CAR_Public/190311.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 11, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 50

                            Headlines

22ND CENTURY GROUP: Ian Fitch Sues Over Share Price Drop
AARON'S INC: Securities Suit in Georgia Tossed
ADDITECH INC: Lowry Suit Moved to Western District of Washington
ADVANCED DENTAL: Turizo Sues over Spam Text Messages
AFR ENTERPRISES: Bishop Files ADA Class Action in New York

AIR METHODS: OT Pay Sought for Flight Nurses & Paramedics
ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS: Leavitt Securities Class Action Ongoing
AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Pincus Appeals S.D. Fla. Ruling to 11th Circuit
ANIMAL FEEDS: Foley & Lardner Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
APHRIA INC: Investors' Class Action Ongoing

APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Two-Factor Authentication
ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Suit by Micro-Captive Clients Underway
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Heinert et al. Suit in W.D. New York
BLACK HILLS: Settles Class Action Over Raised Insurance Premiums
BRE SELECT: Settlement Reached in Battaglia Action

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Landers Sues Board Over Celgene Acquisition
BRIXMOR PROPERTY: Pays $8MM Settlement to Opt-Out Plaintiffs
BUSINESS REVENUE: Moulton Files Suit under FDCPA in New Jersey
CENTRAL MAINE: Fails to Resolve Faulty Bills Amid Class Action
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Certification of AUC Victims Class Sought

CHOICE HOTELS: De la Rosa Sues over Biometrics Data Collection
CKJ TRANSPORT: De La Rosa Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
CRST EXPEDITED: Court Decertifies Sexual Harassment Class Actions
CRST EXPEDITED: Faces Askins Suit over Credit Background Check
CST WORLDWIDE: Coonce Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Practices

DOMINION LENDING: Faces Class Action Over MPP Product
DOORDASH INC: Heninger Garrison Files Class Action
EQUIFAX: Short Selling Positions Spike Following Class Actions
ESPRIT HOME: Allie Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
EVERQUOTE INC: Townsend Says IPO Registration Statement Misleading

EXPERIAN HOLDINGS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Stover Suit
FAMILY DOLLAR: Amador's Bid to Notify Employee Class Denied
FARMERS INSURANCE: Gould Seeks to Certify Class
FCA US: Flores Files Class Action Over Defective Vehicles
FENIX PARTS: Beezley Seeks to Certify Class

FOUR SEASONS LANDSCAPE: Fails to Pay Overtime, Fear Suit Alleges
FREDDIE MAC: Dismissal of Jacobs and Hindes Suit Affirmed
FREDDIE MAC: Petition for Leave to Appeal Decision in OPERS Denied
GENERAL MOTORS: Compton Files Suit Over Defective Braking Systems
GOOD TECH: Ex-Director Seeks Share in $52MM Settlement Fund

GRAIN PROCESSING: Judge Describes Settlement as Extraordinary
GRAIN PROCESSING: March 19 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
GREATER NEW YORK: Service Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
HAWAII: DOE Responds to ACLU's Title IX Violations Class Action
HOTELMACHER: Settles Immigrant Workers' Pay Claims

HYDRO ONE: Borden Ladner Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
I.C. SYSTEM: Showers Alleges Violation under FDCPA
IHERB, LLC: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Dawson Says
II-VI INCORPORATED: Kaskela Law Files Securities Class Action
INCARE HOME HEALTH: Cantave Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

INSPERITY INC: Bid to Dismiss 401(K) Plan Suit Underway
INSTACART: Revises Tipping Policy Following Complaints
INTEGRATED PAIN: Faces Armendariz Labor Suit in Kern County
KERNERSVILLE, NC: Settles Sewer Class Action for $12.3MM
KIMBERLY CLARK: Award in Bahamas Surgery Suit Reduced to $25MM

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Murphy Suit over Data Breach
MASTERCARD INC: Urges Appeals Court to Dismiss Class Action
MDL 2197: Neely Suit Transferred to Northern District of Ohio
MDL 2441: Hughes v. Raymon, et al., Moved to District of Minnesota
MDL 2492: Allen v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Conway v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Herman v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Kuehne v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Lewis v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: McGuirl v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Nowell v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Seals v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2642: MSP Recovery Suit Transferred to District of Minnesota
MDL 2738: Benford Suit Transferred to District of New Jersey
MDL 2740: Court Vacates Transfer Order for Hood v. Sanofi, et al.

