-and-hour claims at issue,
and the Defendants located the source of the underpayments and
fixed the payroll system to prevent any future underpayments in
violation of the FLSA.

The Defendants produced payroll records from three years before the
instant case was filed to the time when the payroll system was
fixed, which allowed the Plaintiffs to confirm that the overtime
underpayments affected similarly situated servers for a set period
of time.  The payroll data that the Defendants produced clarified
that, though the Plaintiffs alleged a tip-credit violation of the
FLSA, the overtime calculation errors skewed the other compensation
categories on servers' paystubs and created a ripple effect.  But
the Defendants' resolution of the overtime errors made the rest of
the calculations on servers' paystubs accurate and compliant with
the FLSA's requirements.

The parties agreed that the overtime errors existed and discussed a
way to resolve underpayments on a collective basis.  The parties
agreed to a settlement-payment formula that provided a 1.5x
multiplier to opt-in participants for unpaid overtime, service
awards for the class representatives, payment of litigation costs,
and a reduced amount of attorney fees based on the size of the
putative class.  The Plaintiffs, of course, needed to complete the
two-step process for certification in an FLSA case in order to
reach the point where the Court could approve the proposed
settlement.

After the Plaintiffs modified their Motion to seek Conditional
Certification of just an FLSA collective class, the Court granted
Conditional Certification and authorized the Plaintiffs to issue
the Court-approved notice to putative class members.  The
Plaintiffs sent the Court-approved notice to the addresses provided
by the Defendants, sent a second wave of notice packets through
standard mail as a significant amount of the initial packets were
returned due to an inability to obtain signatures for the notice
packets sent via certified mail, and utilized the other provided
contact information from the Defendants for any putative class
members who was mailed a second notice packet that was also
returned.

The Plaintiffs fielded calls from putative class members in both
English and Spanish about this lawsuit and then filed the opt-in
forms that were returned executed.  The opt-in period closed on
February 19, 2019.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul ("Pablo") H. Mose, Esq.
          REBEIN BROTHERS, P.A.
          810 Frontview
          Dodge City, KS 67801
          Telephone: (620) 227-8126
          Facsimile: (620) 227-8451
          E-mail: Pablo@rbr3.com

               - and -

          Mark V. Dugan, Esq.
          Heather J. Schlozman, Esq.
          DUGAN SCHLOZMAN, LLC
          8826 Santa Fe Drive, Suite, 307
          Overland Park, KS 66212
          Telephone: (913) 322-3528
          Facsimile: (913) 904-0213
          E-mail: mark@duganschlozman.com
                  heather@duganschlozman.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Donald M. McLean, Esq.
          P.O. Box 171855
          Kansas City, KS 66117-0855
          Telephone: (816) 835-9954
          Facsimile: (913) 713-0065
          E-mail: dmcleanlaw@outlook.com


EL REY: Class Action in the Works Over Wrestlers' Contracts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Gagnon, writing for Wrestling Inc., reports that lawyers for
King Cuerno (aka El Hijo del Fantasma) have filed documents in Los
Angeles against the El Rey Network and Lucha Underground's
production Baba-G Productions, according to Pro Wrestling Sheet.

They are claiming the contract "illegally restricts" wrestlers from
finding work in wrestling is in violation of California law. With
season five very much still a mystery, wrestlers are being held to
their contracts while they wait for word if there will indeed be
another season.

Documents sent to Pro Wrestling Sheet detailed how wrestlers under
contract make money based on the shows they appear on, at usually
less than $1,000 per episode.

By contrast, Lucha Underground broadcasts between 22 and 40
television episodes per year, with no live events like the other
described wrestling promotions. If a wrestler appears on a show, it
is usually just a couple. The payment per episode is usually less
than $1,000.

The current contract that wrestlers signed with Lucha Underground
require that wrestlers not perform services for other wrestling
companies anywhere in the world without Defendants permission, but
does not require Defendants to use Plaintiffs in their
wrestling-theme television show.

While Plaintiffs are obligated to restrict their trade under the
contract (which is illegal), Defendants are not required to use or
pay Plaintiffs. Defendants have the option to use Plaintiffs, and
IF Defendants use Plaintiffs, Defendants will pay Plaintiffs. IF
Defendants chose not to use Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs are prohibited
for working for years, are not paid, but still under the
restrictive contract until it expires.

Most wrestlers under a Lucha Underground contract make less than
$4,000 a year. Wrestlers working for other wrestling promotions
make a living wage, usually starting around $50,000 a year and
entering either 6 or 7 figures.

Mr. Cuerno is claiming he has missed out on a lot of money due to
his contract, as well as an opportunity with another company. They
are looking for punitive and actual damages.

Lucha Central is also reporting in a statement from Fantasma's
lawyer that a class action lawsuit is potentially in the works also
involving Ivelisse, Joey Ryan, and Thunder Rosa (aka Kobra Moon)
getting involved to get out of their contracts.

In January, Ivelisse commented on Twitter about "being legally held
hostage" because her request to be released from Lucha Underground
was denied multiple times.

Ryan would later come out in support of her writing, "I back
Ivelisse 100% on this. Prior to S4, we were told anybody who
requested a release would be granted one. Some did and left after
the tapings. Others showed faith in the product and now seems are
being punished for it. With no S5 in sight, it's petty to keep
anyone locked up." [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Sheppard Mullin Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan E. Meyer, Esq. -- jmeyer@sheppardmullin.com -- and Elfin
Noce, Esq. -- enoce@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that in
the aftermath of Equifax's data breach, a federal court recently
found that allegations of poor cybersecurity coupled with
misleading statements supported a proper cause of action. In its
decision, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia allowed a securities fraud class action case to continue
against Equifax. The lawsuit claims the company issued false or
misleading statements regarding the strength and quality of its
cybersecurity measures. In their amended complaint, the plaintiffs
cite Equifax's claims of "strong data security and confidentiality
standards" and "a highly sophisticated data information network
that includes advanced security, protections and redundancies,"
when, according to the plaintiffs' allegations, Equifax's
cybersecurity practices "were grossly deficient and outdated" and
"failed to implement even the most basic security measures." The
court found that data security is a core aspect of Equifax's
business and that investors are likely to review representations on
data security when making their investment decisions.

Key factors the court considered in allowing the case to continue
were:

   -- Statements on the company's website and in SEC filings that
it maintained "strong data security" and strong controls;
   -- The company's inadequate software patch management process;
   -- Failure to encrypt sensitive data;
   -- Inadequate authentication measures, such as weak passwords
and lack of multi-factor authentication;
   -- Failure to implement measures to monitor its networks;
   -- Failure to segment its networks;
   -- Inadequate staff training;
   -- Failure to develop a data breach management plan; and
   == Inadequate follow-up on outside security audits.

Putting it Into Practice: Investors are paying attention to what
companies are doing and saying with regard to cybersecurity.
Particularly when touting strong cybersecurity practices, companies
should carefully craft messaging that accurately reflects their
cybersecurity posture, and they should make sure that their actions
match their words by maintaining vigilance on cybersecurity. [GN]


EVANSTON, IL: Faces Class Action Over Convenience Fees
------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
a class action lawsuit has accused the city of Evanston of
improperly charging convenience fees to people using a credit card
to pay tickets online.

Plaintiff Lon Berkeley filed a complaint on Jan. 22 in Cook County
Circuit Court against Evanston, alleging the city charges
convenience fees or surcharges that exceed the limit set by law.

According to the complaint, the city has allegedly unlawfully
forced Berkeley and others to pay convenience fees or surcharges
that exceed the legal limitation, on top of fines for violation
tickets being paid using a credit card at Evanston's website,
https://evanston.rmcpay.com, which is operated by a third party.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendant for damages, certification of class action, establishment
of a constructive trust, award of restitution and attorney fees and
costs.

Plaintiffs are represented in the action by the Progressive Law
Group, of Chicago.

Cook County Circuit Court Case No. 19-CH-847. [GN]


EVOLENT HEALTH: Kelly Suit Seeks to Recoup Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sakinah Kelly, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Evolent Health LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00500
(N.D. Ill., January 24, 2019), seeks all unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees,
expert fees, costs and expenses of this action, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest and such other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Defendant is a company that partners with health care providers and
health insurance plans to improve the quality and cost of medical
care where Kelly performed utilization review and case management
as "Case Advisor." She claims to have worked over 40 hours in one
or more workweeks, all without overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
      Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
      Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 419-1008
      Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
             zflowerree@flsalaw.com
             msalas@flsalaw.com
             sarendt@flsalaw.com

             - and -

      Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
      THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC
      5438 Rutherglenn Drive
      Houston, TX 77096
      Tel: (512) 417-5716
      Email: travis@hedgpethlaw.com

             - and -

      Jack Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
      10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Tel: (214) 790-4454
      Fax: (469) 339-0204
      Email: jack@siegellawgroup.biz
      Website: www.4overtimelawyer.com


EXXON MOBIL: Executives Avert ERISA Climate Change Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Exxon Mobil Corp. executives defeated a
proposed Employee Retirement Income Security Act class action over
the impact of climate change disclosures on workers' retirement
savings. [GN]


FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY: Settles Sex-Abuse Claims for $61MM
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael P. Mayko, writing for Fairfield Citizen, reports that
Fairfield University is among several affiliated religious groups
that have agreed to pay a $61 million settlement following lawsuits
alleging sexual abuse at a school for homeless boys in Haiti.

Douglas Perlitz, a former Fairfield University graduate, foundand
operated the school in Haiti. He pleaded guilty in August 2010 to
one charge of traveling overseas to engage in sex with a minor.

"Fairfield and other defendants did not admit any guilt," said
Mitchell Garabedian, Esq. a Boston-based lawyer who has built a
reputation for representing victims of sexual abuse by Catholic
priests and employees. But "the settlement speaks for itself," he
said.

The settlement calls for the creation of a $60 million fund to help
the 133 victims and a $1.2 million fund to administer the payments,
Garabedian said. It comes after seven months of mediation.

"All of these 133 sexual abuse victims will be members of the
proposed settlement class," Garabedian said. "Other victims of
sexual abuse perpetrated by Douglas Perlitz, Father Paul E. Carrier
or anyone else affiliated with (Perlitz's) Project Pierre-Toussaint
will have the opportunity to become members of the settlement
class."

Fairfield University raised funds and sent university student
volunteers to work at the Haitian school. The university and the
affiliated groups are accused of being negligent in their
supervision of Perlitz and Carrier.

Carrier spent 20 years as an instructor, chaplain and director of
campus ministry at Fairfield University.

Garabedian, who served as co-lead counsel with Paul J. Hanly Jr.,
said he does not anticipate any other victims coming forward.

"We have been scouring the area for nine years," Garabedian said.
"We think we found all the victims ... If more come forward, their
claims will be assessed."

But before any settlement is approved and paid out, Senior U.S.
District Judge Robert Chatigny must first grant Garabedian's
request to turn the 51 separate lawsuits into one class action
matter.

Chatigny is expected to conduct a hearing on that request Feb. 11
in his Hartford courtroom. Once that happens, the process of
certifying the 133 victims as a class will begin, and it could take
a year before payouts are made.

"A significant proportion of the funds to be used in the
University's contribution to the settlement will come through a
University Insurance carrier," Fairfield University said in a
statement regarding Friday's action.

The university was among four affiliated religious and charitable
organizations and three individuals that agreed to the payout
terms.

The proposal will settle claims against Perlitz, Fairfield
University and the Rev. Paul E. Carrier; the Society of Jesus of
New England; and the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St.
John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta, which provided a start-up
grant and additional monies to Project Pierre-Toussaint, which
included a residential school, Garabedian said.

It also settles claims against the defunct Haiti Fund Inc., which
served as Project Pierre Toussaint's nonprofit fundraising arm, and
Hope Carter, a New Canaan philanthropist and former member of the
Haiti Fund's board of directors, Garabedian added.

"The university has been planning for this litigation, and any
difference has been allocated for and will not have material impact
on the financial integrity of the university or its day-to-day
operations in serving our students, faculty and the broader
Fairfield Community," the school said in a prepared statement. "We
will continue to make investments to enhance our facilities and our
faculty to ensure that we provide a world-class education to our
students."

The deal marks the second time in almost six years that Garabedian
has reached a settlement with victims from the Project
Pierre-Toussaint scandal in Cap-Haitien, Haiti's second largest
city.

In 2013, Garabedian settled 23 similar suits for $12 million which
resulted in payments of $500,000 to 24 victims.

Lawyers said that money also came primarily from insurance policies
held by many of the same defendants.

The payouts enabled the victims to receive occupational, physical
and psychological treatment. Shortly after that settlement,
Garabedian began filing another 51 suits involving these 133
victims.

"Many of these clients are severely sick," he said. He described
them as "starving and very thin, having lumps on their skin and
suffering from various diseases."

Garabedian said all the victims in the latest settlement claim they
were abused by Perlitz, with one of those also alleging to have
been sexually abused by Carrier, long described as Perlitz's
mentor.

The allegation made by Garabedian against Carrier marks the first
time the charismatic Jesuit priest has been accused of abusing one
of the boys. Carrier often visited Perlitz in Haiti, numerous
victims told Hearst Connecticut Media during the newspaper group's
investigation in Haiti of Project Pierre-Toussaint. None of those
said they were abused by Carrier.

Despite the claim, Carrier was never charged with any crime.

Nevertheless, the Society of Jesus transferred Carrier from
Fairfield University in 2008 as federal investigators, Haiti's
National Police and the United Nations began digging into claims of
misconduct exposed a year earlier by Cyrus Siebert, a radio
journalist in Haiti.

The order suspended Carrier from performing any religious duties
shortly after Perlitz's sentencing in December 2010.

Carrier now resides at the Campion Jesuit community in Weston,
Mass., Garabedian said.

Perlitz was sentenced to 19 years and seven months in federal
prison.

Now 48 and one of 1,924 inmates incarcerated in the federal
correction institution in Seagoville, Texas, Perlitz is awaiting
release in 2026.

He was left penniless when the federal government seized his bank
and retirement accounts totaling about $49,000. That money was
distributed to the 16 victims identified in the federal criminal
case against him.

During his sentencing, Perlitz said he was involved in a "dark and
abusive" relationship both "physical and spiritual" that began with
a Fairfield University priest shortly after he arrived as a
freshman on campus in 1988.

Ira Grudberg, Perlitz's defense lawyer, said that relationship
"continued for many years including all of his (Perlitz's) work in
Haiti."

The priest was never identified.

"What we learned in these cases is that impoverished Haitian
children were sexually abused and then left in pain, agony and
without hope," Garabedian said.[GN]


FAMILY DOLLAR: Amador Asks Court to Permit Supervised Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit SEVERINO JAVIER AMADOR, and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF
FLORIDA, L.L.C., a limited liability company, FAMILY DOLLAR STORES
OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, and FELICIA GAINER, an
individual, the Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-62437-CMA (S.D. Fla.),
Amador asks the Court to permit and supervise notice to:

"all current and former employees of the Defendant who were given
the title "store manager" in the Southern District of Florida who
are or were failed to be compensated time and one-half for the
overtime hours that they worked. Additionally, Amador requests that
the Court compel the Defendants to provide the names, addresses,
and telephone numbers of the employees in the class."

The lawsuit seeks payment for overtime work pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Chris Kleppin, Esq.
          GLASSER & KLEPPIN, P.A.
          8751 W. Broward Blvd., Suite 105
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 424-1933
          Facsimile: (954) 474-7405
          E-mail: ckleppin@gkemploymentlaw.com

FAR SEA FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Waiters, Santos Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY SANTOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FAR SEA FOOD, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV03709 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Feb. 6, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for
unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff Santos was employed by the Defendants as waiter.

Far Sea Food, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of California. The Company is engaged as a
restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Kevin A. Mahoney, Esq.
         John A. Young, Esq.
         MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
         249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
         Long Beach, CA 90802
         Telephone: (562) 590-5550
         Facsimile: (562) 590-8400


FIRST FEDERAL: Faces Kadow RESPA Suit Over Illegal Kickbacks
------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN KADOW, and MARY and WALSH JONES v. FIRST FEDERAL BANK
successor in interest to CBC NATIONAL BANK, Case No.
1:19-cv-00566-DKC (D. Md., February 22, 2019), is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated borrowers alleging
violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

The Plaintiffs and the alleged Class Members are borrowers, who
currently have or had a residential mortgage loan originated and/or
brokered by CBC National Bank, predecessor to Defendant First
Federal Bank, which was or is secured by residential real property.
They contend that they are victims of an illegal kickback and
price fixing scheme between CBC National Bank and All Star Title,
Inc., a Maryland title and settlement services company.

Under the scheme, the Plaintiffs allege, CBC National by and
through its branch managers, loan officers, agents and/or other
employees received and accepted illegal kickbacks in exchange for
the assignment and referral of residential mortgage loans,
refinances and reverse mortgages to All Star for title and
settlement services in violation of the RESPA.  CBC National and
All Star laundered the kickbacks through third party marketing
companies to conceal the illegal kickbacks and the kickback
agreement, the Plaintiffs contend.

First Federal Bank, formerly known as First Federal Bank of
Florida, is a federal savings association with its headquarters and
principal place of business located in Lake City, in Columbia
County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
          Veronica B. Nannis, Esq.
          Megan A. Benevento, Esq.
          JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A.
          6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
          Greenbelt, MD 20770
          Telephone: (301) 220-2200
          Facsimile: (301) 220-1214
          E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
                  vnannis@jgllaw.com
                  mbenevento@jgllaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Paul Smith, Esq.
          Melissa L. English, Esq.
          Sarah A. Zadrozny, Esq.
          SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC
          600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 821-0070
          Facsimile: (410) 821-0071
          E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com
                  menglish@sgs-law.com
                  szadrozny@sgs-law.com


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Vaccarella Alleges Wrongful Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER VACCARELLA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE, LLC; and
JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04393-JMV-MF (D.N.J.,
Feb. 1, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to
Judge John Michael Vazquez and referred to Magistrate Judge Mark
Falk.

Firstsource Advantage, LLC offers collections and recovery
solutions. It provides debt recovery services for credit card
issuers, retail banking and mortgage. Firstsource Advantage, LLC
was formerly known as Firstsource LLC and changed its name in
February, 2007. The company was founded in 1995 and is based in
Amherst, New York. As of October 8, 2004, Firstsource Advantage,
LLC operates as a subsidiary of Firstsource Solutions Limited.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
          280 Prospect Ave. 6G
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 803-6611
          Facsimile: (866) 596-4973
          E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com


FIS OPERATIONS: Underpays Pipeline Inspectors, Rivera Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. FIS OPERATIONS, LLC d/b/a
FRONTIER INTEGRITY SOLUTIONS, Defendant, Case No.
5:19-cv-00237-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal., Feb. 5, 2019) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Plaintiff Rivera was employed by the Defendant as pipeline
inspector.

FIS Operations, LLC d/b/a Frontier Integrity Solutions offers oil
and gas pipeline inspection and integrity services. The company was
founded in 2016 and is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Frontier Integrity
Solutions is a former subsidiary of Furmanite Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          340 S. Lemon Ave., #1228
          Walnut, CA 91789
          Telephone: (713) 999-5228
          Facsimile: (713) 999-1187
          E-mail: matt@parmet.law

               - and -

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


FORSTER & GARBUS: Leboeuf Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
MYRLE S. LEBOEUF, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORSTER & GARBUS LLP, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00845-BWA-JVM (E.D. La., Feb. 4, 2019) seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt. The case is assigned to Judge Barry W Ashe and referred to
Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Katherine Zabetti Crouch, Esq.
         CROUCH LAW, LLC
         2372 St. Claude Avenue, Suite 224
         New Orleans, LA 70117
         Telephone: (504) 982-6995
         E-mail: katherine.crouch@gmail.com

              - and -

         James L Davidson, Esq.
         GREENWOOD PRATHER LAW FIRM
         P.O. Box 1358
         Houston, TX 77251
         Telephone: (561) 826-5477
         E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com


FORWARD AIR: Ibarra Wants to Stop Illegal Use of Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO IBARRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FORWARD AIR SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. 2019CH02462 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., February 25,
2019), wants to put a stop to the Defendant's alleged unlawful
collection, use, and storage of the Plaintiffs and the putative
Class members' sensitive biometric data.

Forward Air is a Delaware limited liability company.  The Company
is headquartered in Greenville, Tennessee, and conducts business
throughout this County, the state of Illinois, and the United
States.

Forward Air is a leading provider of ground transportation and
related logistics services to the North American freight market.
The Company has over 90 facilities located at or near major U.S.
and Canadian airports.  The Company is part of Forward Air
Corporation, which is publicly traded on the NASDAQ stock
exchange.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Fish, Esq.
          Seth Matus, Esq.
          Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 355-7590
          Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  smatus@fishlawfirm.com
                  khilton@fishlawfirm.com
                  jkunze@fishlawfirm.com


GARDA CL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Frapanpina Suit Asserts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Frapanpina III, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Garda CL Great Lakes, Inc., Case
No. 19-cv-00493 (N.D. Ill., January 24, 2019), seeks actual and
statutory damages for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Act.

Garda is a wholly owned subsidiary of Garda Cash Logistics, Inc.
and Garda World Security Corp., a privately-owned security service.
Frapanpina was employed by Garda as a driver and a messenger in
their Broadview, Illinois office. He claims to be only paid
straight time for all hours worked up to 50 hours per week and did
not receive overtime compensation for those weeks when they worked
between 40 and 50 hours.  [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Terrence Buehler, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE BUEHLER
     1 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3140
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Telephone: (312) 371-4385


GENERAL ELECTRIC: April 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Feb. 5 disclosed that
a federal class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for Southern District of New  York on behalf of all
purchasers of shares of General Electric Company ("GE" or the
"Company") (NYSE:GE) from October 12, 2018 through and including
October 29, 2018 (the "Class Period"), inclusive.

Investors who purchased shares of General Electric Company are
urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or
(800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional
information concerning the action on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of, you may, no later
than April 2, 2019, request that the Court appoint you lead
plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to
learn more about your rights as an investor in Ferroglobe PLC.

The filed complaint alleges that GE and its Chief Executive
Officer, H. Lawrence Culp, Jr., issued false and misleading
statements relating to the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission's (the "SEC") expanded investigation into the Company's
accounting practices, including investigating GE's $23 billion
goodwill impairment charge (the "Power Charge"). The Company
announced the Power Charge on October 1, 2018, and the SEC
investigation began shortly after.

The Company revealed the truth on October 30, 2018, when it was
announced that the SEC had expanded its previous investigation into
the Company's accounting practices to include this material Power
Charge. The Company informed investors that the Department of
Justice was also investigating GE.

GE had failed to disclose this material information on October 12,
2018 when defendants announced that GE was delaying the release of
the Company's quarterly earnings.

Upon disclosure of these material facts, GE's stock price fell
sharply from a closing price of $11.16 on October 29, 2018, to a
closing price of $10.18 on October 30, 2018—a nearly 10% market
decline.

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP has extensive experience
in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative
litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across
the country.  The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and
offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and
expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation
has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed
it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and
consolidated litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.

Contact:

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com
       kcooper@whafh.com
       classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735
     (212) 545-4774 [GN]


GENERAL MOTORS: Massip et al. Sue over Defective Injection Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRETT MASSIP; and ELIZABETH MASSIP, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC; and
DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV04147 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 6, 2019) alleges that the Defendants
manufacture and sell defective CP4 high-pressure fuel pump.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs' vehicle was equipped
with a 6.6L, V-8, turbocharged Duramax engine containing a "CP4"
high-pressure fuel pump. The Defendant committed fraud by allowing
the vehicle to be sold to the Plaintiffs without disclosing that
the vehicle contained defects within the engine, and particularly
its CP4 Fuel Pump, that can cause fuel pump failure resulting in
spread of tiny metal particles throughout the fuel system, damaging
the fuel system and engine. The CP4 high-pressure fuel pump is
referred to as a "ticking time bomb" which cause engine failures
which eventually result in sudden and unexpected stalling and loss
of power while driving.