MDL 2740: Jones Suit Transferred to Eastern District of Louisiana
MDL 2875: Jones Suit v. Zhejiang over Valsartan Consolidated
MDL 2877: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 13 Mexico Air Crash Suits
MEADOWMERE CONCRETE: Denied Garcia Overtime Pay, Accurate Pay Slips
MEKRUTH INC: Faces Thomas FLSA Suit in S.D. New York

MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE: Bid to Drop Forman Class Suit Still Pending
MOLSON COORS: Segalis Sues over Restatement of Financial Reports
MONSANTO COMPANY: Campau & Meng Sue over  Roundup Product Sales
MONSANTO COMPANY: Castleberrys Sue over Sale of Roundup Products
MONSANTO COMPANY: Clarks Sue over Sale of Roundup Products

MONSANTO COMPANY: Corbett Sues over Sale of Roundup Products
MONSANTO COMPANY: Dotys Sue over Sale of Roundup Products
MOO INC: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Dawson Says
MOTORCYCLE MALL: Bishop Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Graham Disputes "All Natural" Claim

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Curry Sues Over Student-Athletes' Injuries
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Escoffery Seeks Redress for Athletes' Injuries
NATIONAL TIRE: Failed to Register Customer's Tires, Says Exum Suit
NCI BUILDING: Continues to Defend Voigt Class Suit
NEW CONNECT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Han et al. Allege

NO COMPETITION: Faces Decker Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Fuel Surcharge-Related Suit
NORTH CAROLINA: McClendon Seeks to Certify Class
O'HARA MARINE: Thorne Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
OAKDALE YACHT: Bishop Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act

OCEAN SPRAY: Must Notify Consumers About Labeling Class Action
OFF SHORE MARINE: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA
OFF THE HOOK: Bishop Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
OHR PHARMA: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Strike Khanna Suit
ONTARIO: Court of Appeal Rejects Unilateral Addition to Settlement

ORKIN SERVICES: Underpays Pest Control Technicians, Sanchez Says
PANDA TECHNICAL: Does not Pay Workers' Overtime Wages, Says Suit
PETROFAC: Faces GBP400MM Legal Action Over Bribery Scandal
PRIMO MANAGEMENT: Anderson Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
PROSHARES TRUST II: David Ford Hits Fund Devaluation

PROVIDENCE, RI: Collected $3.2MM in Speed Camera Fines in 2018
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Both Sides Claim Class Action Victory
QUADRIGACX: Class Action Being Coordinated After Sudden Closure
RADIANT LOGISTICS: Barahona Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
RAYMOND JAMES: Continues to Defend Brink Class Action Suit

RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Class Certification Sought in Kaur Suit
REXALL SUNDOWN: Clement Sues Over False Product Claims
RHODE ISLAND: ACLU Files Class Actions Over Jail Conditions
SCHMITT INC: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Electricians, Marquez Says
SIMPLE HABIT: Wellness App Firm Faces Class Action in Calif.

SMILEY DENTAL: Class Certification Sought in Rodriguez Suit
SPECTRA ENERGY: Faces Morris Suit in Delaware
SUNSET MESA: Faces Class Action Over Sale of Dead Body Parts
SWISSPORT USA: Faces Class Action Over Employee Fingerprint Scans
TAXING AUTHORITY: Smith Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation

TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES: Fiduciaries Sued Over Stock Acquisition
TIM HORTONS: Franchisees' Class Actions Near Settlement
TRIDENT ASSET: Cupo Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
TRINITY INTEGRITY: Forlenza Sues for Retaliation Over Complaint
TRISTAR: 6th Cir. Urged to Reverse Settlement Approval

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court May Render Arbitration Clause Invalid
UNION PACIFIC: Class Action Over Fitness for Duty Evaluation OK'd
URGENT CARE: Bates Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
USA TECH: Bid to Transfer Consolidated Suit to Pennsylvania Pending
UXIN LIMITED: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

VENDING PLUS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Drivers, Gonzalez Says
WAILUKU ELEMENTARY: Parents Hold Protest Over Bullying Amid Suit
WELLS FARGO: Mortgage Officers' Suit Granted Class Action Status
WESTERN GAS: Faces Lennes and Sabatini Class Suits
[*] Mass. State Senator Introduces Consumer Data Privacy Bill

[*] Morrison & Foerster Attorney Discusses PAGA Issues
[*] Victoria Endorses Class Action Against Fossil-Fuel Industry

                            *********

22ND CENTURY GROUP: Ian Fitch Sues Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
Ian Fitch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 22nd Century Group, Inc., Henry Sicignano
Iii and John T. Brodfuehrer, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00553 (E.D.
N.Y., January 29, 2019), seeks 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.

22nd Century is a company into plant breeding to regulate the level
of nicotine and other nicotinic alkaloids in tobacco plants. It
failed to disclose that its stock was prone to manipulation through
paid stock promotions and spurred to heightened regulatory scrutiny
by the SEC. On this news, shares of 22nd Century fell $0.11 per
share or over 4% to close at $2.45 per share on October 25, 2018.

Fitch acquired 22nd Century securities and lost upon the revelation
of alleged corrective disclosures. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


AARON'S INC: Securities Suit in Georgia Tossed
----------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the District Court has
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the securities class action
suit before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia and plaintiffs did not appeal that decision.

In Re Aaron's Securities Litigation, f/k/a Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System, et al (f/k/a Employees' Retirement System of the
City of Baton Rouge) v. Aaron's, Inc., John W. Robinson, III, Ryan
K. Woodley, and Gilbert L. Danielson, was filed on June 16, 2017,
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.

The complaint alleged that during the period from February 6, 2015
through October 29, 2015, Aaron's made misleading public statements
about the Company's expected financial results and business
prospects. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on
December 15, 2017.

On September 26, 2018, the District Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss in its entirety. Plaintiffs did not appeal that
decision.

Aaron's, Inc. operates as an omnichannel provider of lease-purchase
solutions to underserved and credit-challenged customers. It
operates in three segments: Progressive Leasing, Aaron’s
Business, and DAMI. The company was founded in 1955 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.


ADDITECH INC: Lowry Suit Moved to Western District of Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Nick Lowry on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Additech, Inc., a Texas corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 19-00002-00613-7 SEA, was removed from the
King County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
(Seattle) on Feb. 19, 2019. The Western District of Washington
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00241 to the proceeding.

Additech, Inc. designs, builds, and operates at-the-pump automobile
engine maintenance systems that blend specialty fuel additives into
fuel as it is pumped.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Benjamin Drachler, Esq.
          Beth E Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 N 34TH ST, STE 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          E-mail: bdrachler@terrellmarshall.com
                  bterrell@terrellmarshall.com

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Elizabeth Simson Weinstein, Esq.
          Ralph H Palumbo, Esq.
          Lynn M Engel, Esq.
          YARMUTH LLP
          1420 5th Ave Ste 1400
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 516-3800
          Facsimile: (206) 516-3888
          E-mail: eweinstein@yarmuth.com
                  rpalumbo@yarmuth.com
                  lengel@yarmuth.com

ADVANCED DENTAL: Turizo Sues over Spam Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------
RYAN TURIZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ADVANCED DENTAL WELLNESS CENTER, P.A.,
the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-60409-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 14,
2019), seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal
conduct under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is in the business of
providing dental services. In efforts to extract a new stream of
revenue into its business, the Defendant would often send marketing
text messages providing various types of promotional offers and
savings for future purchases of dental services to consumers
without first obtaining express written consent to send such
marketing text messages as required to do so TCPA.

These messages were sent using mass-automated technology through a
third-party company hired by the Defendant to send marketing text
messages on the Defendant's behalf en masse. In sum, the Defendant
knowingly and willfully violated the TCPA, causing injuries to
Plaintiff and members of the putative class, including invasion of
their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion,
trespass, and conversion, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC.
          110 SE 6th Street
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com

AFR ENTERPRISES: Bishop Files ADA Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AFR Enterprises, Inc.
d/b/a Stamford Motorsports. The case is styled as Cedric Bishop and
On Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. AFR
Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Stamford Motorsports, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01641 (S.D. N.Y., Feb. 21, 2019).

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

AFR Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Stamford Motorsports is a motorcycle
dealership located in Stamford, CT, selling Honda, Suzuki and
Yamaha motorcycles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AIR METHODS: OT Pay Sought for Flight Nurses & Paramedics
---------------------------------------------------------
A case, TOM WAGNER, SUSAN BRZEZINSKI, MATTHEW DEBROSSE, JOHN
GLAZIER, JAMES HOWE, KEVIN MOFFIT, and LAURA WALKER on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
AIR METHODS CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00484 (D. Colo., Feb. 19, 2019), alleges that
Defendant failed to ensure proper payment of wages pursuant to the
overtime laws of Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, North
Carolina, and Colorado.