General Motors LLC was incorporated in 2009 and is based in
Wilmington, Delaware. General Motors LLC operates as a subsidiary
of General Motors Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric. H Gibbs, Esq.
          David Stein, Esq.
          Steven Lopez, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          505 14 Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: ehgclasslawgroup.com
                  ds@classlawgroup.com
                  sal@classlawgroup.com


GET FRESH: Memoli Wants to Stop Illegal Use of Biometric Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN MEMOLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GET FRESH PRODUCE, INC., an Illinois corporation, Case
No. 2019L000227 (Ill. Cir., DuPage Cty., February 22, 2019), wants
to put a stop to the Defendant's alleged unlawful collection, use,
and storage of the Plaintiff's and other employees' sensitive
biometric data pursuant to the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

Get Fresh Produce is an Illinois corporation headquartered in
Bartlett, Illinois.  The Company operates in the foodservice supply
and distribution industry.  The Company operates from an
86,000-square foot facility in Bartlett and uses a fleet of over
100 climate controlled vehicles to serve a distribution area of
over 250 square miles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Fish, Esq.
          Seth Matus, Esq.
          Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
          John Kunze, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 355-7590
          Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  smatus@fishlawfirm.com
                  khilton@fishlawfirm.com
                  jkunze@fishlawfirm.com


GLENN M. ROSS: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Tenants' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, CASSANDRA BAKER, CORRINE MORRIS, and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. GLENN M. ROSS,
P.C. and GLENN M. ROSS, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04274-HB
(E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Harvey Bartle III entered an order:

   1. certifying a class, for purposes of judgment on the
      proposed Settlement:

      "all Philadelphia Residential Tenants who at any time between

      September 26, 2016 and March 14, 2018 (inclusive) were sued
      in Landlord-Tenant Court by Defendants, for leases identified

      as commencing on or after October 12, 2011 , where that
      Complaint demanded moneys for tenancy periods prior to the
      tenant' s receipt of a Certificate of Rental Suitability
      issued by the City of Philadelphia";

   2. appointing Mary M. McKenzie, Daniel Urevick-Ackelsberg, and
      George A. Donnelly of the Public Interest Law Center, Charles

      Delbaum of the National Consumer Law Center, and Nicholas
      Chimicles and Alison Gushue of Chimicles Schwartz Kriner &
      Donaldson-Smith LLP as Class Counsel; and

   3. approving payments to Plaintiffs in the total amount of
      $1,000 each as an incentive payment for their efforts on
      behalf of the Settlement Class, pursuant to the Settlement
      Agreement, and in recognition of their efforts on behalf of
      the Settlement Class, and directing Class Counsel to make
      such payment in accordance with the terms of the Settlement
      Agreement.

The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act in connection with the Defendants' efforts at
collecting debts allegedly owed by the proposed class members that
directly and proximately caused injuries to the Plaintiffs and the
Class.[CC]

GLOBAL FINANCIAL DATA: Court Certifies FLSA Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit QIUZI HU, et al., the Plaintiffs, vs.
JOSE M. PLEHN-DUJOWICH, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-01791-EDL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte
entered an order on Feb. 25, 2019, certifying a collective action
consisting of:

   "all persons who enrolled in the Global Financial Data Project
   ["GFDP"] while residing in, or who performed work for the
   project in, the United States or any territory of possession of

   the United States."

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have not included a time limitation
in their class description because GFDP only operated from July
2016 to May 2017, less than three years before Plaintiff filed this
motion. The FLSA typically has a two-year statute of limitations
but it may be extended to three years if the employer's violation
is deemed willful. The Plaintiffs have alleged that the conduct was
willful. The Plaintiffs argue that they are similarly situated to
other class members because they uniformly paid to enroll in GFDP
believing that they would receive meaningful instruction but were
tricked and uniformly required to perform the tasks to financially
benefit Defendants without compensation. They have provided
declarations from each of the proposed named Plaintiffs to that
effect. They also provided a declaration from Ningrui Zhang, who
was the Assistant Director of GFDP. She stated that the various
flyers GFDP used to advertise its program had slight modifications,
such as different course start dates for each session, but that
each flyer contained the same or substantially similar information.
She and Plehn-Dujowich provided instruction to the students online
and the communication was uniform for all participants in GFDP.
Zhang estimates, based on spreadsheets of enrollees maintained by
GFDP, that there were 230 enrollees. Based on Plaintiffs'
allegations, it seems likely that determination of employment
status will be uniform across the class. Because Plaintiffs have
adequately alleged that are similarly situated to other GFDP
enrollees because they were all victims of Defendants' fraud, and
supported those allegations with declarations, the Court
conditionally certifies a class for Fair Labor Standard Act
purposes."

GLOBAL SPECIALTIES: Underpays Installers, Cardenas Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS CARDENAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL SPECIALTIES DIRECT INC.; and DOES 1
through 50, Defendants, Case No. 19STCVO3454 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cntr. District., Feb. 5, 2018) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Cardenas was employed by the Defendants as
installers.

Global Specialties Direct Inc. provides building products. The
Company offers flagpoles, visual display boards, lockers, mirrors,
shelves, restroom accessories, as well as partitions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Kevin A. Mahoney, Esq.
         John A. Young, Esq.
         MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
         249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
         Long Beach, CA 90802
         Telephone: (562) 590-5550
         Facsimile: (562) 590-8400


GRAIN PROCESSING: Judge Okays $50MM Pollution Case Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Payne, writing for Iowa Public Radio, reports that a judge has
approved a $50 million settlement in a class action pollution case
in Muscatine. The decision is a major victory for local residents,
who fought the Grain Processing Corporation for years in court.

Some 15,000 residents can now qualify for individual payouts based
on their exposure to haze, odors and particles from the Grain
Processing Corporation's corn milling facility in the south end of
Muscatine.

Under the agreement, GPC must pay $45 million to area residents and
their lawyers, as well as spend $1.5 million on a regenerative
thermal oxidizer that will reduce emissions, and spend no less than
$5 million on new pollution control projects, with an emphasis on
reducing odor emissions.

Individuals who saw the greatest impacts could get as much as an
estimated $16,000 each. After years of litigation that took the
case before the Iowa Supreme Court two times, District Judge John
Telleen called the settlement "quite extraordinary."

"I very wholeheartedly find that it is a very reasonable
settlement," the judge said at the court hearing on Feb. 5. "This
is significant, significant compensation for class members."

Attorney Sarah Siskind was on the legal team representing the class
members. She says the payouts could be life changing for some
residents, especially households of families living closest to the
plant, who could see benefits of some $80,000.

"We've seen more than one family of five," Ms. Siskind said. "If
they're living close to the plant, and the expected payments are as
estimated, it's getting close to five times 16 [thousand]."   

Bob Weatherman was one of the plaintiffs in the case, and said the
emissions from the plant severely diminished the quality of life
for those living, playing and going to school in the south end of
Muscatine.

"You couldn't even see cars coming at you, the pollution was so
bad. And people who lived in the south end area there, I don't know
how they survived, really," Mr. Weatherman said.

Mr. Weatherman says GPC is a powerful and important part of the
Muscatine community, but he says this case shows industry leaders
must invest in and protect the quality of life of their neighbors
while maintaining their businesses.

"It's an important industry to the community, but that doesn't give
them the right to go and diminish the enjoyments some people have,"
Mr. Weatherman said.

An attorney representing GPC, Joshua Frank, said at the hearing on
Feb. 5 that the company supports the agreement, which means
sidestepping an even longer and more costly trial process. Under
the terms of the settlement, GPC admits no fault or wrongdoing in
the case.

"We support the settlement as a total package," Frank said. He
called the agreement fair and says it "provides meaningful benefits
to the community" and "provides GPC with the certainty it needs to
operate in Muscatine for years to come."

Ms. Siskind says the legal battle has been closely watched by
environmental lawyers across the country.

"We're hearing from people all over the country that they never
thought about doing a case like this, they'd never seen a case
advance so far on the loss, use of enjoyment theory," Ms. Siskind
said. "People are looking to this case now as an inspiration for
other cases as a tool for environmental remediation for ordinary
people who live near an industrial area."  

The legal team will now ramp up the process of collecting claim
applications from residents, many of whom have already begun
submitting their paperwork.

Residents who lived within a mile and a half of the plant between
April 24, 2007 and September 1, 2017 have until March 19th of this
year to apply for a payout. The attorneys are urging all qualified
residents to file a claim and to not delay the process.

In a striking move, Judge Telleen himself reiterated the finality
of the application deadline from the bench.

"This is significant recovery, I hate to see people not take
advantage of that," the judge said.

After the Feb. 5 formalities had been settled, the motions filed
and the case officially dismissed, Weatherman said residents in
Muscatine could finally rest easy.

"Now the people in the south end and the areas that are affected
can actually breathe, and take a big, deep breathe and say 'thank
you'." [GN]


GREAT LAKES: Volleyball Coaches Face Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Peggy Kusinski and Lisa Capitanini, writing for NBC Chicago, report
that spearheaded by a concerned suburban Chicago parent, a
little-known Illinois law called "The Physical Fitness Service Act"
is being used to frame a class-action lawsuit against two Illinois
volleyball coaches.

The ground-breaking suit claims Rick and Cheryl Butler did not keep
a "safe environment" for youth volleyball players by not disclosing
to parents Rick Butlers' history of allegedly sexually abusing
teenage girls he was coaching.

This is the first class-action case in the country to recognize
that an alleged abuser can be sued for fraud, said Chicago attorney
Jay Edelson of Edelson PC.

"The club, we allege, knew there was a sexual predator who was
coaching kids, that they had actual knowledge of it, and once they
had actual knowledge, they had a duty to either fire him or, if
they were going to employ him, to tell all their members. Of
course, they couldn't do that because nobody would go to their
club," Mr. Edelson said.

The civil lawsuit claims that Sports Performance Volleyball Club
committed "fraud and deception" by violating a core pledge that
sports coaches make with parents to keep kids safe.

"It's fairly commonsensical that parents wouldn't send their kid to
be coached by someone if they are unsafe in this way,"
Mr.  Edelson added.

The Butlers run Great Lakes Volleyball whose website boasts nearly
5,000 players in their camps, clinics, academy and club teams
across Illinois.

Price of Scottie Pippen's Suburban Mansion Drops Again
The Facebook page of Butler's sport performance club has 38,000
followers, but nowhere does it mention the Lifetime Membership ban
of Coach Rick Butler in 2018 by USA Volleyball or bans from Amateur
Athletic Union and the Junior Volleyball Association.

Court documents say Butler has admitted to USA Volleyball of having
sexual relationships with former players but denies the women were
underage. Butler has never been criminally charged.

"This is an endemic problem across the country when it comes to
youth sports, and we think that organizations, private clubs,
schools have an affirmative duty to tell the parents if their kids
are being placed in an unsafe environment," Mr. Edelson said.

Sarah Powers-Barnhard was one of Rick Butler's star volleyball
players in the early 1980's. She alleges in court documents that
she was Rick Butler's first sexual abuse victim. "It's really about
showing the seriousness and the truth to our story,"
Ms. Powers-Barnhard said. "It's never been about money. It's been
about what's right. Tell our story. And now, it's about the
present, future athletes.

Julie Bremner, another former volleyball player coached by Butler,
alleges in court documents she was raped a few years after Sarah.
"It's a fight that I didn't choose," Ms. Bremner said.

Both women claim they were in High School when they say the alleged
sexual abuse occurred.

Pregnant Woman Dies After Being Struck While Pushing Car: Police
None of the six alleged victims are plaintiffs in the civil
lawsuit, but they are identified in the plaintiff's court documents
to support the allegations of Rick Butler's manipulation and sexual
exploitation of underage girls.

"It's been really actually very difficult to know that he is still
out there and being around young children. The studies show that
sexual predators like himself, they don't stop, they can't stop. So
it's always in the back of my mind is he doing it to somebody
else?," added Ms. Bremner.

The Butler's attorney, Danielle D'Ambrose issued a statement to
NBC5 Investigates: "The recent lawsuit against GLV, Rick Butler,
and Cheryl Butler was filed by a disgruntled parent and concerns
alleged misrepresentations related to GLV's contracts and business
practices. To elaborate, the Plaintiff in this lawsuit is alleging
that GLV should be required to disclose nearly 40-year-old
allegations in the club's promotional materials, business contracts
and dealings. We obviously do not believe there is any standard or
precedent that would require such disclosures, and we are
vigorously defending Rick and Cheryl against each and every
continuously-evolving, false allegation made against them."

The civil lawsuit was just given class-action status in January,
allowing potentially thousands of families to become involved in
the suit if they choose. Mr. Edelson says he hopes the lawsuit will
have incredible impact on youth sports.

"It's an astounding thing that somebody, who is accused of this
type conduct, and really believe we are going to be able to prove
it, is able to not just have a career but remain one of the most
prominent coaches in the country," added Mr. Edelson. [GN]


GREYSTONE MANAGEMENT: Underpays Apartment Managers, Maynard Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY MAYNARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREYSTONE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.; and DOES
1-100, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV03657 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., Feb. 6, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure
to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit
meal and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff Maynard was employed by the Defendants as apartment
managers.

Greystone Management Group was founded in 1996. The company's line
of business includes renting, buying, selling and appraising real
estate. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nancy Abrolat, Esq.
          ABROLAT LAW PC
          840 Apollo Street, Suite 300
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 615-0008
          Facsimile: (310) 615-0009

               - and –

          David A. Tashroudian, Esq.
          Mona Tashroudian, Esq.
          TASHROUDIAN LAW GROUP, APC
          5900 Canoga Ave., Suite 250
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 561-7381
          Facsimile: (818) 561-7381


H&R BLOCK: Benson Challenges No-Poach Agreements for Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
PERRY L. BENSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. H&R BLOCK, INC., and H&R BLOCK TAX SERVICES L.L.C.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01376 (N.D. Ill., February 25, 2019), seeks to
recover treble damages and other appropriate relief based on the
Defendants' alleged violations of the antitrust laws of the United
States.

The case challenges the Defendants' alleged anticompetitive No
Poach agreements for corporate and franchise employees in violation
of the Sherman Act.  The Plaintiff contends that the purpose and
effect of the conspiracy was to limit employees' job mobility and
to suppress their wages, compensation, and other employee
benefits.

H&R Block, Inc., is a Missouri corporation with headquarters in
Kansas City, Missouri.  H&R Block, Inc. is a leading tax
preparation and assistance company, which provides services
in-person, online, and through desktop and mobile application
software.  H&R Block Tax Services LLC is a Missouri limited
liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of H&R Block, Inc.

H&R Block is an American tax preparation company.  Among other tax
preparation services, H&R Block provides in-person tax preparation
assistance and services at approximately 10,000 offices across the
United States as well as outside the United States.  H&R Block also
has over 3,300 franchised units in the United States and has both
corporate-owned offices and franchise-owned offices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
          THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM
          8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 356- 3200
          E-mail: kasif@khowajalaw.com

               - and -

          Brian Murray, Esq.
          Lee Albert, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
                  lalbert@glancylaw.com


HANDI-FOIL: Hickman Sues Over Illegal Biometrics Data Retention
---------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Hickman, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. Handi-Foil Corporation and Handi-Foil
Aluminum, Defendants, Case No. 2019CH01034 (Ill. Cir., January 24,
2019), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all
unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage and
use of biometric data; statutory damages together with costs; and
reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

Hickman alleges that the Defendants implemented a timekeeping
system that relied on the collection, storage, and usage of
employees' fingerprints and biometric information without informed
consent in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William P.N. Kingston, Esq.
      Jad Sheikali, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 893-7002
      Fax: (312) 275-7895
      Email: wkingston@mcgpc.com
             jsheikali@mcgpc.com


HARVEY PALLETS: Sandoval-Osegura Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Hamilton Sandoval-Osegura, Individually and on behalf of of all
others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. Harvey Pallets Management
Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00096 (E.D. Mo., January 24,
2019), seeks all available relief, including compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Harvey Pallets is the business of providing wooden shipping
pallets. Osegura worked as a stacker and was paid a piece rate. He
claims to be denied overtime pay. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      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


HBLC INC: Davis Seeks to Certify FDCPA Class
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Brandon Davis, on behalf of plaintiff
and a class, the Plaintiff, vs. HBLC, Inc., Steven J. Fink &
Associates, P.C. and Steven J. Fink, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-05986 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order on Feb. 21, 2019:

   1. determining that the action, alleging violation of the Fair
      Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and state law, may
      proceed as a class action against Defendants, on behalf of a

      class of:

      "(a) all individuals (b) with respect to whom the Defendants

      filed a lawsuit or sent or caused to be sent a letter
      (directly or by an agent or attorney) (c) to collect debts
      for the sale of goods (d) more than four years after the
      later of default, repossession or chargeoff, (e) which
      letter was sent or lawsuit was pending at any time during
      a period beginning on August 31, 2015 (Illinois Consumer
      Fraud Act claim) or August 31, 2017 (FDCPA claim), and on
      or before September 21, 2018 (a date 21 days after the
      filing of this action)"; and

   2. appointing Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC as
      counsel for the class.

In 2012, the Plaintiff defaulted on a motor vehicle retail
installment contract held by Blackhawk Finance, Inc.  The vehicle
was obtained for personal, family or household purposes (general
transportation) and not for business purposes.  In 2017, HBLC,
Inc., represented by defendants Steven J. Fink and Steven J. Fink &
Associates, P.C., sued the plaintiff in the Circuit Court of Cook
County to collect the alleged debt.

HBLC obtained a default judgment against the Plaintiff by claiming
substitute service on a person plaintiff had nothing to do with at
an address plaintiff did not live at.  The Plaintiff learned of the
lawsuit in June 2018, when defendants attempted to enforce the
judgment. The Plaintiff was required to spend time and money to
vacate the judgment and defend the lawsuit.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          David Kim, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-1824
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com

HOSPICE SOURCE: Faces Gordon Labor Suit in Sacramento
-----------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Hospice Source LLC. The case is captioned as MARCEL GORDON, and
GABRIEL RAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOSPICE SOURCE LLC; NORM MCGEE; SCOTT
SNORTON, and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
34-2019-00250022-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 5,
2019).

Hospice Source, LLC provides durable medical equipment for hospice
patients. The company was incorporated in 1998 and is based in
Plano, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by

          Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
          SHIMODA LAW CORP.
          9401 East Stockton Boulevard, Suite 200
          Elk Grove, CA 95624
          Tel: (916) 525-0716
          E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com


IBERIA FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Extra Virgin Oil Labeling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Beschizza, writing for Boingboing, reports that MrConsumer
specializes in spotting packaging tricks such as mouse print:
small, low-contrast or otherwise obscured text designed to fool the
consumer into thinking a product is something it is not. He spotted
this very bland, normal looking bottle of olive oil available at
Target. It's just olive oil, right? It says right there that it's
extra virgin olive oil. Look closer, with a child's perfect eyes.

So how does this company get away with a label so seemingly
deceptive? No one had gone after them -- until January. A New York
law firm just filed a class action lawsuit against the company
alleging that its label is violating the deceptive practice
consumer protection laws of all 50 states.

Here's the class-action lawsuit filed against Iberia Foods, the
company behind Sunflower Oil & Extra Virgin Olive Oil.

The "Extra Virgin Olive Oil" is in conspicuous gold that is
prominent to the eye. By contrast, the sunflower oil disclosure is
in black typeset that b lends into the dark green background and
will be readily missed once the more ostentatious olive oil
disclosure catches the hurried shopper's eye

In any case, much supermarket olive oil is reportedly fake even
when it's "honestly" labeled. [GN]


IMPERVA INC: Poinsignon Case Settlement Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
JULIEN POINSIGNON, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. IMPERVA, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-05653-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward M. Chen has
entered an order:

   1. finding that the proposed class satisfies the requirements
      of a settlement class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
      Civil Procedure;

   2. granting final approval of parties' settlement;

   3. certifying these persons as Class Members solely for the
      purpose of entering a settlement in this matter:

      "all applicants for employment, employees or other agents
      of Defendant Imperva, Inc. in the United States who were
      subject to any background, credit, consumer, or
      investigatory check or report between August 25, 2012 and
      November 3, 2017";

   4. appointing Julien Poinsignon as Class Representative,
      appointing Setareh Law Group, Shaun Setareh and H. Scott
      Leviant as Class Counsel;

   5. directing payment to the Administrator, Simpluris, Inc.,
      for fees and expenses, the amount of $13,395.00 to be paid
      pursuant to the Agreement's terms for such distribution.

   6. finding that the Administrator fully discharged its
      obligations as Administrator under the terms of the
      Agreement thus far, and the Administrator is directed to
      complete the administration as set forth in the Agreement;

   7. awarding the Law Offices of Shaun Setareh $62,660 as
      fees, which is 33.33% of the Maximum Settlement Amount,
      and awarding Shaun Setareh $2,693.89 as reimbursement of
      reasonable costs incurred in this matter;

   8. awarding a Class Representative Enhancement Award of $5,000
      to Julien Poinsignon, to be paid in accordance with the
      terms of the Agreement; and

   9. directing payment to all Settlement Class Members pursuant
      to the terms of the Agreement.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  scott@setarehlaw.com

INNOVATIVE HEALTH: Faces Ritu Bhambhani, M.D. Suit in Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Innovative Health
Solutions, Inc. The case is captioned as RITU BHAMBHANI, M.D.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. INNOVATIVE HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC.; and ACCLIVITY
MEDICAL LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00355-RDB (D. Md., Feb.
6, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge Richard D. Bennett.

Innovative Health Solutions, LLC develops Web based coding,
compliance, reimbursement, and information management solutions to
healthcare providers, information technology vendors, and managed
care organizations. The company was founded in 2002 and is based in
Red Bank, New Jersey. Innovative Health Solutions, LLC is a former
subsidiary of Accuro Healthcare Solutions, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Elizabeth Anne Rice, Esq.
         BUTTACI LEARDI & WERER LLC
         212 Carnegie Center, Suite 202
         Princeton, NJ 08540
         Telephone: (609) 799-5150
         Facsimile: (609) 7-5180
         E-mail: earice@buttacilaw.com


INSTACART: Faces Another Class Action Over Wages, Tips
------------------------------------------------------
Megan Rose Dickey, writing for TechCrunch, reports that Instacart
is facing another class-action lawsuit pertaining to the way it
pays its independent contractors, NBC News reports. Instacart
guarantees its workers at least $10 per job, but workers are
alleging Instacart offsets wages with tips from customers.

The suit alleges Instacart "intentionally and maliciously
misappropriated gratuities in order to pay plaintiff's wages even
though Instacart maintained that 100 percent of customer tips went
directly to shoppers. Based on this representation, Instacart knew
customers would believe their tips were being given to shoppers in
addition to wages, not to supplement wages entirely."

Instacart has had a rocky relationship over the years with its
drivers and shoppers. In 2016, Instacart removed the option to tip
in favor of guaranteeing higher delivery commissions. About a month
later, following pressure from shoppers, the company reintroduced
tipping.

In 2017, Instacart settled a $4.6 million suit regarding claims
that the company misclassified its personal shoppers as independent
contractors, and also failed to reimburse them for work expenses.
As part of the settlement, Instacart was required to change the way
it described a service fee, which many people mistakenly thought
meant tip. Then, last April, Instacart began suggesting a 5 percent
default tip.

In addition to the lawsuit, workers have taken to Reddit and other
online forums to speak out against Instacart's paying practices.
Since introducing a new payments structure in October, which
includes things like payments per mile, quality bonuses and
customer tips, workers have said the pay has gotten worse -- far
below minimum wage. In one case, Instacart paid a worker just 80
cents for over an hour of work. Instacart has since said it was a
glitch -- caused by the fact that the customer tipped $10 -- and
has introduced a new minimum payment for orders. So, Instacart paid
the worker $10.80, but just 80 cents of it came from Instacart.

"In other words, Instacart is now confirming what workers have been
saying since the change in pay structure: that the company is
actually using customers' tips to pay workers' wages," Working
Washington, a workers' organization that represents nearly 2,000
Instacart shoppers, wrote on its blog. "When a customer tips
up-front, it doesn't mean extra money for the worker. Instacart
just pays the worker less to make up for it."