According to the complaint, Mr. Wagner was employed in Michigan by
AMC as a Flight Paramedic from 2006 until 2016. Ms Brzezinski was
employed in Michigan by AMC as a Flight Nurse and/or a Clinical
Nurse Manager from 2005 until 2015. Mr. DeBrosse was employed in
Michigan by AMC as a Flight Paramedic from 2008 until 2017. Mr.
Glazier was employed in Michigan by AMC as a Flight Paramedic
from 2011 until 2016. Mr. Howe was employed in Michigan by AMC as a
Flight Nurse from 2006 until 2014. Mr. Moffit was employed in
Michigan by AMC as a Flight Nurse from 2006 until 2016. Ms. Walker
was employed in Michigan by AMC as a Flight Nurse from 2006 until
2017.

The Plaintiffs and all other Flight Paramedics and Flight Nurses
employed by AMC who performed work in Illinois, Indiana, Maryland,
Michigan, North Carolina, and Colorado are similarly situated
employees because, inter alia, they were all subjected to the same
unlawful pay practices, specifically the denial of overtime pay for
work over 40 hours per week.

AMC provides air medical services in every state within the United
States.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs:

          J. Robert Cowan, Esq.
          COWAN LAW OFFICE, PLC
          2401 Regency Road; Suite 300
          Lexington, KY 40503
          Telephone: 859 523 8883
          Facsimile: 859 523 8885
          E-mail: kylaw@cowanlawky.com

               - and -

          Charles W. Arnold, Esq.
          Charles W. Arnold, Esq.
          Christopher D. Miller, Esq.
          ARNOLD & MILLER, PLC
          401 West Main Street, Suite 303
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: 859 381 9999
          Facsimile: 859 389 6666
          E-mail: carnold@arnoldmillerlaw.com
                  cmiller@arnoldmillerlaw.com

ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS: Leavitt Securities Class Action Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a class action initiated by Caryl Hull
Leavitt.

On September 26, 2018, Caryl Hull Leavitt individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint for violation of federal securities laws against the
company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial
Officer in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The complaint purports to bring a federal securities class action
on behalf of a class of persons who acquired the company's
securities between February 15, 2018 and September 12, 2018 and
seeks to recover damages caused by defendants' alleged violations
of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements related to the efficacy
and safety of the company's product, ONPATTRO. The plaintiff seeks,
among other things, the designation of this action as a class
action, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest,
costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and
other relief as the court deems appropriate.

By stipulation of the parties and Order of the Court dated November
20, 2018, the action was transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. Motions for the
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were required to be
filed by November 26, 2018. There are three such motions currently
pending.

Alnylam  said, "We anticipate the filing of an amended complaint
following the Court's appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. We believe that the allegations contained in the complaint
are without merit and intend to defend the case vigorously. We
cannot predict at this point the length of time that this action
will be ongoing or the liability, if any, which may arise
therefrom."

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on discovering, developing, and commercializing RNA interference
(RNAi) therapeutics. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Pincus Appeals S.D. Fla. Ruling to 11th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Steven J. Pincus filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
his lawsuit entitled Steven Pincus v. American Traffic Solutions,
Inc., Case No. 9:18-cv-80864-DMM, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
sought certification of a class defined as:

     All persons who paid the $158 civil penalty along with an
     additional fee to American Traffic Solutions, Inc. in
     connection with a Notice of Violation for an alleged
     photo-enforced red light violation in Florida during the
     four-year period prior to the filing of the complaint in
     this action through the date of certification.

ATS is a government contractor in the business of operating
so-called "road safety cameras" for governments throughout North
America.  In 2008, ATS began contracting with local governments in
Florida to operate their socalled "photo-enforced" red light
programs.  One of ATS's responsibilities in this role is to accept
civil penalty payments from alleged violators of photo-enforced red
lights, and then forward those payments to the appropriate
government body.

For years, ATS has systematically abused this position to
unlawfully impose and collect a surcharge on civil penalty payments
made by Floridians photographed running red lights, the Plaintiff
alleges.  He adds that ATS collects these surcharges for its own
profit, even though it is separately paid for its services under
its contracts with local governments.  As these surcharges are
illegal under Florida law, this action seeks to return the sums
unlawfully collected to the putative class.

The appellate case is captioned as Steven Pincus v. American
Traffic Solutions, Inc., Case No. 19-10474, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before March 18, 2019;

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
      the appellant's brief;

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before March 5, 2019 as to Appellee American Traffic
      Solutions, Inc.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant STEVEN J. PINCUS, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: Keith@Keoghlaw.com

               - and -

          Bret Leon Lusskin, Jr., Esq.
          BRET LUSSKIN, PA
          20803 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 302
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (954) 454-5841
          Facsimile: (954) 454-5844
          E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com

               - and -

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S. Ocean Dr., Suite 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com

Defendant-Appellee AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS, INC, a Kansas
corporation, is represented by:

          David Matthew Allen, Esq.
          Kevin P. McCoy, Esq.
          David Robert Wright, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, PA
          4221 W Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 1000
          PO Box 3239
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (813) 223-7000
          E-mail: mallen@carltonfields.com
                  kmccoy@carltonfields.com
                  dwright@carltonfields.com


ANIMAL FEEDS: Foley & Lardner Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Cristina Portela Solomon, Esq. -- csolomon@foley.com -- of Foley &
Lardner, in an article for Mondaq, reports that since when does
silence in a contract speak louder than words? The United States
Supreme Court will soon answer this question in deciding whether an
arbitration agreement between an employer and its employees can
authorize a class action arbitration proceeding when the agreement
is silent as to the issue. Employees with arbitration agreements
that contain only general language -- agreeing to arbitration of
employment-related claims that arise out of the individual
employee's employment with the employer -- will be watching this
decision carefully to see whether the Court finds that employers,
through silence (without a word in the agreement that authorizes
"class" or collective actions," or who can be a "class
representative" for a group of employees who claim to have been
harmed), inadvertently agree to arbitrate not only an employee's
individual claims but that of a class. So . . . how did this issue
arise when the Court's holding and reasoning in a 2010 decision,
Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. Animal Feeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662
(2010), appears to hold otherwise? Well, basically by the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals parsing the definition of "silence." In a
2017 decision in Varela v. Lamps Plus, Inc., the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the district court's order compelling a class-wide
arbitration based on a silent agreement by explaining that the
Supreme Court's decision in Stolt-Nielsen "accepted the parties'
stipulation" that silence meant that no agreement has been reached.
Therefore, the Court concluded that the fact that an arbitration
clause "does not expressly refer to class arbitration is not the
'silence' contemplated in Stolt-Nielsen."

A little background on the Valera case. The arbitration clause
subject to arbitration in Varela provided that "arbitration shall
be in lieu of any and all lawsuits or other legal proceedings
related to my employment." The Ninth Circuit read this language to
be subject to two reasonable interpretations on whether class
arbitration was authorized and then went one step further to
conclude that "the reasonable interpretation of this expansive
language is that it authorizes class arbitration." Finally, the
Court reasoned that because there were two reasonable
interpretations of the agreement, it was actually ambiguous (not
silent) and as such should be interpreted against the employer who
drafted the agreement.

So now what? The Supreme Court has recently addressed whether class
and collective action waivers in arbitrations agreements are
enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act and provided
employers with valuable tips for crafting future arbitration
agreements. Varela's applicability, on the other hand, seems to
impact only employers who are operating under existing arbitration
agreements that are silent on class arbitrations. Up until now,
most employers have relied on these agreements permitting only
individual claims to proceed in arbitration. If the Valera decision
is affirmed, employers will learn a tough lesson: Silence can speak
louder than words. The result would be that employers would have to
specifically exclude and include what is covered and what is not
covered in their arbitration agreements in order to avoid the risk
of silence being held against them. [GN]


APHRIA INC: Investors' Class Action Ongoing
-------------------------------------------
Pete Evans, writing for CBC News, reports that Canada needs to
crack down on a certain type of short selling because a growing
number of bad apples are abusing the system for everyone, market
watchers say.

Short selling is an investment strategy that allows people to make
money when they think the price of a stock is about to decline.

A conventional investor makes money by buying a stock he or she
thinks is undervalued, and then waits for the price to improve
before selling it for a profit. But a short seller makes money when
a stock price declines. They do that by borrowing a stock owned by
someone else, selling it to collect the money, and then replacing
the borrowed stock by buying it off someone else once the price has
dropped.

It's a controversial strategy with plenty of detractors. But even
critics acknowledge it can provide a valuable service to everyone
in the market by rooting out fraud.

In recent years, Canadian companies such as Sino-Forest, Shopify,
Valeant, Home Capital and many others have found themselves
targeted by short sellers, with the shorts having various degrees
of impact in each of those cases.

Short sellers who expose the truth about misdeeds by companies may
provide a valuable service. Short selling becomes abusive, and
problematic for the market, when a small minority of investors bend
the truth to make money through panic.

"Both as a financial hedging instrument and as a tool to root out
bad behaviour, short selling will always have an important role in
our capital markets," said Walied Soliman --
walied.soliman@nortonrosefulbright.com -- the global chair of law
firm Norton Rose Fulbright Canada. "But abusive short selling is .
. . market participants who . . . use either exaggerations or
misrepresentations to drive their narrative."