While Instacart has said this was an edge case, Working Washington
says this has happened in other cases. In another instance,
Instacart paid a worker just $7.26 (including cost of mileage) for
over two hours' worth of work.

"Obvious explanation: the customer tipped $25," the organization
writes.

It's not totally clear how widespread this issue is, but it does
not appear to be an anomaly, according to Working Washington.

"My sense is that the pay cuts are pretty much universal —
workers pretty consistently reporting getting 25% or so less after
the change," Sage Wilson, an organizer at Working Washington, told
TechCrunch. "The taking tips part they have admitted is policy for
smaller jobs but we have seen good evidence that it extends further
than that. We have a page with some collected screenshots here:
https://www.workingwa.org/instacart/receipts."

The group plans to hold a meeting for Instacart workers
nationwide.

Similarly, DoorDash is also under fire, with workers alleging
DoorDash is paying drivers less, depending on how much they get
tipped.

TechCrunch reached out to Instacart several hours ago and has yet
to receive a response. We are also awaiting comment from DoorDash.
[GN]


JAMES ANDREW: Underpays Market Researchers, Grainger et al. Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHANE GRAINGER; and ALICIA CONTRERAS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JAMES ANDREW GROUP
INC.; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV04042 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 6, 2019) is an
action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class minimum wages and overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as market
researcher.

James Andrew Group Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws
of the State of Michigan. The Company is doing business in the
state of California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary R Carlin, Esq.
          Brent S Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Laurel N Haag, Esq.
          Heather K. Cox, Esq.
          CARLIN AND BUCHSBAUM LLP
          301 East Ocean Boulevard Suite 1550
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 432-8933
          Facsimile: (562) 435-1656
          E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  heather@carlinbuchsbaum.com


JB HUNT: Ly & Nguyen Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit styled DUY NAM LY and KIET NGUYEN
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. J.B.
HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., an Arkansas corporation; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Case No. BC710744, was removed on February 22, 2019,
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01334 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs commenced the lawsuit in the Superior Court on June
25, 2018.  The Complaint asserts 10 causes of action for claims
arising from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay minimum wages
and overtime wages, among other things.[BN]

One of the Defendants' attorneys, employees or agents certifies
that notice was sent to these attorneys of record:

          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq.
          Cody R. Kennedy, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
          E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
                  atamburelli@marlinsaltzman.com
                  ckennedy@marlinsaltzman.com

Defendant J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., is represented by:

          Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq.
          Megan E. Ross, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
          2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795-4700
          Facsimile: (626) 795-4790
          E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com
                  mross@scopelitis.com

               - and -

          Alaina C. Hawley, Esq.
          James A. Eckhart, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
          10 West Market Street, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 637-1777
          Facsimile: (317) 687-2414
          E-mail: ahawley@scopelitis.com
                  jeckhart@scopelitis.com


KANYE WEST: Settles Class Action Lawsuit for Album Promotion
------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Mendez, writing for XXLMAG.COM, reports that in 2016, a fan
by the name of Justin Baker-Rhett filed a class action lawsuit
against Kanye West and Tidal because Kanye had previously said that
his The Life of Pablo album would only be available on Tidal.
Nearly three years later, a deal has finally been reached to end
the legal battle. The Blast reported the news on Jan. 30, and now
XXL has confirmed the news.

In a statement, a rep for Kanye says, "Tidal, Mr. West, and Mr.
Baker-Rhett have resolved their differences amicably and the
lawsuit has been dismissed."

In his original lawsuit, Baker-Rhett argued that Kanye's claim
about TLOP being a Tidal exclusive was a "deceptive marketing ploy"
just to get fans to purchase a subscription to Tidal. He also
alleged that Tidal was on the verge of collapse financially prior
to Kanye's album release.

Kanye later responded to the suit by arguing that the "original
version" of TLOP is still only available to Tidal users, while the
other streaming platforms have the project after changes were made
to it. To support his argument, his response included a tweet of
his where he described the album as a "living breathing changing
creative expression," noting that those changes can be heard on
Apple Music and Spotify releases, but not the original Tidal
version.

In the summer of 2018, a judge ruled that Kanye and Tidal had to
respond to the lawsuit in court. The judge also dismissed some
aspects of the allegations.

"The defendants made a bunch of arguments to get the case thrown
out but the court accepted our core premise: what we alleged
constitutes consumer fraud," Baker-Rhett's attorney, Jay Edelson,
Esq. -- jedelson@edelson.com -- said in a statement at the time.
"The court wants us to amend our pleadings and, based on how it
decided certain issues, we won't easily be able to have one
nationwide class. That means that we will be bringing a bunch of
state-by-state class actions. This is a bit of a 'be careful what
you wish for' situation for the defendants."[GN]


KIK CUSTOM: Illegally Stores Biometric Data, Thomas Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JHAMALA THOMAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. KIK CUSTOM PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 2019CH02471 (Ill.
Cir., Cook Cty., February 25, 2019), seeks to stop the Defendant's
alleged unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the
Plaintiffs and the proposed Class's sensitive, private, and
personal biometric data.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class members are
aggrieved because the Defendant improperly disclosed employees'
biometric data to out-of-state third-party vendors in violation of
the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Kik Custom Products, Inc., is a Texas corporation.  The Company was
founded in 1951 and is based in Danville, Illinois.  Kik has
multiple business locations in Illinois, including in Cook County,
Illinois.

KIK manufactures household, personal care, and over-the-counter and
pharmaceutical products.  The Company offers air care, dishwashing,
pet care, polish, and surface cleaners; bath and shower, baby care,
deodorant, fragrance, hair care, and men's grooming products, as
well as creams and lotions; analgesic, depilatory, oral care, skin
care, and sun care products; and salon and spa, and styling and
treatment products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Telephone: (314) 833-4825
          E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com
                  plesko@pwcklegal.com


LANDMARK SENIOR: Faces Mangiardo Suit over Leasing Arrangement
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK MANGIARDO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LANDMARK SENIOR LIVING, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 19CV173 (Mass. Super., Essex Cty., Feb. 1, 2019) seeks to
recover damages and to enjoin the Defendant's unfair, deceptive and
unlawful practices.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant violate
the Massachusetts laws and regulations by willfully and knowingly
charge and collect, impermissible amounts of monies at the
inception of leases for the Defendant's senior living residence
apartments. The Defendant also mislabels and mishandles monies
which it deceptively refers to as "last month's rent", when in fact
the money collected from tenants is in actuality held as security
deposit.

Landmark Senior Living was formed in 1985, by Clifford F. Boyle, as
Simsbury Associates, Inc. The goal of the Company at that time was
to answer the growing need for affordable, well-maintained housing.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John R. Yasi, Esq.
          Michael C. Forrest, Esq.
          FORREST LAMOTHE MAZOW MCCULLOUGH
          YASI & YASI, P.C.
          2 Salem Green, Suite 2
          Salem, MA 01970
          Telephone: (617) 231-7829
          Facsimile: (877) 599-8890
          E-mail: jyasi@forrestlamothe.com
                  mforrest@forrestlamothe.com


LANNETT CO: Bid to Dismiss Amended Pennsylvania Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the company's
request to dismiss an amended class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania remains
pending.

In October 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and two of its officers in the federal court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer damaged the
purported class by making false and misleading statements in
connection with the possible renewal of the JSP Distribution
Agreement.

The Company and the corporate executives named in the complaint
deny that they made any false or misleading statements.  In
December 2018, counsel for the putative class filed an amended
complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint in
January 2019.

The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of this suit at
this time.

Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets,
and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products
in the United States. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in 1942 and
is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


LANNETT CO: Bid to Dismiss Drug Pricing-Related Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the company is
awaiting a court ruling on its motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint in the putative class action over the company's drug
pricing methodologies and internal controls.  

In November 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and two of its officers claiming that the Company
damaged the purported class by including in its securities filings
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's drug
pricing methodologies and internal controls.

An amended complaint was filed in May 2017, and the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in September 2017. In
December 2017, counsel for the putative class filed a second
amended complaint, and the Court denied as moot the Company's
motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in February 2018.

In July 2018, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint. In September 2018, counsel for the
putative class filed a third amended complaint. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in November 2018.  

The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the suit at
this time.

Lannett Company, Inc. develops, manufactures, packages, markets,
and distributes generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products
in the United States. Lannett Company, Inc. was founded in 1942 and
is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


LIBERTY COMMERCIAL: Abante Rooter Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter and Plumbing, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Liberty Commercial Credit LLC dba
Express Capital Funding and Does 1 through 10, Case No.
3:19-cv-00077 (N.D. Calif., January 4, 2019), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants negligently, knowingly
and willfully contacted the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in
violation of the TCPA, thereby invading the Plaintiff's privacy.

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

The Defendant Liberty Commercial Credit LLC is a business loan
company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LOS ROBLES REGIONAL: Hospital Settles Class-Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Becca Whitnall, writing for Moorpark Acorn, reports that without
admitting any wrongdoing, Los Robles Regional Medical Center has
agreed to pay nearly $3 million to settle a class-action lawsuit
alleging it owes some employees and former employees back wages.

The settlement is the result of a suit filed in June 2014 by former
Los Robles nurse Jeanette Munden, who alleged that the hospital
prevented employees from taking lunch breaks and broke other labor
laws and that it failed to pay employees what they were owed.

In court filings, she claimed she was regularly denied meal and
rest breaks in violation of state law.

She also said she did not receive proper compensation when she
resigned in 2015.

Munden did not respond to attempts to contact her for comment.

According to the settlement, $1.9 million of the $2.95 million will
be split among the 3,000 class members, with lead plaintiff Munden
receiving $15,000 of that.

Of the remainder, $973,000 will go to legal fees and $10,000 will
be paid to the state for labor code violations.

"We're happy the case is resolved," said Munden's attorney, Marcus
Bradley, Esq. -- mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com -- of Bradley/
Grombacher LLP of Westlake Village, adding that he was extremely
limited in what he was allowed to say regarding the suit.

"It was a fair settlement based on the facts and data we
presented," he said.

In court filings, she claimed she was regularly denied meal and
rest breaks in violation of state law.

She also said she did not receive proper compensation when she
resigned in 2015.

Munden did not respond to attempts to contact her for comment.

"We're happy the case is resolved," said Munden's attorney, Marcus
Bradley, Esq. of Bradley/ Grombacher LLP of Westlake Village,
adding that he was extremely limited in what he was allowed to say
regarding the suit.

"It was a fair settlement based on the facts and data we
presented," he said. [GN]


MAPLEBEAR INC: Malaspina Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maplebear, Inc. d/b/a
Instacart, et al. The case is styled as Christian Malaspina on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Maplebear, Inc. d/b/a Instacart, Does 1 to 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. CGC19574194 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., Feb. 28, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints".

Maplebear Inc., doing business as Instacart, provides online
grocery delivery services. It allows users to order groceries on
mobile or web and get them delivered to their door steps.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert Ottinger, Esq.


MCGEE AIR: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco labor law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against McGee
Air Services, Inc., alleging that the company failed to accurately
calculate and record overtime compensation for their hourly
employees. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that McGee Air
Services, Inc., failed to provide mandatory meal and rest breaks to
their employees. The McGee Air Services, Inc., lawsuit Case No.
18CV004810, is currently pending in the Monterey County Superior
Court for the State of California. A copy of the complaint can be
accessed by clicking here.

The class action complaint alleges that McGee Air Services, Inc.,
failed to accurately pay PLAINTIFF and other members of the
CALIFORNIA LABOR SUB-CLASS overtime wages for the time they worked
which was in excess of the maximum hours permissible by law as
required by Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510, 1194 & 1198. Cal. Lab. Code §
510 further provides that employees in California shall not be
employed more than eight (8) hours per workday and/or more than
forty (40) hours per workweek unless they receive additional
compensation beyond their regular wages in amounts specified by
law.

According to the class action complaint, the company's non-exempt
employees were also allegedly unable to take off duty meal breaks
due to their rigorous work schedules. California labor laws require
an employer to provide an employee required to perform work for
more than five (5) hours during a shift with, a thirty (30) minute
uninterrupted meal break prior to the end of the employee's fifth
(5th) hour of work. The complaint alleges that the company did not
provide their employees who forfeited meal breaks additional
compensation.

If you think your company is violating the California Labor Code
and would like to know if you qualify to make a claim please:

      Nicholas De Blouw, Esq.
      Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP
      Telephone: (858) 952-0354    
      Email: DeBlouw@bamlawca.com [GN]


MEDSPA DEL MAR: Faces TCPA Class Action for Unwanted Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn M. Rattigan, writing for The National Law Review, reports
that last week, Florida skin care spa, Medspa Del Mar LLC (Medspa)
was hit with a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class
action in federal court for allegedly using an automatic dialing
system to send unwanted text messages advertising its treatments.
Lead plaintiff claims that Medspa invaded her and other class
members' privacy by sending a series of impersonal, generic
messages without their express written consent as required by the
TCPA. The complaint includes screenshots of some of these text
messages:

"Flash Sale: All Restylane line of fillers $150 off! That includes
Restylane-L, Lyft, Refyne and Defyne. Call us . . . . to take
advantage of the sale while supplies last."

The proposed class is defined as all people in the United States
who were sent a text message in the past four (4) years that
advertised Medspa's services without the individual's prior express
written consent. The class is seeking relief in the amount of
$1,500 in statutory damages for each alleged TCPA violation. [GN]


MEMPHIS, TN: Sexual Assault Victims Seek to Revive Rape-Kit Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a class of female sexual assault victims argued before a Sixth
Circuit panel on Jan. 29 to revive claims that the city of Memphis
did not process their evidence kits when the crimes were first
reported.

U.S. District Court Judge John Fowlkes Jr. dismissed the case in
2017 after the city presented evidence that each of the lead
plaintiffs' kits had been submitted for testing.

The Jane Doe plaintiffs sued in 2013, but were never granted class
certification by Judge Fowlkes, despite claims that over 15,000
rape kits were untested.

The victims argued the city did not engage in meaningful discovery
before the case was dismissed, and also claimed an affidavit about
the tests was improperly admitted into evidence.

The affidavit was signed by Major Dan Crowe of the Memphis Police
Department and its Special Victims Unit, and contained information
regarding a Tennessee Bureau of Investigation serology/DNA report.

The document was admitted by Judge Fowlkes under the business
record exception to hearsay evidence.

"It is clear," Judge Fowlkes wrote in his opinion, "from Major
Crowe's position with SVU and the dates of his employment, that the
facts in the affidavit are based upon personal knowledge."

The Jan. 29 arguments focused on the case's discovery issues, and
attorney Robert Spence Jr., representing the plaintiffs, repeatedly
told the panel that his clients never "had a meaningful opportunity
for discovery."

Mr. Spence told the judges that Memphis repeatedly failed to
respond to discovery requests, even after he filed motions to
compel with the district court.

He said the city "admitted in open court on at least four
occasions" that its discovery responses were "incomplete and
deficient."

Senior U.S. Circuit Judge David McKeague asked why the more than
five years of discovery conducted in the case was insufficient.

"I received a spreadsheet identifying certain [data] for a
five-year period," Mr. Spence responded. "It was of no value to
me."

The attorney elaborated, and told the judges he requested the
underlying case files for each untested rape kit, as the city
claimed the data in the spreadsheet could only be verified with the
case files.

U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Clay asked Spence if he was prepared and
willing to expend the resources necessary to examine each one of
the thousands of case files.

"My plan," the attorney said, "was to review each one of these
investigative files."

"Over 15,000?" Judge Clay asked.

"All 15,000 files," Mr. Spence answered.

Judge McKeague pressed the attorney on what he thought he would
find in the files.

"Do you have any basis," the judge asked, "to say there will be a
piece of paper

[in the files]

to corroborate your theory?"

"Without the files," Mr. Spence answered, "I'm totally in the
dark."

"[The] bottom line," Judge McKeague continued, "is you don't have
any idea what's in these files."

"I can't raise my right hand and tell you," the attorney conceded.

Attorney Robert Meyers argued on behalf of Memphis, painting an
entirely different picture of the information provided to the
plaintiffs.

"We got behind," the attorney admitted, "and we were scrambling to
catch up [with discovery requests]."

He said the spreadsheets "were designed to answer specific
questions from the interrogatories" provided by the plaintiffs.

Meyers told the panel the investigative files exist "only in
electronic form . . .in a live police database," which makes
providing access to the files difficult.

Judge Clay asked the city's attorney what his opposing counsel
asked for, if not the files themselves.

According to Mr. Meyers, the plaintiffs requested the victims'
names, whether DNA evidence was taken, and whether that evidence
was submitted for testing.

The attorney went on say the information was requested in the form
of interrogatories, which were used to compile the data found in
the spreadsheets provided to the plaintiffs.

"I thought Mr. Spence wanted and valued this information,"
Mr. Meyers told the panel.

U.S. Circuit Judge Helene White also sat on the panel. No timetable
has been set for the court's decision.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Judge Restarts BlueTec Emissions Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge
restarted a class action alleging that Mercedes-Benz, like
Volkswagen, installed software in its BlueTec clean diesel vehicles
to cheat emissions tests.

In a Feb. 1 order, U.S. District Judge Jose Linares of the District
of New Jersey refused to dismiss most of the claims in the case,
including those brought under the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act against Mercedes-Benz and Bosch GmbH,
which made the emissions software. Linares had dismissed most of
the claims in 2016 on standing grounds, concluding that plaintiffs
had failed to allege that Mercedes' conduct caused their injuries.
Mercedes-Benz had tried to use many of the same arguments to
dismiss the case again, but Linares, in his new order, cited recent
rulings in other emissions class actions involving Volkswagen,
General Motors and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles.

"The existing diesel emissions litigation decisions squarely reject
these arguments and distinguish the cases relied upon by Mercedes
and Bosch," Linares wrote in upholding the RICO claims. "Here, as
in Volkswagen, FCA, and Duramax, plaintiffs allege that defendants
participated in a scheme to place a defeat device in the polluting
vehicles, rendering them defective from the moment they were
manufactured."

Plaintiffs' lead counsel, James Cecchi and Steve Berman, praised
the decision.

"We are pleased with the Court's ruling, which prevents
Mercedes-Benz and Bosch from avoiding responsibility for cheating
its customers as well as the environment," wrote Mr. Cecchi, of
Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, in Roseland, New
Jersey, and Berman, of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.
"Consumers who thought they had purchased eco-friendly diesel cars
were in fact driving polluting vehicles that spew dangerous nitrous
oxide up to 91 times federal and state emission standards. Judge
Linares's order allows us to continue holding Mercedes-Benz and
Bosch accountable for deceiving U.S. customers and regulators."

Judge Linares, however, dismissed some consumer fraud claims.

"We believe that these claims are without merit, and we are pleased
that the Court recognized the deficiencies in some of plaintiffs'
claims. We intend to continue vigorously defending against the
remaining claims," wrote Andrea Berg, a spokeswoman for
Mercedes-Benz parent company Daimler AG. "The court's decision on
Feb. 1 merely addressed certain legal aspects of plaintiffs' claims
and did not decide whether the plaintiffs can ultimately prove
their claims, whether the plaintiffs' allegations are true, or
whether their claims have merit."

Bosch spokeswoman Alissa Cleland declined to comment beyond stating
in an email: "Bosch is cooperating with the continuing
investigations in various jurisdictions, and will continue to
defend its interests in the litigation."

The Justice Department, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and other regulators are investigating Daimler over emissions
claims.

The Department of Justice already has reached deals with Volkswagen
and Fiat Chrysler. Volkswagen's deal included a $14.7 billion
agreement with its customers in 2016. Chrysler's $800 million
agreement in January, in which Bosch contributed, also resolved
consumer class actions brought over its "EcoDiesel" vehicles. Bosch
also agreed in January to pay $98 million to resolve investigations
by attorneys general in 49 states and U.S. territories, including
the District of Columbia, over the Fiat Chrysler and Volkswagen
scandals.

Plaintiffs attorneys suing Mercedes-Benz drew parallels to rulings
in emissions cases involving other automakers, which they flagged
in letters to the court.

In his order, Judge Linares cited a March 16 ruling in the Fiat
Chrysler case by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen and an Oct. 3
ruling by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in a class action
brought on behalf of Volkswagen consumers who sold or terminated
their leases before the emissions scandal broke. Both judges, in
the Northern District of California, refused to dismiss certain
RICO claims.

Judge Linares also cited dismissal orders in emissions cases
against General Motors, primarily a 2017 ruling in a class action
over the 2014 Chevrolet Cruze Diesel, and last year's Feb. 20
decision refusing to dismiss RICO claims in a class action over
GM's Duramax Diesel trucks. U.S. District Judge Thomas Ludington in
the Eastern District of Michigan issued both those rulings.