Canada 'targeted'
This type of market manipulation seems to be on the rise in Canada.
Canada is "highly targeted by the U.S. [shorts] because it's an
easier target, there's weaker rules here," said investor John
Mastromattei.

Mr. Soliman said that the way securities laws are set up give an
unfair advantage to abusive short sellers because companies and
investors who buy companies on the way up have to play by a much
different rule book.

Anyone buying up a large enough chunk of a company has to disclose
that to regulators. Their public statements are closely
scrutinized, and their future buying and selling is bound by myriad
rules. Executives at companies have to choose their words carefully
when talking to the media, for fear of letting news slip that
investors and regulators didn't hear about first.

That's not true for short sellers. They can largely operate in
secret until they choose to go public. "If an issuer were to put
out what we see from shorts, they would be the subject of class
action lawsuits and regulatory arm slapping immediately," Mr.
Soliman said. He suggests implementing disclosure rules for shorts
as a reasonable first step to addressing the problem.

European Union rules mandate that short sellers must tell
regulators when their position is as small as 0.2 per cent of a
company, and let the public know when they top 0.5 per cent.

"I would like to see early warning disclosure requirements for
short sellers," Mr. Soliman said. "I would like to see statutory
rights of action against market participants who knowingly either
exaggerate or misrepresent."

Mr. Soliman said he would like to see a crackdown on a type of
abusive short selling that almost always originates on social media
and stock message boards, by people putting out research designed
to start a panic.

"Those who do that know full well that . . . investors jump away
from these positions at the slightest notion that there could be
something wrong," he said. "The exaggerations or even worse the
misrepresentations end up resulting in a self-fulfilling
prophecy."

Ex-Valeant, Philidor executives convicted of kickback scheme
"In circumstances where it's founded, go get them," he said. "But
don't exaggerate and don't misrepresent."

Market manipulation
Mr. Soliman declined to name specific individuals or firms involved
in the negative practice, citing confidentiality.

However, he said he worked with three companies in the past year
who were targeted by abusive short sellers who made "either
significant exaggerations or straight out misrepresentations." In
all three cases, it took a "monumental effort" for the companies to
dispel allegations that had no merit and maintain the confidence of
their investors.

The instinct for many investors, Mr. Soliman said, is to think that
"where there's smoke there's fire."

Mr. Mastromattei said abusive shorts take advantage of that. "Those
kinds of shorts are the ones who see a little smoke and they add
gasoline."

He cites the ongoing saga of cannabis company Aphria Inc. as a good
example. In December, the company was rocked by accusations by a
short seller that the firm wasted hundreds of millions on foreign
acquisitions that are essentially worthless.

The stock lost more than 50 per cent of its value in the three days
that followed. While it has since recovered, a hostile takeover
offer has emerged for the company, and investors are pursuing a
class action lawsuit against the business over how it handled some
of its dealings.

The Aphria saga is ongoing. While the truth of the matter is yet to
emerge, Mastromattei said it's a great example of how lax rules
leave Canada open to abuse. "That's where the regulator has to step
in," he said. "That's market manipulation, you can't do that."

(In the interest's of full disclosure, Mr. Mastromattei said he had
no stake in Aphria before the original short selling story broke,
but took a six-figure position in the company after the sell-off
because he suspected it was overblown.)

Boardroom 'chaos'
The CBC reached out to the Ontario Securities Commission to ask
whether the regulator is contemplating changes to their short
selling rules. The agency referred us to the Canadian Securities
Administrators, an umbrella organization that represents 13
provincial regulators across the country.

"The CSA is currently in the preliminary stages of a project that
involves reviewing the nature and extent of abusive short-selling
in Canadian capital markets," spokesperson Ilana Kelemen said. "We
are in the information-gathering phase of this initiative and
cannot provide further details at this time."

Until any changes happen, companies will remain fearful about
finding themselves on the wrong side of a short campaign because of
the damage that unfair ones can create. "The chaos that a short
campaign causes inside a boardroom far outweighs the chaos that a
proxy battle or hostile takeover causes," Mr. Soliman said.

"Because we don't have a good enough defence for it." [GN]


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Two-Factor Authentication
------------------------------------------------------------
Moneycontrol News reports that Apple is once again on the receiving
end of a class action lawsuit; and, this time it's for
complications in two-factor authentication for iPhone and Mac
users. The class-action lawsuit filed by New Yorker Jay Brodsky
accuses Apple's two-factor authentication of being disruptive to
the users, taking more time than it ideally should.