Plaintiffs are suing Mercedes-Benz for out-of-pocket losses, such
as repairs and fuel costs, plus the diminished value of the
vehicles. [GN]


MERCK & CO: Breitner et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ALVIN BREITNER, HELEN BREITNER,
WILLIAM CORNELIUS, PATRICIA JARDINE, FRANCES SAUCIER, WILLA
WILKINSON, JENNIE ARELLANES, COLETTE CHOUINARD, LINDA COREY,
WILLIAM FELTON, SAM M. HANSON, TWILA ADDISON, DAVID BARBER,
CONSTANCE A. DIONISIO, FLOSSIE FLETT, KATHLEEN GUILD, JUAN RUIZ,
IMNACULATA ACKERLY, THOMAS BOBBERT, JOAN BOYLE, JOHN GLORIOSO,
JOYCE JOZWIAK, TONI ALBANO, JANET BEKTASHI, ANDRE DUPREE, LINDA
JAMES, DOUGLAS JOHNSTON, JOAN BARGE, PATRICIA CARLSON, RUTH
COOLEEN, JANET JACKSON, GWYNNE LAMBERT, EARL LISTUL, DELBERT
BLANKENSHIP, DENNIS BROXTERMAN, KELLY BYRNES, CHARLENE CARDINAL,
LUTIE FISCHER, FRIDAY HAMLET, OWEN MYRICK, JEANNEEN TERRY, JOHN
FONDA, MARCUS HIGGINS, MARTHA KIRKPATRICK, MARY THOMPSON, JUDITH
TONNEMACHER, DERNA TRAMMELL, JOSEPH FLEMMING, PAUL GAFFNEY, JOHN
MORRIS, CAROLYN PORTER, EULALIE SHORT, BILLY TALIAFERRO, DOROTHY
WHITTEN, FAITH COWART, RENO CRUMRIN, LINDA PATTON, NANCY
COOK-KRAUSE, CECILIA ESPINOZA, HOWARD HILL, SANDRA LEREW, DOROTHY
DYER, MARGO TRAVIS, ELIZABETH DISCIASCIO, WILMA BATTEN, DAWN
HOFFMAN, ERNESTINE NATOLI, JANIE MCFARLIN, ALICE HYNEK, WILLIE
CLINTON, TAVIA WHITEHEAD, JOHNNIE DAVIS, VIRGINIA HAUFF, JOHN
STEFANO, MARGARET VINCENT, MARY KEELER, GIOVANNI MESSINA, CORNELIA
MARTHON, BEVERLY MARBLE, PEARL KEINGARSKY, FRANK STEWART, DIANE
OFNER, and DENNIS WALSH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,  Plaintiffs v. MERCK & CO., INC., MERCK SHARP &
DOHME CORP., and MCKESSON CORP., Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-15982, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on February 8, 2019. The District Court
Clerk for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania assigned Case No.
Case 2:19-cv-20152-HB to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to
the Hon. Harvey Bartle, III.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. The
company serves drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals,
government agencies and entities, physicians, distributors,
veterinarians, animal producers, and managed health care providers.
Merck & Co., Inc. was founded in 1891 and is headquartered in
Kenilworth, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Allison L. Hollows, Esq.
         Karen A. Confoy, Esq.
         FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
         Princeton Pike Corporate Center
         997 Lenox Drive
         Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
         Telephone: (609) 896-3600
         Facsimile: (609) 896-1469
         E-mail: kconfoy@foxrothschild.com
                 ahollows@foxrothschild.com


MERCK & CO: Metz et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CAROLE METZ, CYNTHIA JAMISON,
CHARLENE HATFIELD, LEATRICE SMITH, ANTHONY TANKXLEY, DONNA
ELLENBECKER, BEVERLY PARKINSON, ARNETTE WASHINGTON, HELEN HIBBITS,
MARCIA LUCARELL, DOLORES HOLLAND, FREDERICK BICKLEMAN, MELINDA
BOLIN, THELMA RIFFE, JERRY SMITH, ELINA MORALES, ERNEST J. VEATOR,
JAMES F. HENDRICKS, JO AUTIN, JAMES SHIELDS, CHARLENE EDBLOM,
BARBARA PUZDER, JAMES STILES, DOROTHY STINSON, JOANNE JONES, KIM
VARNEY, ANN BROUHTON, JAMES T. TUNTLAND, EFFIE BURNHAM,LINDA
BRODESKE, REBECCA STINSON,JOYCE RINALDI, FANNIE MUNDY, GUILLERMO
RIOS, KATHRYN HAMPTON, JOYCE CHEEK, ELIZABETH GUBERUD, JOAN
CYBULSKI, JACOB SANDE, GARY HANDLEY, PERRY SELLS, CARL NINAUS,
JEANETTE KARADIMOS, PAULA HARRIS, SANDRA DICK, LAURA COCHRAN,
RACHEL RYLES, CAROL FRANSON, CAROLYN BRYANT, MAUDIE EADS, BONNIE
KWIATKOWSKI, JANICE ANDERSON, JOYCE A. LEATHERMAN, IMOGENE NEWBREY,
ELSIE MASTROTA, JUDY LARATTA, LILLIE BAKER, BARBARA PASSARELLI,
BLANCHE STOUT, KENNETH RASMUSSEN, JERRY ALLEN GREEN, BETTY MCCOMIC,
IDA WOESTER, CLARETHA PAULK, CARMEN RIVERA, SHAWN PARRISH, MARIA
HERNANDEZ, DONNA MCGREGOR, ARDELLA NELSON, SUSAN PEARL, SYLVIA
EFIRD, SANDRA JACKSON, MARIA GORMLEY, CLIFTON FRANCISCO, RHONDA
STEINLAUF, JEAN MACCOY, MARY ANNE MILLER, BRENDA CAVANAUGH, JOSEPH
STRAHAN, REGINALD LEE, SUSAN WHITTINGHAM, CLARA HAMMONS, EDNA
HIGGINS, ZELMA HANES, ENON TRACY, LESSIE SHEPARD, PATRICIA
STRICKLAND, CYNTHIA SWALLOW, ALICE FURBER, KAREN KING, POLA
MCCORKLE, EDITE RODRIGUES, OUIDA E. GREGORY, RICKY MOSES, JOE
PASSMORE, MARION LEHMANN, HASSIE PRYOR, BRENDA BURTON, REE M.
TURNER, FRANK SIMMONS, ROSCOE BOOSE, ROBERT THAYER, FRANCINE WOOD,
GARY GAYDON, ROSALIND MOHAMED, DARLENE EVANS, CAROLYN SUE CARROLL,
TOM MCKINNEY, ROBERT R. HERGAN, JOANN MCKENZIE, BETTY DAVIDSON,
KEITH TESS, DELORIS STEVENS, ROXANNE MCGOWAN, BARBARA SHOPE, SHELBY
DAVIS, LLOYD SEARS, GWENDOLYN MCDANIEL, MELISSA KENT, PATSY BEAVER,
SAL PALAZZOLO, CAROLYN BARNES, NORMA KLAVINSKI, BRENDA HOWARD,
JERRIE BARDWELL,RONA HARRIS, THOMAS BUDZINSKI, as Proposed
Administrator of the Estate of ROSLYN BUDZINSKI, and ELIZABETH
RADDAOUI, Plaintiffs, v. MERCK & CO., INC., MERCK SHARP & DOHME
CORP., and MCKESSON CORP., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-15983, was
removed from the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on February 8, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:19-cv-20153-HB to the proceeding. The Case is assigned
to the Hon. Harvey Bartle, III.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. The
company serves drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals,
government agencies and entities, physicians, distributors,
veterinarians, animal producers, and managed health care providers.
Merck & Co., Inc. was founded in 1891 and is headquartered in
Kenilworth, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Allison L. Hollows, Esq.
         Karen A. Confoy, Esq.
         FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
         Princeton Pike Corporate Center
         997 Lenox Drive
         Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
         Telephone: (609) 896-3600
         Facsimile: (609) 896-1469
         E-mail: kconfoy@foxrothschild.com
                 ahollows@foxrothschild.com


MERCK & CO: Opatrny et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN OPATRNY, THOMASINA SHANKS, DONALD BEARD, GAIL BUCHNEY, JOEL
CARPENTER, VIRGINIA FERNANDES, JAMES GALLAGHER, MARIAN GASS, ANN
HIXSON, CATHERINE HOWELL, GERALDINE PAYNE, TERRY SLOVER, WILLIAM
SPATHELF, DALE ANDERSON, TONY KUPSER, RUTH SCHMIDLI, STEVEN TAFF,
SHIRLEY CALDWELL, GLORIA CREVIER, RUBY HICKMAN, SHARON HUTTON,
CATHERINE JOHNSON, PATRICIA KNIERIM, NADINE ANDRES, HARRIET DEVAN,
MYRON DUDENBOSTEL, MILDRED GREENWELL, SHARON KLUTCHKO, JULIA
RANKIN, JANET SHIPMAN, EDNA BRAISER, PAULA BROOKS, MARQUIS BURNETT,
GERALD COLEMAN, FRANK GREGORY, MARIE HOYE, NATHAN IVORY, DAVID
OREMUS, ELAINE SCHWARTZ, ELLA TOWNSELL, DONNA CAPMAN, KIM CLEMENT,
PATRICIA DONNELLY, RICHARD DURHAM, WYNN DUVERNAY, DARLEEN FOREMAN,
ALICE GENERALLY, ANNA HALLMARK, JAMES LARKNER, MICHAEL VERNON,
RODNEY BOYD, INGE CARRILLO, DONNA DODGE, ROBERT EMBRY, DONA JONES
LANE, JOHN KELLY, OSCAR PEREZ, JOE WALLACE, DOROTHY AVERLETT,
CONNIE DELK, DOROTHY ESQUILIN, CECIL GANGLUFF, JOANN JENKINS, EARL
BLACKSTOCK, MARIANNE BRUNEMANN, DAVID COLLIER, JOAN GARRETT,
MARJORIE MCGAHA, GLENDA SCOTT, FRANCIS STEINBRECH, BILLIE DAVIDSON,
ROBERT GRIFFIN, SHIRLEY HARTERT, WALTER HOUSTON, TIM ZIKE, DARLENE
DOUGHERTY, CLARENCE EDWARDS, GARY HOLMES, FRED KAISER, MARIE
MILAZZO, GEORGIA STEWART, ADRIENNE BOOKER, MARGARET CHERRY, ARLENE
HALFON, MARY HALL, WANDA ABBOTT, LINDA FAIGUS, GORDON HANSTAD, MARY
BLUMER, RON STANSBARGER, JOYCE GRANT, PAMELA BLUNT, Individually
and as Proposed Administrator for the Estate of PAUL SHANE, BOB
CORNELIUS, PAUL COLE JR., GEORGE DURBIN, JOHN DOE, Individually and
as Proposed Administrator for the Estate of MARGO KNAVEL, WALTER
GRIFFITH, LAURA YARNELL, and CAROLYN PRENTIS, Plaintiffs, v. MERCK
& CO., INC., MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., and MCKESSON CORP.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-15984, was removed from the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on February 8, 2019.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-20154-HB to the
proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Harvey Bartle, III.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. The
company serves drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals,
government agencies and entities, physicians, distributors,
veterinarians, animal producers, and managed health care providers.
Merck & Co., Inc. was founded in 1891 and is headquartered in
Kenilworth, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Allison L. Hollows, Esq.
         Karen A. Confoy, Esq.
         FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
         Princeton Pike Corporate Center
         997 Lenox Drive
         Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
         Telephone: (609) 896-3600
         Facsimile: (609) 896-1469
         E-mail: kconfoy@foxrothschild.com
                 ahollows@foxrothschild.com


MERCK & CO: Sherman et al. Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
LEONARD SHERMAN, JOAN JOHNSON, ETHELYN ANDERSON, DOUGLAS GEORGE,
JUDY NEWELL, KAREN ESTEP, STEVEN TURBYFILL, EMMA DULESKY, GARY
HANNA, SHARON BURDETTE, LAWRENCE COATES, FRANCES GAMMILL, EDWARD
QUAGLIATA, LULA LOWE, LOUISE GUIE, CAROLYN MAUCH, KATY SAVELL,
LYNDA WATSON, FRANK SPENCER, ROBBIE L. BROUSSARD, JAMES MICHAEL
CALT, BOBBY CARR, BETTY HELTON, JEANNE JACKSON, BARBARA
VIGLIENVONE, DEREK SMTH, CINDY BOX, CHARLES A. BOYER, TIM GARTLAND,
JOEL MOSKOWITZ, INGRID GERLACH, SEIGLE BAISDEN, RUSSELL ALBAUGH,
LINDA BOYLE, KENNETH W. JACOBSON, LOUISE MCCOWEN, MARIAN WRIGHT,
JOHN R. FIGGS, SARAH ERKINS, LUTHER BARGER, FRANCES DAVIS, SHERYL
GARDNER, LINDA HARRIS, CAROL HENDRICK, CAROLYN WACIN, BETTY
GALLAGHER, JOHN HATZENBUHLER, GLORIA SCHULTZ, VICKIE SMITH, JUDY
HAUK, CAROL MOODY, CRAIG BURRELL, JACQUELINE MICHELLE MCRIGHT, MARY
DOUGLAS, CHARLES DURHAM, CONRAD HUFFMAN, MAVIS PATTERSON, RITA
SMITH, CAROL YOUNG, WILLARD RALPH DYESS, ROGER ADAMS, JOAN AKINS,
ELAINE DITTMAN, BAMBI FINLEY, BERTHA KIRSCH, WILLIAM LOUCHERY JR.,
RHODA NEFT, EMMA INGOLD, MICHAEL DERRICO, ARCANGELO DIFRONZO,
TAMERA JOHNSON, GLORIA NORBY, LINDA RAMIREZ, KENNETH WILCOX, PEGGY
WILSON, HAROLD LEWIS, JOHN BEST, JAMES ELLIS, GLORIA ALIS,
Individually and as Proposed Administrator for the Estate of
RICHARD ALIS, TERESA BARBER, REECIE CARTER, DONNA CONNER, ELIJAH
COOPER, NONA GODWIN, MARY HARRELL, SHARON RASNAKE, GLORIA SHY,
RAMONA MANSKER, CLIFTON RUCKER, CAROL SALZILLO, JOHN SMALLEY, ANN
YIAMBELLIS, BARBARA HESSION, NORA ARD, JANICE BAKER, JOSEPH
BANDOCK, REGINA BIBBS, ADA BLACKWELL, KATHY BLANKENSHIP, ALL BLOSE,
DIANE BULLOCK, BEVERLEESHIA DAVIS, CLARENCE DICKEN, NORBERT DORAN,
JACKIE FEIST, MARILYN FERGUSON, JEROLINE FOSTER, MINERVA FRYE, GENE
GASSITTIE, LEON HOWARD, LINDA JEFFERSON, EUGENE JUREK, ENGE
LEBLANC, MCKINLEY LEE, IVA MACLEES, JEROME MADAY, TERRY MALOVICH,
EVELYN MCALL, DESSIE MCCLURE, SUSAN PONTI, NANCY ROGAUKAS, WANDA
ROSALES, ROBERT SULLIVAN, DOLORES TAYLOR, RUTH TUCKER, LENORA
WAGNER, SUE WISCHMEYER, THOMAS ZENTACK, JANICE HOWELL SPILLERS,
DEBORAH LUSK, AUDREY HANCOCK, JOANNE VICKERS, and DAVID MIZAK,
Plaintiffs, v. MERCK & CO., INC., MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., and
MCKESSON CORP., Case No. 3:18-cv-15985, was removed from the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on February 8, 2019.
The District Court Clerk for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. Case 2:19-cv-20155-HB to the proceeding. The Case
is assigned to the Hon. Harvey Bartle, III.

Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. The
company serves drug wholesalers and retailers, hospitals,
government agencies and entities, physicians, distributors,
veterinarians, animal producers, and managed health care providers.
Merck & Co., Inc. was founded in 1891 and is headquartered in
Kenilworth, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Allison L. Hollows, Esq.
         Karen A. Confoy, Esq.
         FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
         Princeton Pike Corporate Center
         997 Lenox Drive
         Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
         Telephone: (609) 896-3600
         Facsimile: (609) 896-1469
         E-mail: kconfoy@foxrothschild.com
                 ahollows@foxrothschild.com


MICRON TECH: Kniffin Hits Share Drop Over Antitrust Issues
----------------------------------------------------------
Vance Kniffin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Micron Technology, Inc., Sanjay Mehrotra
and David A. Zinsner, Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-00678, (S.D. N.Y.,
January 23, 2019), seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
including prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees
and experts' fees and other costs and disbursements and such other
relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Micron Technology is in the business of innovative memory and
storage solutions. It failed to disclose to investors that it was
engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy with Samsung Electronics and
SK Hynix. Following publication of this news, Micron Technology's
stock price fell drastically, from $39.44 at close on Friday,
November 16, 2018, to $36.83 at close on Monday, November 19, 2018,
a drop of more than 7%. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey C. Block
      Jacob A. Walker,
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 400
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (617) 398-5600
      Fax: (617) 507-6020
      Email: jeff@blockesq.com
             jake@blockesq.com

             - and -

      D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
      445 Hamilton Ave., Suite 605
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Tel: (914) 298-3281
      Fax: (914) 824-1561
      Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com


MISSOURI: Bid for Class Certification in Dalton Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Nanette K. Laughrey denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the lawsuit styled Randall Lee DALTON, et
al. v. Michael BARRETT, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-04057-NKL (W.D.
Mo.).

Michael Barrett is the director of the Missouri State Public
Defender.

The Plaintiffs sought certification of a class of similarly
situated individuals, who currently are or will be represented by
MSPD defined as:

     All indigent persons who are now or who will be during the
     pendency of this litigation under formal charge before a
     state court in Missouri of having committed any offense the
     penalty for which includes the possibility of confinement,
     incarceration, imprisonment, or detention (regardless of
     whether actually imposed), and who are eligible to be
     represented by MSPD.

The lawsuit challenges the adequacy of the Missouri State Public
Defender (MSPD), which provides legal representation to all
indigent citizens accused or convicted of crimes in Missouri state
court.  The Named Plaintiffs filed this putative class action
alleging that Missouri "has failed to meet its constitutional
obligation to provide indigent defendants with meaningful
representation."  The crux of the Plaintiffs' allegations is that
the MSPD is underfunded and overworked, and the Plaintiffs seek
only injunctive and declaratory relief aimed at correcting the
issues.

In her order, Judge Laughrey opines that the Plaintiffs fail to
establish commonality requirement of Rule 23(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.  Judge Laughrey states that the
Plaintiffs cannot establish the answer to "whether the State has
met its obligation to provide counsel," without providing evidence
from each of MSPD's 42 offices and three divisions.  The answer
could quite conceivably be yes in one MSPD office, but no in
another.

Judge Laughrey also opines that the Plaintiffs fail to satisfy Rule
23(b)(1)(B) explaining that the Plaintiffs' proposed class is not
sufficiently cohesive.  The class includes indigent defendants
charged with everything from first degree murder to passing bad
checks and causing personal injury while boating while
intoxicated.[CC]


MOJAVE FOODS: Underpays Sales Representatives, Torres Says
----------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MOJAVE FOODS CORPORATION; MCCORMICK &
COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 19STCV02888 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 1, 2019) is an
action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Torres was employed by the Defendants as sales representative.

Mojave Foods Corporation produces walnuts. The company offers
shelled walnuts under the brand name El Guapo. Mojave Foods
Corporation was founded in 1953 and is based in Los Angeles,
California. Mojave Foods Corporation operates as a subsidiary of
McCormick & Company, Incorporated. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sanjay Bansal, Esq.
          BANSAL LAW
          725 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2250
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (424) 501-5099
          E-mail: sanjay@bansalesq.com

               - and -

          Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
          BOKHOUR LAW GROUP
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 975-1493
          Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
          E-mail: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Agneys Sue over Sale of Roundup Products
----------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW W. AGNEY and AMY S. AGNEY, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00231 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 18,
2019), alleges unlawful promotion, marketing, and sale of various
Roundup Products, manufactured and marketed by Monsanto Company, 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, the. Defendants
have chosen to use false statement to market their Roundup (TM)
products. In addition to making the false statement, the 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, the 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:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
          Telephone: (314) 222 2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421 0359


MONSANTO COMPANY: Barnes Sue over Sale of Roundup Products
----------------------------------------------------------
GLORIA L. BARNES and EDWARD BARNES, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00232 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 18,
2019), alleges unlawful promotion, marketing, and sale of various
Roundup Products, manufactured and marketed by Monsanto Company, 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:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
          Telephone: (314) 222 2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421 0359

MONSANTO COMPANY: Bates Sues over Sale of Roundup Products
----------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE BATES III, the Plaintiff, vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00234 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 18, 2019),
alleges unlawful promotion, marketing, and sale of various Roundup
Products, manufactured and marketed by Monsanto Company, 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 Plaintiff:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
          Telephone: (314) 222 2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421 0359

MUGSHOTS.COM LLC: Court Narrows Production in Gabiola
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel Production in
the case captioned PETER GABIOLA and ANTONIO HAMMOND, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. MUGSHOTS.COM, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, et al., Defendants. Case No. 16 C 2076. (N.D. Ill.).

The Plaintiffs have filed a Second Motion to Compel and For Other
Relief seeking more fulsome responses to certain discovery requests
contained in Plaintiffs' First Request for the Production of
Documents and their First Set of Interrogatories. The Plaintiffs'
Second Motion, however, is boilerplate and, like their previous
motion, does not delve into the details of the discovery requests
that are the subject of the Motion. The Plaintiffs do not go
through the interrogatories or requests for production of documents
on an individual basis. Nor do Plaintiffs respond to the
Defendants' objections in a meaningful way. The Plaintiffs also do
not explain why much of the discovery they seek is relevant and
proportional to the needs of the case within the meaning of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).  

The Defendants' General Objections to the Plaintiffs' Discovery
Requests:

Time Period: Both sides make perfunctory arguments about the
relevant time period for production of documents and interrogatory
responses. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants agreed to a look back
period to 2014 for discovery, but Plaintiffs do not identify a date
in 2014 that the parties supposedly agreed would be the start of
the relevant discovery period. Plaintiffs cite Exhibit B to their
Motion for this purported agreement. However, that information is
not readily identifiable in Exhibit B. In response, Defendants
argue the look back period for discovery should be one year from
the filing of this case in January 2016 because the applicable
statute of limitations is one year. Although Defendants do not
identify the applicable statute to which they refer, the Court
assumes Defendants are referring to the Illinois Mugshots Act.  

General Objections: Defendants incorporate general objections into
their individual discovery responses. As a result, Plaintiffs do
not know what information or documents called for by their
discovery requests, if any, are not being produced based on these
general objections. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34
as amended effective December 1, 2016, that is not a proper
discovery response to a request for production of documents.

Defendants' Specific Objections to Plaintiffs' Requests for the
Production of Documents:
Request No. 1: Plaintiffs do not address this request in their
Second Motion to Compel.

Therefore, the Motion is denied to the extent Plaintiffs intended
to seek a court order requiring an inspection of particular
premises.

Requests Nos. 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 24,
25, 26, and 28: Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Compel is denied as to
these requests for production of documents. Without more
explanation from Plaintiffs as to the propriety of these requests
for production and why Plaintiffs need what appears to be at least
potentially a very large volume of documents, whether in hard copy
or electronically maintained, to discover or prove-up the claims
they are asserting against Defendants, the Court will not require
Defendants to respond to these requests at this time. Plaintiffs do
not provide the Court with any particularized explanation as to why
these requests for production are appropriate as framed.  

Request No. 4: Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Compel is granted in
part as to insurance policies, reservation of rights letter(s) and
requests for coverage. Defendants' objections are overruled in part
for the reasons discussed above. Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iv) essentially
requires Defendants to produce the same documents. Defendants shall
produce (if they have not already done so) any insurance policies,
reservation of rights letters, and requests for coverage within 14
days of the date of this Order. Plaintiffs' Motion, however, is
denied in part as vague, overbroad, and potentially unduly
burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case as to
Plaintiffs' request for any other related documents.

Request No. 5: Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Compel is granted in
part as to all documents responsive to Plaintiffs' interrogatories
and denied as vague, overbroad, and potentially unduly burdensome
and not proportional to the needs of the case regarding documents
in any way related to any interrogatory. Defendants' objections are
overruled for the reasons discussed above, and Defendants shall
produce the relevant and responsive documents as limited in time
frame and discussed herein within 14 days of the date of this
Order.

Request No. 6: Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Compel as to Request
No. 6 is denied without prejudice. Based on the record before the
Court at this time, the Court does not have enough information to
determine how the information Plaintiffs are seeking in this
discovery request is relevant to their claims.  

Request No. 13: As to this request, Plaintiffs' Second Motion to
Compel is granted, and Defendants' objections are overruled for the
reasons discussed above. This request is a bit more tailored than
Request for Production No. 12 as to which the Court has sustained
Defendants' objection and/or declined to grant Plaintiffs' Second
Motion to Compel for the reasons discussed above. The Court also
overrules Defendants' generalized burden objection as Defendants
fail to articulate the extent of the burden entailed in producing
written policies and procedures, if any exist, concerning their
takedown service. Defendants shall produce the information
requested as limited in time frame within 14 days of the date of
this Order.

Request No. 18: As to this request, Plaintiffs' Second Motion to
Compel is granted, and Defendants' objections are overruled for the
reasons discussed above. The Court also is not persuaded by
Defendants' relevance objection. Plaintiffs allege in their
complaint that advertising revenue is very small compared to
takedown revenue. Defendants do nothing to explain the burden
involved in producing the contracts with advertisers Plaintiffs are
requesting. Defendants shall produce the information requested as
limited in time frame within 14 days of the date of this Order.

Request No. 19: As to this request, Plaintiffs' Second Motion to
Compel is granted and Defendants' objections are overruled for the
reasons discussed above. The Court finds that the information
sought is relevant to Defendants' argument that they do not own the
domain name mugshots.com any more. Defendants shall produce the
information the Court has ordered be produced as limited in time
frame and identified herein within 14 days of the date of this
Order.

Request No. 20: As to this request, Plaintiffs' Second Motion to
Compel is granted, and Defendants' objections are overruled for the
reasons discussed above. This request is particularized as to
Plaintiff Peter Gabiola. Defendants shall produce the information
requested as limited in time frame within 14 days of the date of
this Order.

Request No. 21: As to this request, Plaintiffs' Second Motion to
Compel is granted, and Defendants' objections are overruled for the
reasons discussed above. This request is particularized as to
Plaintiff Antonio Hammond. Defendants shall produce the information
requested as limited in time frame within 14 days of the date of
this Order.

Request No. 23: As to this request, Plaintiffs' Second Motion to
Compel is denied. Defendants object to producing their tax returns,
and Plaintiffs say nothing specific as to why they need Defendants'
tax returns at this time. Defendants apparently agreed to produce
tax returns in connection with a previous though unsuccessful
mediation, but they did not agree to produce this information in
discovery in this case. Plaintiffs have not provided a sufficient
reason for the Court to order production of Defendants' tax returns
at this time.

Request No. 27: As to this request, Plaintiffs' Second Motion to
Compel is denied. As drafted, Plaintiffs seek all operating
agreements for or between any entities related to the subject
matter websites." (Emphasis added.) No explanation is provided as
to why all this information is relevant to the parties' claims or
defenses in this case or proportional to the needs of the case.
Perhaps this is a drafting problem as indicated by the italicized
language above. But Plaintiffs do nothing to correct that problem
in their briefing.

Request No. 29: As to this request, Plaintiffs' Second Motion to
Compel is denied as overbroad. Plaintiffs also do not explain the
relevance of the information sought in this request.

Request No. 30: As to this request, Plaintiffs' Second Motion to
Compel is granted, and Defendants' objections are overruled for the
reasons discussed above. Defendants shall produce the information
requested as limited in time frame within 14 days of the date of
this Order.

Request No. 31: This request for insurance policies overlaps with
Request For Production No. 4.

As to this request, Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Compel is granted,
and Defendants' objections are overruled for the reasons discussed
above. The Court also is not persuaded by Defendants' objections as
to burden and vagueness. Plaintiffs seek production of any
insurance policies implicated by the allegations in their
complaint. Rule 26(a)(1)(A)((iv) essentially requires Defendants to
produce the same documents. Defendants shall produce the
information requested as limited in time frame within 14 days of
the date of this Order.

Specific Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories:

Interrogatory No. 1: As to Interrogatory No. 1, Plaintiffs' Second
Motion to Compel is granted in part, and Defendants' objections are
overruled in part for the reasons discussed above. Defendants shall
identify all owners, managers, corporate officers and members of
all corporations, limited liability companies, and other business
entities which own, operate, and/or manage the subject matter
websites presently and those individuals'position, salary,
responsibilities, who hired that person, where that person
presently works and in what capacity during the relevant time frame
discussed above. Plaintiffs' Motion, however, is denied in part as
to the identities of all employees as overbroad, potentially unduly
burdensome depending upon the number of employees, and not
proportional to the needs of the case without more explanation from
Plaintiffs as to why they need this information. Defendants shall
supplement their answer to this interrogatory within 14 days of the
date of this Order.

Interrogatories Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
and 20: As to these interrogatories, Plaintiffs' Second Motion to
Compel is granted except as to the identity of all employees sought
in Interrogatory No. 5 and provided that Plaintiffs' original
Interrogatory No. 6 includes the names of the people for whom the
specified information is requested (since that information is not
included in the only copy of Plaintiffs' interrogatories now in the
record.

Defendants' objections are overruled for the reasons discussed
above. The information Plaintiffs seek in these interrogatories
appears to be relevant to the parties' claims or defenses and
proportional to the needs of the case. The Court also is not
persuaded by Defendants' unspecified objections on vagueness and/or
burden grounds. Defendants shall provide answers or supplement
their previous answers to these interrogatories as limited in
timeframe as discussed above within 14 days of the date of this
Order.

Interrogatory Nos. 7 and 8: As to these interrogatories,
Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel is denied. Interrogatories Nos.
7 and 8 seek information that is protected by the work product
doctrine.

Interrogatory No. 9: As to this interrogatory, Plaintiff's Second
Motion to Compel is granted in part and denied in part, and
Defendants' objections are overruled in part for the reasons
discussed above. Defendants shall answer Interrogatory Nos. 9(a),
(b), and (c) or supplement their previous answers to 9(a), (b) and
(c) as limited in time frame as discussed above within 14 days of
the date of this Order. As to subsection 9(d), Defendants are not
required to provide any information at this time.  

Interrogatory No. 10: As to this interrogatory, Plaintiff's Second
Motion to Compel is granted in part and denied in part, and
Defendants' objections are overruled in part for the reasons
discussed above. Defendants shall describe, in detail, the
relationship between mugshots.com and unpublisharrest.com. If there
are any written agreements or contracts, provide them in a
supplemental response to this interrogatory served within 14 days
of the date of this Order. As to the remainder of Interrogatory No.
10, Plaintiffs' Motion is denied as overbroad and potentially
unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case.

Interrogatory No. 14: As to this interrogatory, Plaintiff's Second
Motion to Compel is denied. Interrogatory No. 14 seeks information
that is protected by the work product doctrine. It also is
premature as Defendants may not know at this time who they expect
to testify at trial and the subject of that testimony.

Interrogatory No. 21: As to this interrogatory, Plaintiff's Second
Motion to Compel is granted (and Defendants' objections are
overruled for the reasons discussed above) to the extent Defendants
have the knowledge to answer this interrogatory as limited in time
frame as discussed above. The Court also is not persuaded by
Defendants' relevance objection. Any such person identified by
Defendants, if they do in fact identify individuals or employees of
corporate entities, could be a potential witness in this case.
Defendants shall supplement their answer to this interrogatory
within 14 days of the date of this Order.

Finally, Plaintiffs' request for an award of attorneys' fees is
denied. Plaintiffs did not prevail completely on their Second
Motion to Compel; their presentation of the Motion was seriously
deficient for the reasons discussed above; and there is no fair or
reasonable basis upon which to apportion an award of fees even if
the Court thought that appropriate, which it does not.

In sum, for all the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs' Second
Motion to Compel and For Other Relief is granted in part and denied
in part.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 4, 2018 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4zf4vdc from Leagle.com.

Peter Gabiola, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated individuals & Antonio Hammond, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, represented
by Berton N. Ring, Law Offices of Berton N. Ring, Sheryl Melanie
Ring, Open Communities Legal Assistance Program & Emily Lora
Mallor, Berton N Ring PC.

Thomas Keesee, an individual, Hammermill & Masterson LLC, a Wyoming
Limited Liability Company & Marc Gary Epstein, an individual,
Defendants, represented by Adam Daniel Grant --
agrant@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, Andrew J.
Foreman -- aforeman@butlerrubin.com -- Butler Rubin Saltarelli &
Boyd LLP, David G. Bray -- dbray@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson
Wright PLLC, pro hac vice, David N. Ferrucci --
dferrucci@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, pro hac
vice, Emily G. Rottier, Butler, Rubin, Saltarelli & Boyd LLP &
Michael A. Stick, Butler, Rubin, Saltarelli & Boyd LLP.


NCAA: Disregards Safety of Athletes, Kloes Alleges
--------------------------------------------------
CHAD KLOES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, and LAWRENCE
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, Case No. 1:19-cv-00776-JRS-DML (S.D. Ind.,
February 22, 2019), seeks to obtain redress for injuries sustained
as a result of Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and
safety of generations of LU student-athletes.

Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to football players'
heads led to repeated concussions that severely increased their
risks of long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms.  Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains, the Plaintiff
asserts.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located in Indianapolis, Indiana.  NCAA is not organized
under the laws of any State, but is registered as a tax-exempt
organization with the Internal Revenue Service.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees 23 college sports and over 400,000 students, who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at LU.  According to the NCAA, more than 1,200 schools,
conferences and affiliate organizations collectively invest in
improving the experiences of athletes -- on the field, in the
classroom, and in life.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
          E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


NCAA: Jones Seeks Redress for ECSU Players' Injuries
----------------------------------------------------
JASON JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No.
1:19-cv-00782-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind., February 22, 2019), seeks to
obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of the Defendant's
alleged reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations
of Elizabeth City State University ("ECSU") student-athletes.

Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to football players'
heads led to repeated concussions that severely increased their
risks of long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms.  Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains, according to the
complaint.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located in Indianapolis, Indiana.  NCAA is not organized
under the laws of any State, but is registered as a tax-exempt
organization with the Internal Revenue Service.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees 23 college sports and over 400,000 students, who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at ECSU.  According to the NCAA, more than 1,200 schools,
conferences and affiliate organizations collectively invest in
improving the experiences of athletes -- on the field, in the
classroom, and in life.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
          E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


NCAA: Leammon Wants Amends for Chadron Athletes' Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------
WILFRIED LEAMMON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00786-JRS-TAB (S.D. Ind., February 22, 2019),
seeks to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of
Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of Chadron State College ("CSC") student-athletes.

Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to football players'
heads led to repeated concussions that severely increased their
risks of long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms.  Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains, the Plaintiff
asserts.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located in Indianapolis, Indiana.  NCAA is not organized
under the laws of any State, but is registered as a tax-exempt
organization with the Internal Revenue Service.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees 23 college sports and over 400,000 students, who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at CSC.  According to the NCAA, more than 1,200 schools,
conferences and affiliate organizations collectively invest in
improving the experiences of athletes -- on the field, in the
classroom, and in life.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
          E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


NCAA: Stroughter Sues over Health Issues of Illinois Univ Athletes
------------------------------------------------------------------
CLIFTON STROUGHTER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00682-TWP-DML (S.D.
Ind. Feb. 15, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result
of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ("Illinois")
student-athletes.

According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up
to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why.
Football is America's sport and the Plaintiff and a Class of
football players were raised to live and breathe the game. During
football season, there are entire days of the week that millions of
Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of
thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the
world. Before each game, these players -- often mere teenagers --
are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when
playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going.

But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark
about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During
the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than
1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse
yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20
Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if
you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't
wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would
be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and
21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car
accidents.

Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred
to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur"
college football.

While in school, Illinois football players were under Defendant's
care. Unfortunately, Defendant did not care about the off-field
consequences that would haunt students for the rest of their lives.
Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other Illinois football players
from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so
knowingly and for profit.

As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former Illinois football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such,
Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate
those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit
says.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554 9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589 6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589 6378
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com


NCAA: Sweed Sues over Safety of Texas-Austin Student-Athletes
-------------------------------------------------------------
LIMAS SWEED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00688-RLY-MJD (S.D.
Ind. Feb. 15, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result
of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
University of Texas at Austin ("Texas") student-athletes.

According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up
to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why.
Football is America's sport and the Plaintiff and a Class of
football players were raised to live and breathe the game. During
football season, there are entire days of the week that millions of
Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of
thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the
world. Before each game, these players -- often mere teenagers --
are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when
playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going.

But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark
about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During
the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than
1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse
yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20
Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if
you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't
wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would
be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and
21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car
accidents.

Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred
to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur"
college football.

While in school, Texas football players were under Defendant's
care. Unfortunately, Defendant did not care about the off-field
consequences that would haunt students for the rest of their lives.
Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other Texas football players
from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so
knowingly and for profit.

As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former Texas football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such,
Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate
those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable, the laTexasit
says.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554 9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589 6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589 6378
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com


NCAA: Taylor Sues over Safety of Nebraska-Lincoln Student-Athletes
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROGER TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00685-JPH-DML (S.D.
Ind. Feb. 15, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result
of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
University of Nebraska-Lincoln (Nebraska) student-athletes.

According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up
to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why.
Football is America's sport and the Plaintiff and a Class of
football players were raised to live and breathe the game. During
football season, there are entire days of the week that millions of
Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of
thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the
world. Before each game, these players -- often mere teenagers --
are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when
playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going.

But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark
about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During
the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than
1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse
yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20
Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if
you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't
wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would
be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and
21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car
accidents.

Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred
to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur"
college football.

While in school, Nebraska football players were under Defendant's
care. Unfortunately, Defendant did not care about the off-field
consequences that would haunt students for the rest of their lives.
Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those Plaintiff experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate
procedures to protect Plaintiff and other Nebraska football players
from the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so
knowingly and for profit.

As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless former Nebraska football players suffered brain and other
neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA football. As such,
Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate
those players' rights and hold the NCAA accountable, the
laNebraskait says.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554 9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554 9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589 6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589 6378
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com


NETGEAR INC: Perros Sues over 50% Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------
ATHANASIOS PERROS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NETGEAR, INC.; and ARLO
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 19CV342071 (Cal. Super.,
Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 1, 2019) is a securities class action by the
Plaintiff and the class who purchased and acquired Arlo common
stock pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus issued
in connection with Arlo's August 2018 initial public offering.

On August 2018, the Defendants commenced the IPO, issuing more than
11 million shares of Arlo common stock to the investing public at
$16 per share, pursuant to the Registration Statement.

According to the complaint, the Registration Statement contained
untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state material
facts both required by governing regulations and necessary to make
the statements made not misleading. With the benefit of the
misrepresentations and omissions, the IPO was lucrative for the
Defendants, who raised more than $160 million in gross proceeds.
But when the truth of the Defendants' misrepresentations and
omissions became known, the price of Arlo shares suffered sharp
declines. At the time of the class action, Arlo shares traded below
$8 per share, and over 50% decline from the offering price.

Netgear Inc. designs, develops and markets networking products for
home users and small businesses worldwide. Products let users share
Net access, peripherals, files, digital multimedia content, and
applications among multiple personal computers and other
Net-enabled devices. The company, based in Santa Clara, Calif., was
founded in 1996. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 766-3534
          Facsimile: (415) 402-0058
          E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com


NEW YORK, NY: Fails to Timely Pay Settlements, Golding et al. Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TANESIA GOLDING and DERRICK WARE, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE CITY OF
NEW YORK, THE OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF NEW YORK CITY, SCOTT M.
STRINGER, Individually and in his Official Capacity, as the New
York City Comptroller, the Defendants, Case No. 650982/2019 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., Feb. 12, 2019), seeks to recover interest damages and
costs on behalf of the Class pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5003-a and
for Breach of Contract for Defendant's failure to pay settlements
in a reasonable time after they are executed and tendered to the
Defendants.

Specifically, the Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice
of flagrantly violating N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5003-a by depriving the Class
"prompt payment following settlement" as the name and directives of
the statute requires. Further, the Defendants have repeatedly
breached the contracts of all of the members of the Class by
failing to pay settlements to the Class in a timely manner after
the Class members have tendered the required settlement paperwork.

In fact, the Defendants routinely do not make the settlement
payments within 90 ninety days required by law, or any reasonable
time after receiving the proper settlement papers. The Defendants
have also failed to notify the Class of any deficiencies in their
settlement paperwork in a timely manner, in order to illegally
extend the time settlement payments is due.

In addition, the Defendants have found deficiencies in the
settlement paperwork that are immaterial and/or not required by law
and returned same for correction, for the sole purpose of illegally
extending the time to pay the settlement amounts.

As a result, the Class has been deprived of their payments in a
timely fashion and are now seeking to recover the statutory
interest and costs on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated. The Defendants have for far too long routinely refused to
timely pay settlements, relying on the fact that plaintiffs would
not go through the effort of filing a separate action for interest
that may be costlier and more time consuming than the amount of
interest is worth, the lawsuit says.

New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely
populated borough that’s among the world’s major commercial,
financial and cultural centers. Its iconic sites include
skyscrapers such as the Empire State Building and sprawling Central
Park.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          COHEN & FITCH LLP
          233 Broadway, Suite 1800
          New York, N.Y. 10279
          Telephone: (212) 374-9115

NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in Lisnitzer Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Samuel D. Roberts and Howard Zucker filed an appeal from
a District Court judgment issued on February 1, 2019, in the
lawsuit styled Lisnitzer v. Shah, et al., Case No. 11-cv-4641, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Central Islip).

Nirav R. Shah, M.D., M.P.H., was the 15th New York State
Commissioner of Health.

The lawsuit alleges violations of civil rights.

The appellate case is captioned as Lisnitzer v. Shah, et al., Case
No. 19-470, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.[BN]

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

          Peter Vollmer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER VOLLMER, P.C.
          19 Hawthorne Road
          Sea Cliff, NY 11579
          Telephone: (516) 277-1156

Defendants-Appellants Howard Zucker, M.D., as Commissioner of the
New York State Department of Health; and Samuel D. Roberts, as
Commissioner of the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance
of the New York State Department of Family Assistance, are
represented by:

          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          28 Liberty Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 416-8000
          E-mail: barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov


NEW YORK: Ex-Prisoners File Suit Over Denied Rehab, Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------------
M.G., P.C., C.J., M.J., J.R., and D.R., individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Andrew Cuomo, in his
official capacity as the Governor of the State of New York, the New
York State Office Of Mental Health, Ann Marie T. Sullivan, in her
official capacity as the Commissioner of the New York State Office
of Mental Health, the New York State Department Of Corrections And
Community Supervision, Anthony J. Annucci, in his official capacity
as the Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of
Corrections and Community Supervision, Anne Marie Mcgrath, in her
official capacity as Associate Commissioner of the New York State
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-00639, (S.D. N.Y., January 23, 2019), seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief for the unconstitutional and
discriminatory practices to which they were subjected to when they
were incarcerated under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the U.S. Constitution.

Plaintiffs are individuals with serious mental illnesses who are
indigent and challenge their institutionalization in state prison
and who have been incarcerated past the maximum expiration dates of
their court-imposed prison sentences. They claim to be denied
community-based housing and supportive services that Plaintiffs
require upon release. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Elena Landriscina, Esq.
      Joshua Rosenthal, Esq.
      Betsy Sterling, Esq.
      DISABILITY RIGHTS NEW YORK
      25 Chapel Street, Suite 1005
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel: (518) 432-7861
      Email: elena.landriscina@drny.org
             jjoshua.rosenthal@drny.org
             betsy.sterling@drny.org

             - and -

      Janet E. Sabel, Esq.
      Stefen R. Short, Esq.
      Robert Quackenbush, Esq.
      Veronica Vela, Esq.
      Mary Lynne Werlwas (mlwerlwas(@legal-aid.org)
      THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY - PRISONERS' RIGHTS PROJECT
      199 Water Street, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10038
      Tel: (212) 577-3530
      Email: sshort@legal-aid.org
             rquackenbush@legal-aid.org
             vvela@legal-aid.org


NORTH CAROLINA: NCPLS Appointed as Counsel in Seelig Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James C. Dever III grants in part the Plaintiff's motion
for appointment of counsel in the lawsuit styled PAUL SEELIG v.
KENNETH LASSITER, et al., Case No. 5:18-ct-03189-D (E.D.N.C.).

Mr. Seelig is a state inmate.  The allegations of his complaint
arose at Greene Correctional Institution, where he is
incarcerated.

Kenneth Lassiter is North Carolina's Director of Prisons.

The Court appoints North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc.
("NCPLS") to assist the Plaintiff with conducting discovery.  The
Court denies these remaining motions:

   * motion to reassign this action to another judge;
   * motion for class certification;
   * motion for a preliminary injunction;
   * motion to expedite;

   * Augustus Howell's motion to join the action as a plaintiff
     and class member; and

   * Ricky Banks' motions for sanctions and a writ of mandamus.

Judge Dever rules that the Plaintiff may proceed with his claims
against Defendants Kenneth Lassiter, Larry Dail, Thomas Asbell,
David May, Jr., Paula Page, Captain B. Fields, Captain Enslow, and
Captain Johnson.  The Court dismisses all other defendants.

The Court further orders that the Clerk shall continue management
of the action pursuant to Standing Order 14-SO-02. If service
against any Defendant pursuant to the standing order fails, the
Court directs the United States Marshal Service to make service
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(d).[CC]


NVIDIA CORP: Kuznicki Law Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in
these companies during the dates listed below are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible appointment as lead plaintiff
and a preliminary estimate of their recoverable losses.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in the respective securities during the class periods.
Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No classes have yet been
certified in the actions below. Appointment as lead plaintiff is
not required to partake in any recovery.

NVIDIA Corporation (NASDAQGS: NVDA)

A class action has commenced on behalf of shareholders in NVIDIA
Corporation who purchased shares between August 10, 2017 and
November 15, 2018. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) NVIDIA's growth in its gaming GPU revenue was
driven, as repeatedly denied by Defendants, in significant part by
the spiked demand for those GPUs among cryptocurrency miners; (ii)
NVIDIA did not have, as Defendants asserted, visibility into its
inventory channel; (iii) NVIDIA was unable to adapt to the
volatility of cryptocurrency markets; (iv) as cryptocurrency prices
dropped, NVIDIA hid halting growth from cryptocurrency miners by
continuing to push mid-range GPUs into the channel; (v) this would
foreseeably cause an oversupply of gaming card inventory levels on
the market and ultimately lead to over three months of excess
inventory in NVIDIA's channel; and (vi) as a result, NVIDIA's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

         Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
         Kuznicki Law PLLC
         445 Central Avenue, Suite 334
         Cedarhurst, NY 11516
         Phone: (347) 696-1134
         Cell: (347) 690-0692
         Fax: (347) 348-0967
         Email: dk@kclasslaw.com  [GN]


OCTOPUS RESTAURANT: Underpays Kitchen Staff, Ferman Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM FERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OCTOPUS RESTAURANT LONG BEACH, INC.; OCTOPUS
RESTAURANT GLENDALE, INC.; GEN RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC; GEN
RESTAURANT INVESTMENT, LLC; JANG ENTERPRISE, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV02939 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 1, 2019) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, and provide accurate
wage statements.

Mr. Ferman was employed by the Defendants as kitchen staff.

Octopus Restaurant Long Beach, Inc. is a corporation organized
under the laws of the State of California. The Company is engaged
in the restaurant business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sanjay Bansal, Esq.
          BANSAL LAW
          725 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2250
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (424) 501-5099
          E-mail: sanjay@bansalesq.com


PALMER ADMINISTRATIVE: Canfield Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Canfield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Palmer Administrative Services, Inc., Case No.
3:19-cv-00022 (S.D. Calif., January 4, 2019), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Plaintiff seeks to stop the Defendant's illegal practice of
making unauthorized calls that play prerecorded voice messages to
the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide, and to obtain
redress for all persons injured by their conduct.

The Plaintiff Daniel Canfield is a natural person and is a citizen
of the District of Minnesota.

The Defendant Palmer sells aftermarket extended auto warranties. As
a primary part of marketing their products and services, the
Defendant and its agents place thousands of automated calls
employing a prerecorded voice message to consumers' cell phones
nationwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
      Mark L. Javitch, Attorney at Law
      210 S. Ellsworth Ave #486
      San Mateo, CA 94401
      Tel: (402) 301-5544
      Fax: (402) 396-7131
      E-mail: javitchm@gmail.com


PARACHUTE HOME: Donahue Alleges Credit Card Transaction Scam
------------------------------------------------------------
MITZI DONAHUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated ,Plaintiff v. PARACHUTE HOME INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 20,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV03690 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Feb. 6, 2019) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendants for
violating the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the
Song-Beverly Credit Card Act through their deliberate and uniform
practice of requiring their credit card customers to record their
email adddress into the Defendants' electronic database on a form
with a space specifically designated for the information -- while
the credit card transaction is being processed -- to obtain a
credit card receipt.

The Defendants are engaged in the pattern and practice of knowingly
requesting and requiring customers to record their personal
identification information during credit card transactions for
marketing purposes.

Parachute Home Inc. designs and manufactures bedding products. It
offers sheet sets, duvet covers, pillow cases, shams, top sheets,
and fabric swatches. The company sells products online. Parachute
Home Inc. is based in Santa Monica, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven A. Blum, Esq.
          Jacqueline A. Axtell, Esq.
          BLUM COLLINS, LLP
          707 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 4880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 572-0400
          Facsimile: (213) 572-0401


PARSEC INC: Soltysic Sues over Collection of Biometrics Data
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT SOLTYSIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PARSEC, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2019L000136 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., Feb. 4, 2019) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unlawful collection, use and storage of the
Plaintiff's sensitive biometric data.

According to the complaint, the Defendant disregard the Plaintiff
and the class' statutory protected privacy rights and unlawfully
collects, stores, and uses their biometric data in violation of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Parsec, Inc. provides contracted terminal management services in
the United States and Canada. Parsec, Inc. was founded in 1987 and
is based in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         David Fish, Esq.
         Seth Matus, Esq.
         Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
         John Kunze, Esq.
         THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
         200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
         Naperville, IL 60563
         Telephone: (630) 355-7590
         Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
         E-mail: admin@fishlawfirm.com
                 dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                 smatus@fishlawfirm.com
                 khilton@fishlawfirm.com
                 jkunze@fishlawfirm.com


PERSONNEL STAFFING: Trottier Sues Over BIPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Joseph Trottier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Personnel Staffing Group, LLC d/b/a Most
Valuable Personnel, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH02730 (Circuit Ct.,
Cook Cty., February 28, 2019) brought this Class Action Complaint
against the Defendant to stop the Defendant's unlawful collection,
use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs and the proposed Class's
sensitive, private, and personal biometric data.