The complaint goes against many of the announcements made by Apple
CEO Tim Cook and his team regarding the company's objective to
improve and simplify processes and daily tasks to enhance the user
experience. In fact, Mr. Brodsky complaint alleges that Apple's
two-factor authentication method turns a straightforward step into
a complex and time-consuming process, disruptive to the user's
experience. Mr. Brodsky also claims the coercive nature of Apple's
policy of not allowing users to disable two-factor authentication
after two weeks is inconvenient and abusive, violating several
California laws.

Mr. Brodsky's complaint was based on the claim that two-factor
authentication on his Apple ID was enabled without his knowledge or
consent via an automatic software update. He also alleges that the
two-factor authentication confirmation email sent by Apple isn't
enough to warn users that the setting cannot be recovered.

Apple does not share Mr. Brodsky's belief; the tech giant's felt
certain features in the latest iOS, and macOS versions require
additional levels of security and preventing users from turning off
two-factor authentication after 14 days only provides additional
protection. Apple also stated that unenrolling could make the
account less secure and prevent access to features that require
higher security.

According to a report by the Inquisitr, Mr. Brodsky is hoping to
receive monetary damages along with a court ruling that will
prevent Apple from "not allowing a user to choose its own logging
and security procedure." [GN]


ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Suit by Micro-Captive Clients Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company is
defending against a lawsuit by micro-captive clients of Artex Risk
Solutions, Inc. as well as Tribeca and their related entities.

On December 7, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company, its subsidiary Artex and other defendants including
Tribeca.  The named plaintiffs are micro-captive clients of Artex
or Tribeca and their related entities and owners who had IRC
Section 831(b) tax benefits disallowed by the IRS. The complaint
attempts to state various causes of action and alleges that the
defendants defrauded the plaintiffs by marketing and managing
micro-captives with the knowledge that the captives did not
constitute bona fide insurance and thus would not qualify for tax
benefits. The named plaintiffs are seeking to certify a class of
all persons who were assessed back taxes, penalties or interest by
the IRS as a result of their ownership of or involvement in an IRS
Section 831(b) micro-captive formed or managed by Artex or Tribeca
during the time period January 1, 2015 to the present.

The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought by the
named plaintiffs or the putative class. The defendants' response to
the complaint was due March 8, 2019. The court has not otherwise
set a case schedule.

Arthur J. Gallagher said, "We will vigorously defend against the
lawsuit. Litigation is inherently uncertain, however, and it is not
possible for us to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter and
the financial impact to us."

Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., together with its subsidiaries, provides
insurance brokerage, consulting, and third party claims settlement
and administration services to entities in the United States and
internationally. The company offers its services through a network
of correspondent insurance brokers and consultants. Arthur J.
Gallagher & Co. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Rolling
Meadows, Illinois.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Heinert et al. Suit in W.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action against Bank of America and Citizens Bank is
pending.  The case is captioned as, MARY BETH HEINERT, and RICHARD
H. SCHULTZ, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; CITIZENS BANK, N.A.;
PERRY SANTILLO; CHRISTOPHER PARRIS; DOMINIC SIWIK; PAUL ANTHONY
LAROCCO; JOHN PICCARRETO; and THOMAS BRENNER, Defendant, Case No.
6:19-cv-06081-DGL (W.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2019). The case is assigned
to Hon. David G. Larimer.

Bank of America, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank
offers saving and current account, investment and financial
services, online banking, mortgage and non-mortgage loan
facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans. Bank
of America serves client worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin J. Widlanski, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, LLP
          2525 Ponce De Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 372-1800
          Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
          E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com


BLACK HILLS: Settles Class Action Over Raised Insurance Premiums
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seth Tupper, writing for Rapid City Journal, reports that Black
Hills Federal Credit Union and a Wisconsin-based insurance company
have agreed to pay a total of $3 million to settle allegations that
they improperly raised insurance premiums associated with 4,461
loans.

The proposed settlement, which was scheduled to be considered by a
judge in February, would resolve an eight-year-old class action
lawsuit filed by Kathy Thurman -- who died in 2016 -- and her
husband, Edward Thurman, of Rapid City.

The lawsuit has its roots in a 1995 home equity loan of
approximately $30,000 that the Thurmans obtained from the credit
union. At the same time, the Thurmans bought a credit disability
insurance plan, which was offered by the credit union via CMFG Life
Insurance Company (formerly known as CUNA Mutual Insurance
Society).