As an employee, Plaintiff was required to scan his hand multiple
times so Defendant could create, collect, capture, construct,
store, use, and/ or obtain a biometric template for Plaintiff.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") expressly
obligates Defendant to obtain an executed, written release from an
individual, as a condition of employment, in order to capture,
collect, and store an individual's biometric identifiers or
biometric information, especially a fingerprint or hand geometry
scan, and biometric information derived from it. The Defendant
disregarded these obligations and instead unlawfully collected,
stored, and used employees' biometric identifiers and information,
without ever receiving the individual's informed written consent as
required by BIPA.

Plaintiff and the putative Class are aggrieved by Defendant's
failure to destroy their biometric data when the initial purpose
for collecting or obtaining such data has been satisfied or within
three years of employees' last interactions with the company, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for the Defendant and is an individual citizen of
the State of Illinois.

Personnel Staffing Group, LLC d/b/a Most Valuable Personnel is a
Florida corporation and maintains at least one place of business in
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
     Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
     PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
     818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
     St. Louis, MO 63104
     Phone: 314-833-4825
     Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com
            plesko@pwcklegal.com


PHILIP MORRIS: Bourassa Class Action in Canada Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit in Canada
entitled, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al.

In a class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco
Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada,
filed June 25, 2010, the company, its subsidiaries, and its
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants.

The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the
decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from
emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products.

She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12,
2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases allegedly
caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members,
plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January
1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.

In December 2014, plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. It markets and sells its products in the European
Union, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa, South and Southeast
Asia, East Asia, Australia, Latin America, and Canada. The company
was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Counsel Won't Pursue Jacklin Suit in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that plaintiff's
counsel in Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers'
Council, et al., has indicated that he does not intend to take any
action in this case in the near future.

In a class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, filed June 20, 2012, the company, its subsidiaries, and
its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the
industry are defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker,
alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting
from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have
allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer,
as well as restitution of profits.

Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that he does not intend to take
any action in this case in the near future.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. It markets and sells its products in the European
Union, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa, South and Southeast
Asia, East Asia, Australia, Latin America, and Canada. The company
was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Dorion Class Action Remains Dormant
--------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that there is
still no activity in the case entitled, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al.

In a class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta, Canada,
filed June 15, 2009, the company, its subsidiaries, and its
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections
resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family
members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government
health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.

Philip Morris said, "To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our
indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint. No
activity in this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel
pursues the class action filed in in Adams v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan,
Canada."

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. It markets and sells its products in the European
Union, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa, South and Southeast
Asia, East Asia, Australia, Latin America, and Canada. The company
was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


PHILIP MORRIS: McDermid Class Action in Canada Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a class action lawsuit in Canada entitled,
McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al.

The McDermid case was filed in the Supreme Court, British Columbia,
Canada, on June 25, 2010.  The company, its subsidiaries, and its
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
have been named as defendants.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of
tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were
alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease
allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family
members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants
from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. It markets and sells its products in the European
Union, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa, South and Southeast
Asia, East Asia, Australia, Latin America, and Canada. The company
was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


PHILIP MORRIS: Semple Class Suit in Canada Remains Dormant
----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that no activity
is anticipated in the Semple class action lawsuit in Canada while
plaintiff's counsel pursues another case.

The company, its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and
Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants in the
class action titled, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers'
Council, et al., pending before the Supreme Court (trial court) in
Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009.  The plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products
and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products.   He is
seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed
class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and
family members, as well as restitution of profits, and
reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by
tobacco products.

No activity in this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel
pursues the class action filed in in Adams v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., pending before the Queen's Bench in
Saskatchewan, Canada.

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

Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. It markets and sells its products in the European
Union, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Africa, South and Southeast
Asia, East Asia, Australia, Latin America, and Canada. The company
was incorporated in 1987 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


PORSCHE FINANCIAL: Two Classes of Lessees Certified in Cox Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Darrin P. Gayles affirms and adopts the report of
Magistrate Judge Lauren Fleischer Louis granting the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification in the lawsuit titled STEVEN MICHAEL
COX, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v.
PORSCHE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-23409-DPG (S.D.
Fla.).

The Defendant's objections to the Report's recommendation are
overruled.

The Plaintiff's Inaccurate Disclosure Class is certified under
Rules 23(b)(3) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
as:

     Persons who leased a Porsche vehicle in Florida through the
     standard form Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement from Defendants
     and, as part of the transaction, traded in a vehicle with a
     positive monetary value that was not assigned a positive Net
     Trade-in Allowance.  This Class only covers individuals
     whose leases either are outstanding or were terminated
     within four years before the filing of this action.

The Plaintiff's Overcharge Class is certified under Rule 23(b)(3)
and Rule 23(b)(2) as:

     Persons who leased a Porsche vehicle in Florida through the
     standard form Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement from Defendants
     and, as part of the transaction, traded in a vehicle with a
     positive monetary value that was not properly credited as a
     Capitalized Cost Reduction.  This Class only covers
     individuals whose leases either are outstanding or were
     terminated within four years before the filing of this
     action.

This case was set for a Status Conference on March 6, 2019, at
11:00 a.m.[CC]


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Maldonado Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARGOT MALDONADO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04610-SDW-SCM (D.N.J., Feb. 4,
2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means
to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Susan D. Wigenton
and referred to Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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


PRO OIL & GAS: Underpays Wireline Operators, Rosenhoover Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT ROSENHOOVER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRO OIL & GAS SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00025-RAL (W.D. Pa., Feb. 1, 2019)
seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Rosenhoover was employed by the Defendants as wireline
operator.

Pro Oil & Gas Services, LLC provides oil field services. The
Company offers drilling, wireline, and pressure control services.
The Company serves customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PROSHARES SHORT VIX: April 1 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP alerts investors in ProShares Short
VIX Short-Term Futures ETF ("the Fund" or "SVXY") of the April 1,
2019 Lead Plaintiff deadline in the securities class action pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  If you purchased or otherwise acquired SVXY securities
between May 12, 2017 and February 5, 2018 (the "class period") and
suffered $1,000,000 or more in losses contact Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.  For more information visit:

         https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/SVXY

or contact Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation,
by calling 510-725-3000 or emailing SVXY@hbsslaw.com.

According to the complaint, Defendants made false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding
the risks of investing in the Fund.

More specifically, the complaint alleges Defendants did not
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.

When, on February 5, 2018 stock markets and indices experienced
unusually high volatility and declined, the price of SVXY shares
fell 32% and continued to fall.

"We're focused on investors' losses and the extent to which
Defendants' statements may have misled investors," said Hagens
Berman partner Reed Kathrein.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding the
Fund should consider their options to help in the investigation or
take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.  Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC.  For more information, call
Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or email SVXY@hbsslaw.com.

                     About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a national
investor-rights law firm headquartered in Seattle, Washington with
80+ attorneys in 10 offices across the country.  The Firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. [GN]


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Investors Win Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that a federal jury
trial concluded on Feb. 5 with a verdict finding that defendants
Puma Biotechnology, Inc. and its CEO, Alan H. Auerbach, committed
securities fraud and awarding shareholders up to $100 million in
damages. Robbins Geller represented a class of investors at trial,
including lead plaintiff and class representative, Norfolk County
Council, as Administering Authority of the Norfolk Pension Fund.
The jury found that Puma and Auerbach knowingly misled investors
about the effectiveness of Pumas lone product, a drug known
scientifically as neratinib and later released commercially as
Nerlynx. The case, titled Hsu v. Puma Biotechnology, No.
SACV15-0865, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California before the Honorable Andrew J. Guilford.

"Any day we can hold bad actors responsible for investor losses is
a good day," noted Patrick J. Coughlin, one of Robbins Gellers
trial team members.

"The Puma case is only the fifteenth securities class action case
tried to a verdict since the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act was enacted in 1995. Its hard to overstate the significance of
this verdict because it confirms that jurors and investors alike
demand integrity from corporations and their executives," said
Jason A. Forge, another member of the trial team.

"We are very proud of our trial team. It is gratifying to know that
the jury has held Puma and its CEO accountable for their fraudulent
misconduct," noted Darren J. Robbins. "While trials in shareholder
class actions are rare, Robbins Geller has tried nine shareholder
class action cases including this success in Puma. Robbins Gellers
Puma trial team includes Patrick Coughlin, Jason Forge, Tor
Gronborg, Trig Smith, Susannah Conn, Marco Janoski, Debashish
Bakshi, Ting Liu, and Grace Cho."

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is one of the worlds
leading law firms representing investors in securities litigation,
having recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved
shareholders. 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 the amount recovered for
shareholders and the total number of class action settlements.
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. [GN]


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Still Claims Victory Despite Jury Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that on Feb. 4, after
eight days of trial and nearly four days of deliberation, a federal
jury in Santa Ana, California found the pharmaceutical company Puma
Biotechnology and its CEO, Alan Auerbach, liable for securities
fraud for a statement Mr. Auerbach made on a call with stock
analysts in July 2014. The jury said Mr. Auerbach knowingly
misrepresented clinical trial results on the disease-free survival
rate of breast cancer patients treated with the drug neratinib,
which is intended to prevent recurrences in patients who have
already received chemotherapy. Puma's share price, according to
jurors, was inflated by $4.50 per share as a result of the fraud.

That is the factual outcome of this rare securities class action
trial, only the 15th shareholder fraud class action to be tried to
a verdict since the passage of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act in 1995. Interpreting the outcome isn't nearly as simple
as stating it, however. Yes, investors won a liability verdict and
a damages award. But the jury, as I'll explain, let Puma off the
hook for three other alleged misstatements -- and jurors tagged
Puma with responsibility for only a small fraction of the
billion-dollar loss in its share price when the market absorbed bad
news about its neratinib product, known as Nerlynx.

The verdict somehow left room for both the lead plaintiff and Puma
to claim victory in statements issued after the trial concluded.

How can that be? Let's look first at the press release from Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd, which represented the lead plaintiff,
Britain's Norfolk Pension Fund. Robbins Geller, as you would
expect, highlighted the jury's finding that Puma was liable for
knowingly deceiving the market in that fateful 2014 analysts' call.
"Any day we can hold bad actors responsible for investor losses is
a good day," Robbins founder Patrick Coughlin said in the release,
which said the jury's verdict could be worth as much as $100
million. "It's hard to overstate the significance of this verdict
because it confirms that jurors and investors alike demand
integrity from corporations and their executives," said Robbins
partner Jason Forge, who tried the case with
Mr. Coughlin.

In a followup interview on Feb. 5, Mr. Forge told me that the key
to the case was testimony by Mr. Auerbach, the founder and CEO of
Puma. Mr. Auerbach's testimony spanned three days of trial, during
which he was grilled about all four of the contested statements he
made during that fateful call with analysts in 2014, after Puma had
received the results of crucial clinical tests on its sole product
-- a neratinib drug developed by Pfizer and licensed to Puma –-
but before the results were released publicly. (The alleged
misstatements involved the drug's so-called disease-free survival
rate, the number of patients who experienced extreme diarrhea as a
side effect, the study's discontinuation rate and the difference in
a long-term survival rate metric between patients on the drug and
those who took a placebo.)

But the most dramatic part of the CEO's testimony, according to Mr.
Forge, came when his partner Coughlin questioned Mr. Auerbach about
an email Puma sent to a lawyer for underwriters of a $218 million
public stock offering in 2015. The email purported to be minutes of
a meeting between Puma and the Food and Drug Administration about
approval of Puma's neratinib product. But Robbins Geller lawyers
had discovered that the minutes Puma sent to its underwriters'
lawyer did not match the FDA's version of the meeting minutes.

Mr. Coughlin pressed Mr. Auerbach to explain the discrepancy in
light of metadata indicating that he created the version sent to
the underwriters' lawyer, which, according to Robbins Geller,
omitted key information about clinical trial results. The CEO first
said he had no recollection of creating or altering the document
nor of ordering anyone on his team to do so. Then he said that
someone on his team might have made a mistake. He elaborated that
Puma's practice is to prepare internal notes on FDA meetings and
that the version sent to the underwriters' lawyer stripped out
information about clinical trials because the FDA turned out not to
want to discuss that data at the meeting. At closing arguments, Mr.
Coughlin told jurors that
Mr. Auerbach's shifting explanations for the altered version of the
FDA minutes "spoke volumes about the deception here, and you
watched it actually occur in the courtroom before your eyes."

"If they had believed him," Forge said, "the case would have been
over. They would have run us out of Orange County on a rail."
Instead, Forge told me, Mr. Auerbach's testimony, as well as the
jury's determination that the company committed securities fraud,
may end up attracting attention from government investigators,
especially because the trial made public documents that Puma wanted
to keep under seal. "This is a field day for a prosecutor," Mr.
Forge said.

That's the view of one side. Now let's hear the other side's story
of the trial and the verdict.

Puma's post-trial press release, titled "Puma Biotechnology
Announces Litigation Victory," touted the company's exoneration on
three of the four alleged misstatements. Shareholders had claimed
the company's deception led to two separate plunges in its share
price when the market received corrective disclosures; as Puma
pointed out in its press release, jurors said Puma bore no
responsibility at all for one of those slides. And for the other,
the press release said, "jurors found liability such that
(shareholders) may recover no more than $4.50 per share, which
represents approximately 5 percent or less of the claimed damages."
Puma CEO Auerbach said, "We are extremely pleased with the jury
verdict."

What about those allegations that Auerbach was responsible for
altering FDA minutes he sent to his underwriters' lawyer? After
Coughlin spotlighted that accusation in his closing argument to
jurors, Puma co-lead counsel Andrew Clubok -- andrew.clubok@lw.com
-- of Latham & Watkins called the FDA meeting minutes a "sideshow"
with a perfectly legitimate explanation. For one thing, he said,
the entire line of questioning had nothing to do with the
securities fraud case because the class action did not allege fraud
in the 2015 stock offering and no underwriter claimed Puma did
anything wrong.

Mr. Clubok argued that Puma wasn't hiding anything from anyone --
the company, after all, sent its clinical trial data to the FDA
"because they were so proud of it." The FDA, according to
Mr. Clubok, didn't want to discuss the clinical data and only
wanted to hear from Puma about the length of a study on rats
treated with the drug. Puma's internal minutes of the meeting
reflected that the clinical data wasn't discussed, Mr. Clubok said,
but the FDA's official meeting minutes mistakenly said it was.
Somehow, Mr. Clubok told jurors, Mr. Auerbach ended up sending his
underwriters' lawyer minutes that showed what actually happened at
the FDA meeting.

"He realizes he stupidly sent the wrong version," Mr. Clubok told
jurors. "He regrets not double-checking it before it was sent. But
the fact of the matter is none of that goes to any investors."

During the trial, Puma tried to show that the lead plaintiff, the
Norfolk fund, wasn't deceived by any of Mr. Auerbach's statements
to investors. Norfolk's investment manager, Alex Younger, testified
that as Norfolk's investment advisor, the U.K. fund manager Capital
International decided to buy Puma shares. In a deposition, the
Capital research analyst who recommended Puma said she had known
Puma CEO Auerbach for years and did not believe he ever misled or
defrauded her.

Jurors largely agreed, as Puma and its lawyers tell the story. Mr.
Clubok co-lead counsel Michele Johnson -- michele.johnson@lw.com --
of Latham said in an email statement that the jury verdict reflects
the safety and effectiveness of neratinib as a last hope for breast
cancer patients "who have otherwise run out of treatment options."
(The FDA approved Puma's product in July 2017.) Mr. Clubok said the
jury verdict, in combination with a pre-trial summary judgment
ruling for the company on claims stemming from a press release
announcing a 33 percent improvement in the disease-free survival
rate for patients who took the drug, amount to "an almost complete
exoneration."

Mr. Clubok also said Robbins Geller's estimation of up to $100
million in potential damages is "wildly inflated and misleading,
which is particularly troubling given the accusations they have
made in this case regarding public statements." Total damages will
depend on both the number of shares traded in the class period and
the claims rate by absent class members. By one estimate, the
number could be as little as $10 million or $20 million.

I'll give the last word to Forge of Robbins Geller, since the
docket entry on the jury verdict, after all, says, "Jury finds: In
favor of plaintiff(s)." When I told Forge about Puma's press
release, he was quite surprised. "They're celebrating a finding
that they committed securities fraud?" he said. "I don't know
what's more damning -- the jury finding or their celebration. It's
hard to imagine less humility." [GN]


R.J.T. MOTORIST: Underpays Tow-Truck Drivers, Taylor Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. R.J.T. MOTORIST SERVICE, INC.; and RAYMOND
TARTAGLIONE, Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-01155 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 6,
2019) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Taylor was employed by the Defendants as tow-truck driver.

R.J.T. Motorist Service, Inc. provides mechanical, auto body
repair, and maintenance for all models and makes of both foreign
and domestic automobiles. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RBC: Faces Class Action Over Trailing Commissions
-------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP and Bates Barristers P.C. on Feb. 4 disclosed that
three proposed class actions have been filed regarding trailing
commissions paid to online/discount brokers on RBC/PH&N, BMO and
National Bank mutual funds.

The actions allege that the Defendants paid trailing commissions to
discount brokers through which the mutual funds were sold or held,
and that these payments were improper because the investors in
these mutual funds received no value (such as professional
investment advice) for the trailing commissions paid.  The actions
seek compensation for the affected investors.

Discount brokers include, among others, CIBC Investor's Edge, BMO
InvestorLine, RBC Direct Investing, Scotia iTRADE, TD Direct
Investing, National Bank Direct Brokerage, Desjardins Online
Brokerage, HSBC InvestDirect, Laurentian Bank Discount Brokerage,
Qtrade Investor and Virtual Brokers.

The BMO class action is against BMO Investments Inc. and is brought
on behalf of all persons, wherever they may reside or be domiciled,
who held or hold, at any time prior to the conclusion of the trial
of the common issues in the proposed class action, units of a BMO
mutual fund trust through a discount broker.

The National Bank class action is against National Bank Investments
Inc. and Natcan Trust Company and is brought on behalf of all
persons, wherever they may reside or be domiciled, who held or
hold, at any time prior to the conclusion of the trial of the
common issues in the proposed class action, units of a National
Bank mutual fund trust through a discount broker.

The RBC class action is against RBC Global Asset Management Inc.
and RBC Investor Services Trust and is brought on behalf of all
persons, wherever they may reside or be domiciled, who held or
hold, at any time prior to the conclusion of the trial of the
common issues in the proposed class action, units of a RBC or PH&N
mutual fund trust through a discount broker.

This brings the total number of class actions challenging the
payment of trailing commissions to seven.  Siskinds LLP and Bates
Barristers P.C. previously filed proposed class actions regarding
trailing commissions paid to online/discount brokers on TD,
Scotia/Dynamic, CIBC and Mackenzie mutual funds.

Siskinds LLP and Bates Barristers P.C. continue to evaluate
potential claims on behalf of individuals who held or hold mutual
funds through a discount broker, including Renaissance mutual funds
(which are part of the CIBC family of mutual funds). If you held or
hold those or other mutual funds through a discount broker, please
contact Class Counsel via the contact information provided below.

Class Member Contacts:

If you hold or previously held units of a mutual fund that pays
trailing commissions in a discount brokerage account, we encourage
you to complete the information form on the Siskinds LLP website at
www.siskinds.com/mutual-fund-trailing-commissions/ by clicking on
the "Receive Updates on this Case" link.

If you would like to contact Class Counsel, please direct your
inquiries to Siskinds LLP at 1-800-461-6166 x 4228 or
mutualfundfees@siskinds.com.

Media Contacts:

         Anthony O'Brien, Partner
         Siskinds LLP
         anthony.obrien@siskinds.com
         416-594-4394

                      About Class Counsel

Siskinds LLP -- http://www.siskinds.com-- is a full-service law
firm headquartered in London, Ontario and is Canada's leading class
actions firm.  It was the first law firm to secure certification of
a class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Bates Barristers P.C. -- http://www.batesbarristers.com-- is a
leading litigation boutique in Toronto specializing in class
actions, complex commercial litigation, public law and appeals.
[GN]


RED ROBIN: Court Decertifies 2,612 Arbitration Subclass Members
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, Manuel Vigueras, the Plaintiff v. Red
Robin International, Inc. et al., the Defendant, Case No.
8:17-cv-01422-JVS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James V. Selna
entered an order:

   1. granting decertification as to the 2,612 Arbitration
      Subclass members who signed the Arbitration Agreement
      before the action was filed on July 14, 2017; and

   2. denying decertification as to the 3,128 Arbitration
      Subclass members who signed the Arbitration Agreement
      after the action was filed on July 14, 2017.

On July 14, 2017, Vigueras filed a putative class action lawsuit in
the Superior Court for the County of Orange, California, against
Red Robin alleging various wage and hour, meal and rest break, and
related employment claims.  On October 23, 2018, the Court issued
an order certifying a class consisting of:

   "all persons who are employed or have been employed by
   [Red Robin] as non-exempt, hourly employees, however
   titled, in [Red Robin's] restaurants in the state of
   California from July 14, 2013 to the present.

The Court designated as one of six subclasses a subclass of all
putative class members subject to potentially binding arbitration
agreements ("the Arbitration Subclass") because the circumstances
under which employees signed the agreements were not specified,
thus the Court could not determine whether the arbitration
agreements were binding and enforceable. Put another way, the issue
of the enforceability of the arbitration agreements was not yet
ripe for determination at the time of the Court's order on class
certification.

As of November 8, 2018, approximately 5,740 employees executed the
Arbitration Agreement and did not opt out within 30 calendar days
of their first day of employment. Of those, 2,612 employees signed
the Arbitration Agreement before this lawsuit was filed on July 14,
The remaining 3,128 employees signed the Arbitration Agreement
after this action was initiated.[CC]

REDBOX AUTOMATED: Wilson Sues over Unsolicited Text Advertisements
------------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. REDBOX AUTOMATED RETAIL, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No.: 2019CH02050 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., Feb. 15,
2019), seeks legal and equitable remedies resulting from illegal
actions of Redbox Automated Retail, LLC 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.

According to the complaint, between on or about January 23, 2019
and the present, the Plaintiff has expressly instructed Defendant
not to send any text messages to the 7187 Number, via the settings
page of her online account portal on Defendant's website.
Specifically, between on or about January 23, 2019 and the present,
Plaintiff has at all times maintained a toggle pertaining to
enrollment in the "Redbox Text Club" in the "off' position. By
maintaining the "Redbox Text Club" toggle in the "off' position in
her online account portal at all times from on or about January 23,
2019 through the present, Plaintiff has expressly instructed
Defendant not to transmit "members-only deals and news to her
phone" via text message over that period of time. Thus, Defendant
plainly lacked Plaintiffs "prior express written consent" to
transmit autodialed text messages to the 7187 Number between on or
about January 23, 2019 and the present.

Despite the Plaintiffs express instructions not to transmit text
messages to the 7187 Number between on or about January 23, 2019
and the present, Defendant nonetheless transmitted or caused to be
transmitted, by itself or through an intermediary or
intermediaries, numerous automated text message advertisements to
the 7187 Number over that period of time, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Classes:

          Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275 7895
          E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com

RENT-A-CENTER INC: Russell Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
VELMA RUSSELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RENT-A-CENTER, INC. dba ACCEPTANCE NOW,
Defendant, Case No. 19-0382G (Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., Feb. 4,
2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means
to collect a debt.

Rent-A-Center, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, leases
household durable goods to customers on a rent-to-own basis.
Rent-A-Center, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in
Plano, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, LLC
          43 Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
          E-mail slemberg@lemberglaw.com


RESOLUTE ENERGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on Feb. 4 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District
of Delaware, case No. 1:19-cv-00077, on behalf of shareholders of
Resolute Energy Corporation ("Resolute" or the "Company") (NYSE:
REN) who have been harmed by Resolute's and its board of directors'
(the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection
with  the proposed merger of the Company with Cimarex Energy
Company ("Cimarex").

On November 18, 2018, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Proposed Transaction") under which
each outstanding share of Resolute shareholders will have the right
to receive 0.3943 shares of Cimarex common stock, $35 per share in
cash, or a combination of $14 per share in cash and 0.2366 share of
common stock subject to proration (the "Merger Consideration").

The complaint alleges that the Form S-4 Registration Statement (the
"S-4") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on
January 10, 2019, violates Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act because it provides materially incomplete and misleading
information about the Company and the Proposed Transaction,
including information concerning the Company's financial
projections and analysis, on which the Board relied to recommend
the Proposed Transaction as fair to Resolute shareholders.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action, you can
do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/RENnotice.

Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.  Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California,
Georgia, and Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from February 4, 2019, the date of this notice.
Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss
this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact:

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com     
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com

          Web site: http://www.faruqilaw.com[GN]


RFC DRILLING: Juanes Claims Overtime Pay, Hits Inaccurate Pay Slips
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Juanes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RFC Drilling, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-00019, (W.D. Tex., January 24, 2019), seeks unpaid regular
hourly wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorney's fees
and costs of suit and such other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

RFC is an oil and gas drilling company where Juanes worked as a rig
welder. Aside from failing to pay overtime, RFC also failed to
provide accurate wage statements, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RIWO INC: Mayer Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Rainer G. Mayer, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. Riwo Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-60208, (S.D.
Fla., January 24, 2019), seeks to recover regular wages, overtime
compensation, retaliatory damages, liquidated damages, costs and
reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Riwo, Inc. operates as Schnitzel Haus Restaurant (a/k/a Royal
Bavarian Schnitzel Haus) where Plaintiff worked as a cook. He
worked in excess of 40 hours per week with no overtime compensation
for hours rendered in excess of 40 per week, says the complaint.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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



SAN FRANCISCO, CA: BART App to Collect Less Info Under Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a crime-reporting app for Bay
Area Rapid Transit riders will now collect less intrusive
information about users -- and keep is collected for only a limited
time -- under a settlement approved by a federal judge on Jan. 28.

A copy of the Final Judgment in the case Moreno v. San Francisco
Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Case No. 3:17-cv-02911 (N.D.
Cal.), is available at:

         https://is.gd/t8NiyO


SARA COMPANION: Jefferson Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alexis Jefferson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Sara Companion Services, Inc. dba Sara
Companion HomeCare Services and Irwin J. White, Case No. 600148
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., January 4, 2019), seeks redress for
the Defendants' unlawful wage practices under the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay spread of
hours wages for each day in which the Plaintiff worked 10 or more
hours in a workday. The Defendant also unlawfully terminated the
Plaintiff's employment in retaliation for the Plaintiff's protected
complaints.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Home Health Aide in or
around December 2016 and continued to work there until she was
terminated on or about August 22, 2018.

The Defendant SARA is a New York corporation with a principal place
of business at 210-09 Merrick Road, Valley Stream, New York 11580.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian A. Bodansky, Esq.
      BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
      100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., Suite 208
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 280-3008
      Fax: (516) 706-4692
      E-mail: bb@bclllg.com


SIGN IMAGE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Harrison Porter Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL HARRISON PORTER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIGN IMAGE, INC.; and DOES 1-50,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV03388 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Feb. 5, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal
and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Harrison Porter was employed by the Defendants as
non-exempt employee.

Sign Image, Inc. is a full-service sign company with over 20 years
of experience, specializing in the real-estate, commercial,
educational, hospital and retail markets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Danny Yadidsion, Esq.
          LABOR LAW PC
          100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 700
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 494-6082
          Facsimile: (877) 775-2267
          E-mail: Danny@LaborLawPC.com


SIX FLAGS: Appellate Court's Ruling in BIPA Case Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------
Anne E. Larson, Esq. -- anne.larson@ogletree.com -- and Goli
Rahimi, Esq. -- goli.rahimi@ogletree.com -- of Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., in an article for The National Law
Review, report that the Illinois Supreme Court issued its
long-awaited ruling in Rosenbach and reversed the appellate court's
decision that technical violations of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA" or "Act") without "some actual
injury or harm" are not actionable:

Contrary to the appellate court's view, an individual need not
allege some actual injury or adverse effect, beyond violation of
his or her rights under the Act, in order to qualify as an
"aggrieved" person and be entitled to seek liquidated damages and
injunctive relief pursuant to the Act.

Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., 2019 IL 123186, Par.
40.

With this ruling, the Illinois Supreme Court has likely unleashed
another wave of class action litigation. These class actions could
transfer millions of dollars from companies that do business in
Illinois into the pockets of the plaintiffs' class action bar.
While no one can dispute BIPA's good intentions, biometric
technology has evolved far beyond 2008, when the law was enacted.
The biometric equipment in use today transforms the biometric
identifier into an encrypted mathematical algorithm that renders it
unreadable and unidentifiable. These safeguards prevent the harms
contemplated by BIPA. In Rivera Judge Edmond Chang explained that
laws such as BIPA (with their statutory damages and fee-shifting)
are an imperfect fit and cannot keep pace with technological
advances: "The difficulty in predicting technological advances and
their legal effects is one reason why legislative pronouncements
with minimum statutory damages and fee-shifting might reasonably be
considered a too-blunt instrument for dealing with technology."
Rivera, 162018 WL 6830332, fn. 20 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 29, 2018).

Rosenbach is not a positive development for Illinois' business
economy, especially when no BIPA lawsuit has pled any unauthorized
disclosure of biometric data to the public, any illegal hacking, or
other actual injury. Unless the Illinois legislature promptly
amends BIPA, these BIPA class actions have the potential to
bankrupt some Illinois businesses and discourage future business
investment in Illinois.

BIPA's History and Key Provisions
In 2008, Illinois became the first state to regulate a private
entity's collection, use, storage, transmission, and destruction of
"biometric identifiers" such as retina or iris scans, fingerprints,
voiceprints, or hand or facial geometry scans. BIPA also protects
"biometric information," which includes "any information . . .
based on an individual's biometric identifier used to identify an
individual."

Section 15 of BIPA prohibits a private entity from collecting a
person's or customer's "biometric identifier" or "biometric
information" unless it first informs them of the "specific purpose
and length of term for which [it] is being collected, stored and
used" and obtains their executed release or consent. Section 15
also requires private entities to develop a written policy that
establishes a retention schedule and guidelines for the timely
destruction of biometric data in compliance with BIPA.

Section 20 gives any "person aggrieved" by a violation of the Act a
private "right of action" to sue for statutory damages of $1,000
per negligent violation, $5,000 per intentional violation, actual
damages (if greater than the statutory damages), injunctive relief,
attorney's fees and costs.

Class Actions and Rosenbach
The consumer class actions began in 2015. The employer class
actions followed two years later in 2017, nine years after BIPA's
enactment. Rosenbach is a putative consumer class action. Stacy
Rosenbach, as mother and next friend of Alexander Rosenbach, filed
suit against Six Flags after her son visited the amusement park on
a school field trip. Ms. Rosenbach learned that Six Flags scanned
her son's thumbprint to allow him access to the amusement park on a
season pass. The lawsuit did not allege any actual harm to her son.
It alleged that Six Flags failed to inform Alexander or his mother
of the specific purpose and length of term for which his
fingerprint had been collected, and failed to obtain his written
consent or hers prior to collecting it.

When Six Flags' initial motion to dismiss was denied, the amusement
park sought interlocutory review of the denial. On appeal, the
appellate court sided with Six Flags and held that plaintiff must
allege some actual harm—not just a violation of the Act—to be a
"person aggrieved by a violation of this Act." If every technical
violation of BIPA was actionable, it would render "superfluous" the
requirement that a person be "aggrieved by a violation of this
Act." Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., 2017 IL App (2d)
170317, ¶ 23.

The Illinois Supreme Court rejected the appellate court's ruling
that actual injury is a prerequisite to the recovery of statutory
damages under BIPA. It said this was "antithetical to the Act's
preventative and deterrent purposes" and held that a violation of
BIPA's notice and consent provisions was a "real and significant"
injury:

When a private entity fails to adhere to the statutory procedures,
as defendants are alleged to have done here, "the right of the
individual to maintain [his or] her biometric privacy vanishes into
thin air. The precise harm the Illinois legislature sought to
prevent is then realized." This is no mere "technicality." The
injury is real and significant.

Id. at ¶34 (citation omitted).

Call to Action: Lessons Learned From the FACTA Class Action
Debacle
In Rottner, No. 15 CH 16695 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Dec. 20, 2016), Circuit
Judge Mikva struck the liquidated damages prayer for relief and
explained that the legislative intent of BIPA was not to bankrupt
companies:

[T]he legislative intent was not to put companies out of business
but to keep companies in compliance with the law.

Id., July 12, 2016 Tr. of Proceedings, pp. 17:21-18:3.

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA") is
an excellent example of how the business community united when hit
with a plethora of seven-figure class actions based on technical
violations and no actual injury. In the FACTA cases, class action
attorneys sued retailers under FACTA for not having coordinated
with their credit card vendors to ensure that sales receipts
redacted both a customer's credit card number and the expiration
date. Because of a grammatical misinterpretation of the statute,
most businesses redacted one but not the other. The business
community responded in a communal uproar, contacted their
legislators, and were successful in getting FACTA amended. Here,
the Illinois Supreme Court may be construing BIPA in a manner that
the Illinois legislature did not intend or foresee in 2008—just
as many courts misread FACTA contrary to Congress' intent.

Given the Rosenbach ruling, Illinois companies and those who do
business in Illinois will want to lobby the Illinois legislature to
amend BIPA. For example, biometric data is not covered by a number
of analogous data breach notification laws if it is encrypted or
otherwise altered such that the data is unreadable. In many BIPA
cases, the biometric scanner transformed the finger scan into an
encrypted mathematical algorithm that is unreadable and
unidentifiable. Crippling liability for mere technical violations
could not be what the legislature intended.

This "call to action" also applies to companies currently in
compliance with BIPA. Companies may want to periodically audit
their compliance at each facility or store in Illinois, as the
slightest misstep could result in class actions, despite years of
compliance. [GN]


SPECIALTY COMMODITIES: Quiruz Seeks Prelim. OK of $1.5-Mil. Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled ANDREW QUIRUZ, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated v. SPECIALTY COMMODITIES,
INC., a North Dakota corporation; ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND COMPANY, a
business entity form unknown; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
5:17-cv-03300-BLF (N.D. Cal.), moves the Court for an order
granting preliminary approval of the parties' STIPULATION OF
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION CLAIMS AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS.

Mr. Quiruz filed a lawsuit on behalf of (1) California employees of
the Defendants, alleging various wage and hour law violations under
state and federal law, and (2) applicants for employment by
Defendants who were subject to any background, credit, consumer, or
investigatory check or report.  The Defendants dispute these
claims, deny liability, and have vigorously defended the action to
date.

After discovery, the exchange of data, and an arm's-length
mediation conducted by a third-party mediator, Plaintiff and the
Defendants reached a proposed class action settlement valued at a
total of $1,500,000 for approximately 20,000 putative class
members, in several defined subclasses (362 in the California wage
and hour subclasses).

In this Motion, the Plaintiff specifically moves for an order to:

   1. grant preliminary approval of the terms of the Agreement as
      fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e) of the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including the amount of
      the settlement; the amount of distributions to class
      members; the procedure for giving notice to class members;
      the procedure for opting out of the settlement; and the
      amounts allocated to the Class Representative's service
      payment, settlement administration costs, and Class
      Counsel's attorneys' fees and costs;

   2. preliminarily certify for settlement purposes the
      Settlement Classes described in the Agreement;

   3. appoint the Plaintiff as representative for the Settlement
      Class;

   4. appoint Setareh Law Group as counsel for the Settlement
      Class;

   5. approve the use of Simpluris, Inc. as the settlement
      administrator;

   6. direct that notice issue to members of the Settlement Class
      as provided in the Agreement; and

   7. schedule a final approval and fairness hearing on a date
      approximately 155 days after preliminary approval
      (December 5, 2019, is proposed) to consider whether the
      Agreement should be finally approved as fair, reasonable
      and adequate under Rule 23(e) and to rule on the motion for
      attorneys' fees, costs and service award submitted by the
      Plaintiff.

The Court will commence a hearing on June 27, 2019, at 9:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          H. Scott Leviant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 S. Beverly Dr., Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  scott@setarehlaw.com


SPRING LIVING: Underpays Caregivers, Finn Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
DEVONEJHA FINN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPRING LIVING, INC.; and DOES 1 through 250,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV04036 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Feb. 6, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Finn was employed by the Defendant as caregiver.

The Springs Living, LLC owns and operates communities for seniors.
It operates communities for independent retirement living, assisted
living, memory care, respite care, and specialized
Alzheimer's/dementia care. The Springs Living, LLC was formerly
known as Willowcreek Management and Development Company, LLC and
changed its name to The Springs Living, LLC in August 2010. The
company was founded in 1996 and is based in McMinnville, Oregon.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
          John F. Litwin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP
          555 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 818
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562)432-8933
          Facsimile: (562)435-1656


SQUARETRADE INC: Swinton Suit Settlement Wins Prelim. Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Stephanie M. Rose grants the Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement in the lawsuit captioned DAVID
M. SWINTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. SQUARETRADE, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-00144-SMR-SBJ (S.D. Iowa).

The Settlement Class consists of:

     all persons or entities in the United States or its
     territories who, during the period from April 20, 2012
     through October 8, 2018, (the "Class Period"), purchased a
     SquareTrade Protection Plan on Amazon, but excluding the
     undersigned and her immediate family, any entities in which
     Defendant has a controlling interest or which have a
     controlling interest in Defendant, and the officers,
     directors, employees, affiliates, and attorneys for
     Defendant (the "Settlement Class").

Under the terms of the settlement, SquareTrade agrees to: (1) make
certain changes to Amazon webpages offering its Protection Plans;
(2) provide full product refunds for class members' Protection Plan
claims that were denied because of the Channel Restriction (the
"Refund Class Members"); (3) honor class members' claims under
outstanding Protection Plans that would otherwise be denied because
of the Channel Restriction; and (4) provide a $10 coupon to all
class members for use on a Protection Plan for a mobile phone.

With respect to changes to the Defendant's Amazon webpages, the
Defendant agreed to move its notice of the Channel Restriction.
That notice will now "appear[] to a consumer without scrolling when
viewed on a standard computer screen at 100% font size."  The
Defendant also agreed to include language, also accessible without
scrolling, that describes where a consumer can access a copy of the
Terms and Conditions.

In addition, the Defendant agrees to pay up to $25,000 of lead
class counsel's fees, expenses, and costs, plus up to 15% of the
purchase price of any product for which the Defendant provides a
refund under the settlement.  The parties estimate that there are
approximately 580 Refund Class Members, and the average price of
their covered products is approximately $620.  Therefore, lead
class counsel stands to recoup approximately $78,940.  The parties
have also agreed Plaintiff will receive an incentive award of
$2,500.

Class members may object to the terms of the Settlement or opt out
of the Settlement Class.  The Court will consider at a hearing, to
be held on June 21, 2019, any timely objections that satisfy
requirements set out in the various notices concerning the
Settlement.

A hearing (the "Final Approval Hearing") shall be held before the
Court on June 21, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. Central Time.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harley C. Erbe, Esq.
          ERBE LAW FIRM
          2501 Grand Avenue
          Des Moines, IA 50312
          Telephone: (515) 281-1460
          E-mail: erbelawfirm@aol.com

               - and -

          Steven P. Wandro, Esq.
          WANDRO & ASSOCIATES
          2501 Grand Avenue
          Des Moines, IA 50312
          Telephone: (515) 281-1475
          E-mail: swandro@2501grand.com


SSP AMERICA: Faces Henderson Labor Suit in Sacramento
-----------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
SSP America Inc. The case is captioned as MARCEL HENDERSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v.SSP AMERICA INC.; SSP AMERICA SMF LLC; and DOES 1-50,
Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00250111-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., Feb. 6, 2019).

SSP America, Inc. acquires, manages, and operates airport
concessions, such as food and beverage, cocktail and lounge, and
news and gift retail facilities in the United States. SSP America,
Inc. was formerly known as Creative Host Services, Inc. The company
was founded in 1986 and is based in Lansdowne, Virginia. SSP
America, Inc. is a subsidiary of SSP Group Limited. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554


STATE FARM MUTUAL: Removes Hupperts Suit to District of Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of MATTHEW HUPPERTS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM
MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; and  DOES 1-5, Defendants,
filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Denver District Court
(Case No. 2018-cv-34058) to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado on February 1, 2019. The clerk of court for
the District of Colorado assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00298-SKC. The
case is assigned to Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company provides various
insurance and financial services in the United States and Canada.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company was founded in 1922
and is based in Bloomington, Illinois. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kayla L. Scroggins-Uptigrove, Esq.
          Evan Bennett Stephenson, Esq.
          WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL, LLP-DENVER
          370 17th Street, Suite 4500
          Denver, CO 80202-5647
          Telephone: (303) 244-1800
          Facsimile: (303) 244-1879
          E-mail: scroggins@wtotrial.com
                  stephenson@wtotrial.com


STEAK N SHAKE: Renews Bid to Decertify Drake Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the lawsuit entitled SANDRA DRAKE, et al. v. STEAK
N SHAKE OPERATIONS, INC., Case No. 4:14-cv-01535-JAR (E.D. Mo.),
renews its motion for decertification of the conditionally
certified Fair Labor Standards Act collective action.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Rodney A. Harrison, Esq.
          Erin E. Williams, Esq.
          Rene L. Duckworth, Esq.
          Mallory Stumpf Zoia, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          7700 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 650
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 802-3935
          Facsimile: (314) 802-3960
          E-mail: rodney.harrison@ogletree.com
                  erin.williams@ogletree.com
                  rene.duckworth@ogletree.com
                  mallory.zoia@ogletree.com


STILLMAN LAW: Perry Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN PERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STILLMAN LAW OFFICE, LLC; and JOHN DOES
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04395-CCC-MF (D.N.J., Feb. 1,
2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means
to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Claire C. Cecchi
and referred to Magistrate Judge Mark Falk.

Stillman Law Office, LLC provides legal advisory and debt
collection services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben A. Kaplan, Esq.
          280 Prospect Ave. 6G
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 803-6611
          Facsimile: (866) 596-4973
          E-mail: ben@chulskykaplanlaw.com


SUNRISE CREDIT: Leedeman Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
----------------------------------------------------------
PEGGY IRENE LEEDEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNRISE CREDIT SERVICES, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 19CV342137 (Cal. Super.,
Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 4, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

According to the complaint, the Defendants sent initial written
communications which fail to provide the "Consumer Collection
Notice" required by California Civil Code, in a type-size that is
at least same type-size as that used to inform the debtor of his or
her specific debt or in at least 12-point type.

Sunrise Credit Services, Inc. provides credit and accounts
receivables management services for credit grantors in the United
States. Sunrise Credit Services, Inc. was founded in 1974 and is
based in Farmingdale, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fred W. Schwinn, Esq.
          Raeon R. Roulston, Esq.
          Matthew C. Salmonsen, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW CENTER
          1435 Koll Circle, Suite 104
          San Jose, CA 95112-4610
          Telephone: (408) 294-6100
          Facsimile: (408) 294-6190
          E-mail: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com


TD BANK: April 15 Coin Machine Settlement Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
To All Persons in Canada Who Used a Coin Counting Machine at TD
Bank between January 1, 2013 and May 25, 2016. A Settlement May
Affect Your Rights. Please Read This Notice Carefully.

This notice is about a class action relating to coin counting
machines located at branches of The Toronto Dominion Bank ("TD
Bank") in Canada.

A class action was commenced in Ontario on behalf of residents of
Canada who used coin counting machines at TD Banks between January
1, 2013 and May 25, 2016. The class action alleges the machines did
not properly count the deposited coins.

What are the settlement benefits?

A settlement of the class action has been reached with TD Bank for
$555,000. The settlement with TD Bank, if approved, will conclude
the class action.

The settlement funds will be disseminated to settlement class
members according to a distribution protocol. Settlement class
members who used a TD Bank coin counting machine between January 1,
2013 and May 25, 2016 will be able to complete a claim form and
submit the claim form together with documentation supporting their
coin deposit in the TD bank coin counting machine.

A further press release will be published with the details and
deadline for filing a claim under the distribution protocol.

Who is affected by the settlement?

You are affected by the class action and/or are a "member" of the
settlement class if you are a person who used a coin counting
machine at a TD Bank in Canada between January 1, 2013 and May 25,
2016.

Who are the lawyers who represent the class?

The law firm of Sotos LLP represents the plaintiff and the class
("Class Counsel"). The lawyers will be paid on a contingency fee
basis.

Sotos LLP can be reached at:

Telephone (toll free): 1-888-977-9806
Email: tdcoinmachines@sotosllp.com
Mail: 180 Dundas Street West, Suite 1200, Toronto ON M5G 1Z8,
Attention: TD Coin Class Action

Hearing to Approve the Settlement Agreement, Distribution Protocol
and Lawyers' Fees

A hearing will be held during which Class Counsel will seek the
Court's approval of the settlement agreement. Class Counsel will
also be seeking approval of the distribution protocol and their
fees at this hearing.

The approval hearing before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
will be held April 15, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. at the Courthouse in
Kitchener, Ontario.

All members of the settlement class may attend the hearing and ask
to make submissions regarding the proposed settlement. Person
intending to object to the settlement agreement should provide
their objection in writing to Class Counsel at the contact
information below by April 5, 2019.

What steps should I take now?

If you do not want to be a member of the class action, you can
exclude yourself from the class action ("opt-out") by sending a
signed letter or e-mail to Class Counsel with the following
information:

   -- your full name, current address and telephone number;
   -- if you are writing on behalf of a company, the name of the
company and your position at the company; and
   -- a statement saying that you (or the company) want to opt-out
of the TD Coin Counting class action.

Requests to opt-out of the proceeding must be post-marked or sent
by April 5, 2019.

If you want to tell the Court what you think about the proposed
settlement or speak to the Court at the hearing listed above, you
must send your written submissions to Class Counsel at the contact
information below by April 5, 2019. Class Counsel will forward such
submissions to the Court. All filed written submissions will be
considered by the Court. If you do not file a written submission by
April 5, 2019, you may not be entitled to participate in the
settlement approval hearing.

More Information?

For more information, please visit www.TDcoinclassactioncanada.com.
If you have questions that are not answered online, please contact
class counsel at the numbers listed above.

To receive future notices and updates regarding the class action,
register online at www.TDcoinclassactioncanada.com.

Contacts:

Sotos LLP
Sabrina Callaway
Telephone (toll free): 1-888-977-9806
Email: tdcoinmachines@sotosllp.com
Mail: 180 Dundas Street West, Suite 1200, Toronto ON M5G 1Z8,
Attention: TD Coin Class Action [GN]


TEXAS: LULAC Files Class Action Over Illegal Voting Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lozano, writing for Your Basin, reports that a startling
number of illegal votes in the State of Texas is slowly starting to
dwindle.

Secretary of State David Whitely made the announcement back on Jan.
25, questioning the legitmacy of 95,000 Texas voters.

Over in Midland County, Election Official Deborah Land says around
340 voters from their county showed up on that list.

However, that number quickly dropped after Whitely asked election
offices to remove certain voter names that fell within a voting
code.

"That code number that those were from were DPS, and so we marked
those off our list," said Ms. Land.

That move dropped the number down to 290 people who possibly voted
illegally.

Ms. Land says those others still in question could easily be a
mistake, due to inconsistent written documentation.

"Jury summons where they have marked that 'I no longer live in'
what they think says 'county' and it says 'country,'" says
Ms. Land.

Others have taken this accusation more seriously, with the Latino
civil rights group, LULAC, filing a lawsuit against the federal
government.

In their filing, they claim the accusations to be a "witch hunt"
that looks to intimidate voters.

BIG 2 / FOX 24 spoke to LULAC President Domingo Garcia. He says
this was an attack on freedom.

"It was flawed and it was intentional to try to stop 95,000
Americans from voting in order to rig the system," said Mr. Garcia.


On Feb. 4, LULAC took the next step and began the process of filing
a class-action lawsuit.

Mr. Garcia says the group is looking to send a message to Mr.
Whitley.

"Just like when you catch somebody cheating at a card game and they
to back off and fold," said Mr. Garcia.

The LULAC president says they hope to be in talks with Mr. Whitley
and come to some sort of resolution.

Meanwhile, the Midland County Elections Office has yet to send any
letters to those 250 voters in question.

Midland officials say they're awaiting a green light from the
Secretary of State. [GN]


TIAA BANK: Martin et al. Seek OT Pay for Retail Loan Officers
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD MARTIN, LORI LESSER, LEIDIANA LLERENA, DAVID GUTFELD, and
all others similarly situated v. TIAA BANK, FSB, f/k/a Everbank
Financial Corp., Case No. 1:19-cv-01707-AJN (S.D.N.Y., February 25,
2019), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation and
other relief for retail loan officers under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage Laws, and the New York Wage
Laws.

TIAA is federally chartered bank and the successor in interest to
Everbank, a Federal Savings Association, and Everbank Financial
Corp.  TIAA does business across the United States of America,
including regularly conducting business in the states of New York,
Florida, and New Jersey, as well as many other states, and
maintains its offices at 730 3rd Avenue, in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carly Jane Skarbnik, Esq.
          MEREDITH MALATINO, LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave., Suite 407
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 518-1914
          E-mail: cmeredith@meredithmalatinolaw.com

               - and -

          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Highway N, Ste. 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com

               - and -

          Robert D. Soloff, Esq.
          ROBERT D. SOLOFF, P.A.
          7805 SW 7th Court
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 472-0002
          E-mail: robert@solofflaw.com

               - and -

          Marc A. Silverman, Esq.
          FRANK WEINBERG BLACK, P.A.
          7805 SW 7th Court
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 474-8000
          E-mail: msilverman@fwblaw.net


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Removes Samson Suit to W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of FRANTZ SAMSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, filed a notice to
remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of
Washington, County of King (Case No. 19-00002-00789-3) to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington on February
5, 2019. The clerk of court for the Western District of Washington
assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00173. The case is assigned to Magistrate
James L. Robart.

United HealthCare Services, Inc. offers health insurance plans and
products for individuals and employers. It offers marketplace
insurance plans, Medicare, Medicaid, employer group plans, dental
insurance, vision insurance, and short term health insurance. The
company sells its plans through brokers, consultants, Medicare
agents and brokers, and online portals. The company was
incorporated in 1974 and is based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. United
HealthCare Services, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of UnitedHealth
Group Incorporated. [BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

VALE SA: Rosen Law Firm Probes Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it is
investigating potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of Vale S.A. (NYSE: VALE) resulting from allegations that Vale may
have issued materially misleading business information to the
investing public.

On January 25, 2019, Reuters reported that a tailings dam burst at
Vale's Feijao iron ore mine in Brazil, leaving hundreds of people
missing. According to the article, the mine was in the process of
being decommissioned. On this news, Vale's stock fell $1.20 per
share or over 8% on January 25, 2019.

Then, on January 26, 2019, Reuters reported that Brazil's National
Mining Agency had ordered Vale to suspend operations at its Feijao
mine. Prosecutors have requested that over $1.3 billion in Vale's
accounts be frozen to pay for damages, with the expectation that
more funds would be frozen in the future.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Vale investors. If you purchased shares of Vale
please visit the firm's website at
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1495.html to join the class
action. You may also contact Phillip Kim or Zachary Halper of Rosen
Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Zachary Halper, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                zhalper@rosenlegal.com [GN]


VENECA PARKING: Underpays Parking Attendants, Rodriguez Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JUNIOR AGUSTIN NUNEZ RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VENECA PARKING CORP.; and
JOHN DOE a/k/a "Jay", Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01072-LTS
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 4, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiff Nunez Rodriguez was employed by the Defendants as
parking attendant.

Veneca Parking Corp. is engaged in the business of providing
parking garage.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence F. Morrison, Esq.
          MORRISON TENENBAUM PLLC
          87 Walker Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 620-0938
          Facsimile: (646) 390-5095


WAL-MART STORES: Court Certifies Wage Statement Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit LERNA MAYS, the Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART
STORES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02318-AB-KK (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hon. Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order:

   1. denying Plaintiff's motion to certify Final Wage
      Statement Subclass;

   2. directing parties to meet and confer and submit a joint
      proposed class notice within 14 days of the date of the
      Order, along with a proposed order approving the notice

   3. certifies a Wage Statement Class of:

      "all Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. California workers who received
      one or more wage payments during the period from Friday,
      December 16, 2016 to January 31, 2018.

   4. appointing Lerna Mays as Class Representative; and

   5. appointing Harris & Ruble as Class Counsel.

The Court said, "Plaintiff's claim is atypical because she is not a
member of the Final Wage Statement Subclass. Here, Walmart
terminated her employment on February 10, 2017 and the class period
is from January 10, 2018 to the current date. This means that
Plaintiff did not receive a final wage statement within the entire
period of the subclass. The Plaintiff also does not satisfy Rule
23's adequacy requirement. A named plaintiff must be a member of
the class she seeks to represent and Plaintiff does not qualify.
The Plaintiff acknowledges the problem this poses for her
representation of the subclass. The Plaintiff requests that the
Court certify the subclass because Plaintiff suffered the same type
of violation, but at a different time, or, if the Court takes issue
with her representation of the Final Wage Statement Subclass, the
Court give her the opportunity to locate another class
representative for the subclass. The Court finds that the Final
Wage Statement Subclass should not be certified because Lerna Mays,
the named Plaintiff, is not a member of the Final Wage Statement
Subclass. The Court will not allow Plaintiff's counsel to
substitute another class representative in place of Mays at this
stage. The Court is also troubled by the fact that Plaintiff's
class definition is identical to the class definition in Magadia.
As Walmart points out, "the only difference is that the Magadia
class period is December 2, 2015 to January 9, 2018" and
Plaintiff's "class period begins the day after." The Court is not
persuaded that Plaintiff or her counsel can adequately represent
the proposed Final Wage Statement Subclass given that Magadia is a
recent decision and counsel may be prohibited from communicating
with those class members."[CC]

WALDORF ASTORIA: Underpays Housekeepers, Taylor Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
SEBASTIAN TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALDORF ASTORIA MANAGEMENT, LLC;
and DOE ONE THROUGH TEN, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV03478 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 5, 2019) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, and provide accurate
wage statements.

The Plaintiff Taylor was employed by the Defendants as
housekeeper.

Waldorf Astoria Management LLC provides hotel management services.
The company was founded in 2007 and is based in Chicago, Illinois.
Waldorf Astoria Management LLC operates as a subsidiary of Hilton
Worldwide Holdings Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Ricasa, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN RICASA
          15740 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 700
          Encino, CA 94136
          Telephone: (818) 650-8077
          Facsimile: (818) 301-5151

               - and -  

          Briana M. Kim, Esq.
          Grace E. Pak, Esq.
          BRIANA KIM, PC
          249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (714) 482-6301
          Facsimile: (714) 482-6302


WALMART: Faces Discrimination Case Amid Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Deffenbacher, writing for The Register-Guard, reports that
a Eugene woman with disabilities is suing Walmart after she says
the Arkansas-based corporation fired her because she was pregnant.

Angela Tucker filed the lawsuit on Feb. 5 in Lane County Circuit
Court against Walmart, and two Walmart employees, Felicia "Flory"
Durfee, an assistant manager, and manager Chris Majdecki. The
lawsuit alleges unlawful employment practices, including sex
discrimination, disability discrimination or retaliation, failure
to accommodate or engage in the interactive process, violating the
Oregon Family Leave Act, wrongful discharge in violation of public
policy, and aiding and abetting discrimination.

The lawsuit seeks $850,000 and requests a jury trial. No court
dates have been set.

Walmart has faced criticism and lawsuits nationally for allegedly
punishing workers for medical- and pregnancy-related absences. Just
recently, Walmart announced a new paid time off policy that
includes "protected PTO" for use in illnesses and emergencies, such
as a flat tire or taking care of sick kids or family members. The
announcement comes four months after the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission filed suit against the corporation, alleging
pregnancy discrimination.

"What our investigation indicated is that Walmart had a robust
light duty program that allowed workers with lifting restrictions
to be accommodated," EEOC's district director in Chicago Julianne
Bowman said in an announcement of the suit being filed Sept. 21,
2018. "But Walmart deprived pregnant workers of the opportunity to
participate in its light duty program. This amounted to pregnancy
discrimination, which violates federal law."

That lawsuit is still ongoing, as well as others including a class
action lawsuit filed in July by A Better Balance alleging that
Walmart's absence policy discriminated against pregnant workers.

In response to the EEOC and A Better Balance suits, Walmart
spokesman Randy Hargrove said, "Our accommodations policy has been
updated a number of times over the last several years and our
policies have always fully met or exceeded both state and federal
law and this includes the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Pregnancy Discrimination Act."

According to the local lawsuit, Ms. Tucker was hired as a permanent
associate at West 11th Avenue Walmart Supercenter in September
2016, first serving as a night-shift shelf stocker. Walmart, she
claims, was well aware of her disabilities that "substantially
limit her ability to perform major life duties" and require her to
take medication that helps her focus on tasks and stabilize her
moods, the lawsuit states. As a result, Walmart assigned Tucker a
"job coach," Tucker's brother Trevor Tucker, who was retained by an
outside agency to serve in the coach role, the lawsuit states.

The coach's role was to keep Tucker on track during a portion of
her shift and help her stay focused and communicate effectively,
the lawsuit states. The coach attended performance reviews for Ms.
Tucker and was used by Walmart to communicate in detail with Ms.
Tucker about her work performance. After the first year, Tucker
became a sales associate and moved to the day shift, working with
returns, stocking shelves and putting back items left in aisles.
She claims she received overall positive performance reviews
throughout her employment.

But in early 2018, Ms. Tucker was warned by Walmart staff, with her
coach present, about focusing on tasks around the fitting room.
Collectively, the lawsuit states, it was decided she should no
longer work near the fitting rooms because of the interruptions in
that area that made it difficult to focus.

However, Ms. Tucker continued to be regularly assigned to work in
the fitting room after that decision was made, the lawsuit states.

In July 2018, Ms. Tucker learned she was four months pregnant and
notified Walmart, as she had to stop taking her medications and
would likely have difficultly focusing throughout the duration of
her pregnancy. She requested to take maternity leave in November
2018.

From that point, the lawsuit claims Ms. Tucker's performance was
"coached" or reprimanded for her performance by Walmart staff
without the presence of her coach, noting things like leaving a
shirt hanging in the fitting room and failing to take a lunch break
during her shift.

She was assigned to the shoe department, which required a lot of
bending down, the lawsuit states, something made difficult as she
was seven months pregnant by that time.

On the day before she was scheduled to go on maternity leave,
Ms. Tucker claims she was fired for her productivity. Her job
coach, Trevor Tucker, was not present at that meeting.

After the firing, Trevor Tucker met with Mr. Madjecki, who
apologized for the poor timing, but said he was aware Tucker had
"issues." The lawsuit claims when Trevor Tucker asked what "issues"
he was referring to, Mr. Madjecki allegedly said, "Well, she's
pregnant, and she has a job coach."

On Feb. 3, Walmart spokesman Hargrove said Walmart takes the
allegation seriously and once the company has been served with the
complaint, it will respond appropriately through the court.

"Walmart has always been a great place for women to work and we
don't tolerate any kind of discrimination," Mr. Hargrove said.
[GN]


WAYFAIR INC: March 11 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until March 11, 2019 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against
Wayfair Inc. (NYSE:W), if they purchased the Company's Class A
shares between August 2, 2018 and October 31, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Get Help

Wayfair investors should visit us at
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-wayfair-inc-securities-litigation-1
or call toll-free (844) 367-9658. Lawyers at Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
are available to discuss your legal options.

                           About the Lawsuit

On November 1, 2018, pre-market, the Company disclosed shocking
financial results for Q3 2018 including a staggering GAAP net loss
of $151.7 million (compared to loss of $76.4 million in Q3 2017),
and a 43% increase in advertising expenses of more than $202.5
million.

On this news, the price of Wayfair's shares plummeted more than $14
per share, or nearly 13%, to close at $96.16 per share on November
1, 2018.

The case is Goodstein v. Wayfair Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-10062.

Wayfair investors should visit us at:
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-wayfair-inc-securities-litigation-1
[GN]


WELBILT INC: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Welbilt, Inc. ("Welbilt" or the "Company") (NYSE: WBT) and
certain of its officers and directors. The class action, filed in
United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, and
indexed under 19-cv-00191, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all behalf of persons and/or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Welbilt securities between February 24, 2017, and November
2, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Welbilt securities between
February 24, 2017, and November 2, 2018, you have until February
11, 2019, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Welbilt was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in New Port
Richey, Florida.  Welbilt designs, manufactures, and supplies
foodservice equipment for the global foodservice industry.  Welbilt
was formerly known as "Manitowoc Foodservice, Inc." and changed its
name to "Welbilt, Inc." in February 2017.

The complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:  (i)
Welbilt's internal financial reporting controls were lacking and
ineffective; (ii) Welbilt was incorrectly recording the tax basis,
as well as amortization of intangible assets, of foreign
subsidiaries; (iii) as a result of the foregoing conduct, Welbilt's
previous financial statements could not be relied upon; and (iv) as
a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On November 5, 2018, Welbilt announced in its Current report on
Form 8-K with the SEC (the "November 2018 Form 8-K") that certain
of its previous financial statements should not be relied on
because the Company had incorrectly recorded the tax basis of
foreign subsidiaries and the amortization of their intangible
assets.  As a result, Welbilt had understated its U.S. tax
liability.

On this news, Welbilt's stock price fell $5.06 per share, or
approximately 26.19%, to close at $14.26 per share on November 5,
2018.
         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Telephone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
         Website: www.pomerantzlaw.com
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


WINCO HOLDINGS: Petersen Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Dennis Petersen, an individual, on his own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. WinCo Holdings, Inc., an Idaho corporation; WinCo Foods
Foundation, Inc., an Idaho Corporation; and Does 1-100, inclusive
Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00247825-CU-OE-GDS, was removed from
the Sacramento County Superior Court to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California on February 28, 2019,
and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00360-MCE-AC.

On January 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a class action Complaint in the
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. The Complaint
alleged causes of action for: (1) Failure to Pay All Wages; (2)
Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; (3) Failure to Provide Paid
Time Off in Violation of California Labor Code; (4) Failure to
Provide Proper Wage Statements; (5) Failure to Pay Wages at Time of
Termination; and (6) Unfair Business Practices, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is a citizen of California.

WinCo Holdings, Inc. is incorporated under the laws of the State of
Idaho, with its principal place of business in Idaho.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Julie G. Yap, Esq.
     Phillip J. Ebsworth, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
     Sacramento, CA 95814-4428
     Phone: (916) 448-0159
     Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
     Email: jyap@seyfarth.com
            pebsworth@seyfarth.com

          - and -

     Simon L. Yang, Esq.
     SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
     601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Phone: (213) 270-9600
     Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
     Email: syang@seyfarth.com


WORKPAC: Faces $84MM Class Action Over Casual Underpayments
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Marin-Guzman, writing for Australian Financial Review,
reports that major mining labour hire firm WorkPac has been hit
with an estimated $84 million class action over claims it underpaid
'regular' casuals their annual leave and other entitlements.

Canberra law firm Adero filed legal action in the Federal Court on
Feb. 4 on behalf of former WorkPac employee Matthew Peterson, who
leads a suit covering almost 7000 workers and alleged underpayments
totalling between $47.5 million and $84.2 million.

The class action is part of the fallout from the so-called Skene
precedent last year, which allows casuals who work regular and
predictable hours to claim annual leave, redundancy and sick leave
on top of their casual loading.

The Skene v WorkPac precedent has widespread ramifications for any
industry that employs 'regular' casuals, with employers estimating
businesses across all industries could face an $8 billion backpay
bill.

In Adero's action, Mr Peterson was employed by WorkPac in 2014 and
on-hired to BHP Mitsubishi Alliance's Blackwater mine in central
Queensland.

Despite his job offer describing him as casual for three months,
Adero submitted Mr Peterson worked a six-month roster of seven 12.5
hour day shifts and seven 12.5 hour night shifts every 28 days.

He also had to submit forms to get approval about when he wanted to
take unpaid leave.

About 630 former and current WorkPac employees have so far signed
up to the open class action through Adero's litigation funding
agreement with Augusta Ventures.

WorkPac appeal 'won't resolve real issues'
WorkPac, which supplies mining giants BHP, Glencore and Anglo
American, is banking on a test case in the full Federal Court
involving former employee Robert Rossato to overturn the Skene
precedent and clarify whether casuals' loading can offset
outstanding entitlements.

Industrial Relations Minister Kelly O'Dwyer has also intervened in
the case and late last year issued regulations that confirmed
existing law to stop casuals "double dipping".

However, in a statement, Adero argued the Rossato case was
inappropriate for the full court as it "won't resolve the real
issues on behalf of all affected workers".

The firm argued WorkPac's requirements for Mr Peterson to work
"long form rosters and complete leave forms for approval" were
"more reflective of the WorkPac business than Mr Rossato".

"Adero have been instructed this was a standard industry practice
of the WorkPac business prior to the Rossato claim being filed,"
the statement said.

A WorkPac spokesman accused Adero of threatening jobs with the
class action.

"By bringing this claim, Adero is advocating 'double dipping' by
demanding businesses pay for the same entitlements twice," he
said.

"The federal government has already acknowledged the threat this
poses to jobs and has introduced regulations that prevent
opportunistic lawyers and their litigation funders from bringing
double dipping claims such as this."

The spokesman also disputed Adero's assertions about the lack of
value in the Rossato case as "disingenuous".

"The Chief Justice has already acknowledged the importance of this
case and granted requests for it to be heard urgently by a full
bench of the Federal Court."

Hays imposes hiring freeze
Adero has also filed class actions against BHP Billiton, Hays
Recruitment and Stellar over alleged underpayment of casuals.

Hays Recruitment, whose chief client is BHP Mitsubishi Alliance, is
facing claims it underpaid 1500 workers since 2014 because it
engaged them as casuals in breach of prohibitions against casuals
in the black coal industry award.

The company said it had stopped renewing contracts for casuals
because of the lawsuit.

"As a result of the uncertainty created by litigation brought
against a number of recruitment firms including Hays, we are
placing a temporary hold on the hiring or renewal of production and
engineering casual employees in the black coal sector," a Hays
spokesman said.

"This is an unfortunate, yet prudent, practical and necessary
response to the legal proceedings Hays will be vigorously defending
and it is unfortunate that Hays has been forced into this
response."

The spokesman said the decision would not affect existing
contractual arrangements with staff or other casuals in the sector
outside of production and engineering. [GN]


YRC WORLDWIDE: Kuznicki Law Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in
these companies during the dates listed below are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible appointment as lead plaintiff
and a preliminary estimate of their recoverable losses.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in the respective securities during the class periods.
Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No classes have yet been
certified in the actions below. Appointment as lead plaintiff is
not required to partake in any recovery.

YRC Worldwide Inc. (NASDAQGS: YRCW)

A class action has commenced on behalf of shareholders in YRC
Worldwide Inc. who purchased shares between March 10, 2014 and
December 14, 2018. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) from 2005 to at least 2013, YRC's units
systematically overcharged the federal government for freight
carrier services; (2) this alleged misconduct caused the Department
of Defense to overpay by millions of dollars for shipments that
were lighter, and thus cheaper, than the weights for which the
government was charged; (3) consequently, this alleged misconduct
would subject YRC to enhanced government scrutiny and liabilities,
including potentially owing treble damages under the False Claims
Act; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

         Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
         Kuznicki Law PLLC
         445 Central Avenue, Suite 334
         Cedarhurst, NY 11516
         Phone: (347) 696-1134
         Cell: (347) 690-0692
         Fax: (347) 348-0967
         Email: dk@kclasslaw.com  [GN]


[*] UNSW Professors Involved in Groundbreaking Class Action Report
------------------------------------------------------------------
According to UNSW Sydney's Diane Nazaroff, in August 2018, six
class actions against credit rating agency McGraw-Hill Financial
Inc, on behalf of local councils and charities who had been
mis-sold risky financial products, settled for $215 million.

The settlement equated to about 90% of the total claim.

But after the funder of the action took $92 million, and legal
costs came to $20 million, the members of the class action received
just 48% of the settlement (or 43% of their losses).

The case is a good example of what UNSW Professor of Law Michael
Legg says has been increasingly occurring since class actions were
introduced into the Australian court system 18 years ago.

"The idea behind class actions was to try to improve people's
access to justice, by allowing for the sharing of costs in bringing
litigation, so reducing the cost for the claimant," Professor Legg
says.

"But what's happened is the funder and the lawyer are taking large
cuts of the recovery, and the people who have suffered the harm are
only recovering 50 or 60 cents in the dollar."

"That's what they've got to take care of their injury or replace
the lost savings they were using for their retirement."

"Our court system, which is meant to be there to right wrongs, is
being used as a money-making exercise for the funders and the
lawyers," he says.

Profit generation
The Law professor, who has researched class actions for 15 years,
was heavily involved in the groundbreaking Australian Law Reform
Commission (ALRC) report, Integrity, Fairness and Efficiency – An
Inquiry into Class Action Proceedings and Third-Party Litigation
Funders.

The report, which looked into concerns that profit generation for
lawyers and funders was being prioritised over the interests of
claimants, came out in January.

The ALRC asked Professor Legg and Professor Simone Degeling, also
from UNSW Law and who specialises in private law, to be members of
the Academic Expert Panel which advised on the report, and their
research is referred to in the report.

Professor Legg and UNSW Law lecturer Dr James Metzger also provided
a written submission to the inquiry which is cited extensively in
the report.

The ALRC made 24 recommendations which it says aim to "promote
fairness and efficiency in class action proceedings; protect
litigants from disproportionate costs; and assure the integrity of
the civil justice system".  

These include giving the Federal Court much greater power to be
able to control class actions by supervising and varying litigation
funding, as well as determine who contributes to the cost of the
class action.

Licensing
The ALRC stopped short, however, from supporting a statutory
licensing regime, which it had proposed in the discussion paper
that preceded the report.

Litigation funding licences had been previously recommended by both
the Victorian Law Reform Commission and the Productivity
Commission.

"The ALRC's recommendations make significant headway in wresting
control of class actions from litigation funders and plaintiffs'
lawyers, and giving the court oversight and greater control so as
to protect both group members and the court's processes," Professor
Legg says.

The report also made recommendations on how the Federal Court can
deal with competing class actions.

"James Metzger and I said there should be a certification
requirement, similar to but less burdensome and costly than in the
United States where you can't commence a class action unless the
court says you can," Professor Legg says.

"This would have put control firmly with the court. The ALRC
decided against this approach, but did accept our suggestion that
the court should as a matter of principle choose the proceeding
that best advances the claims and interest of the group members in
an efficient and cost-effective manner."

The most controversial recommendation, according to Professor Legg,
is to legalise contingency fees for lawyers involved in class
actions.

"James and I suggested you could have a contingency fee, but it
operates only in the class action, and that's what the ALRC has
recommended," Professor Legg says.

"So there will be a lot more protections for the group members than
they would have outside of the class action context, but it's still
going to be controversial ... I think this could actually be a way
to bring down the costs of class actions – which is a little
counterintuitive."

Shareholder class actions
Another issue which attracted a great deal of interest was
shareholder class actions.

The ALRC reported that the median percentage of a settlement paid
to group members involved in shareholder claims between 2013–2018
was 51%.

In 2008, the UNSW Law Journal published an article by Professor
Legg describing the 'perfect storm' of events that had created
shareholder class actions in Australia.

"In the following 10 years, shareholder class actions went from
obscurity to the most common form of class action," Professor Legg
says.

The ALRC recommended a further inquiry into continuous disclosure
(a company's obligation to immediately disclose material
information to the market), which is the cause of action most
commonly used to support a shareholder class action.

"Reforming continuous disclosure pits corporations, directors and
insurers against many shareholders, including superannuation
funds," he says.

"Those who have to disclose want greater certainty about what is
required and less legal liability.  

"Innocent mistakes can result in large damages claims, however
those who rely on the disclosure worry that the market will not be
adequately informed."

"Further study is definitely required," Professor Legg says.

The government will now consider the recommendations. [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 ***