The insurance was intended to cover the loan payments if Edward
Thurman got hurt at his construction job and had to miss an
extended period of work. The insurance premium was rolled into the
monthly loan payments.

In July 1999, the credit union, after receiving advice from the
life insurance company, placed a notice in the monthly credit-union
newsletter stating that the premium for the credit disability
insurance would increase as of July 1 that year. The notice also
said the insurance would take effect after 14 days of disability
rather than the previous 30 days.

The credit union did not send a notification of the changes
directly to the Thurmans, who later said in lawsuit proceedings
that they did not recall receiving or reading the notice in the
newsletter. The Thurmans maintained that they were therefore
unaware of the premium increase, which amounted to a 68 percent
rate hike.

Despite the premium increase, the Thurmans' monthly payment never
changed. The credit union simply applied more of the Thurmans'
payments to the disability insurance and less to the loan principal
and interest.

Thus, when Kathy Thurman inquired in 2009 about the payoff balance
of the loan, she was surprised to learn that the balance was
approximately $10,000, which was about $6,000 more than she
thought. She pushed for an explanation and finally learned of the
higher insurance premium.

In 2011, the Thurmans filed a lawsuit in local circuit court
against the credit union and the insurance company, who jointly
offered the Thurmans about $6,000 to drop the lawsuit and pledge
confidentiality.

The Thurmans declined the offer, and their reasoning was later
explained in a court document filed by their attorney, Jim Leach,
of Rapid City: "They refused to sign the confidentiality agreement
because they wanted to make other people aware of what happened to
everyone who had credit disability insurance from BHFCU on July 1,
1999, so everyone could receive justice."

The Thurmans sought to have their lawsuit certified as a class
action, but a local judge initially denied that certification. The
Thurmans appealed the denial to the South Dakota Supreme Court and
won a reversal of the denial in 2013.

The case then proceeded as a class action, and it grew complex as
the plaintiffs obtained from the defendants more than 500,000
copies of financial documents, which the plaintiffs hired a
computer programmer to analyze.

CMFG Life Insurance -- which has gross premiums of about $500
million per year -- employed a legal team from Dentons, which
describes itself as the world's largest law firm. The credit union
was represented by Frank Bettmann, of Bettmann Hogue Law Firm in
Rapid City.

Mr. Leach, the attorney for the Thurmans and the broader class of
borrowers, was assisted by fellow local attorneys Mike Wilson and
Ken Barker.

CMFG Life Insurance's parent entity, CUNA Mutual Financial Group
Inc., is well acquainted with Mr. Leach. He helped win a $6.2
million jury verdict against CUNA Mutual Insurance Society in 2009,
on behalf of the estate of a deceased woman whose credit disability
insurance claim had been denied. A federal judge later reduced the
award to $1.8 million. Leach also represented clients in two
additional lawsuits against CUNA Mutual Insurance Society that were
both settled confidentially in 2010 (the Thurman settlement is
public because of its class-action status, which includes a
requirement for a public hearing).

Kathy Thurman did not live to see the resolution of her case. She
died of chronic health problems in 2016, but the lawsuit continued
with her widowed husband, Edward, as lead plaintiff.

Several recent court filings have noted Kathy's contribution to the
case.

"Mrs. Thurman had to work hard to find a lawyer. She contacted a
number of lawyers who turned her down," said one document filed by
Mr. Leach. "She displayed great determination, without which there
would have been no case."

The parties in the lawsuit participated in a mediation session in
August 2017, and then a second session this past December, while a
scheduled jury trial loomed in January. The trial was averted when
the December mediation session, which lasted 12 hours, produced a
settlement agreement. The agreement was preliminarily approved by
Circuit Judge Robert Mandel on Dec. 21, and a hearing on the
potential final approval of the settlement was scheduled in
February.

Of the $3 million settlement, $1.73 million will be split among the
customers associated with the 4,461 affected loans; $1 million will
be split as fees among the plaintiffs' lawyers, who have thus far
received no pay; $170,764.29 will be used to cover the plaintiffs'
costs; $65,585 will cover sales taxes on the attorneys' services;
and $30,000 will be paid as a plaintiff's incentive award to Edward
Thurman.

According to the plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the
settlement, the $1.73 million to be split among the class members
will cover all of their actual losses, plus 10 percent interest per
year since the date of the loss, plus another additional 25
percent. The payout check will be mailed to the class members
without them having to do anything, the plaintiffs' motion says.

The settlement terms prohibit the parties from disparaging each
other. The terms do not include any admission by the credit union
or the insurance company that the plaintiffs' claims were valid, or
that the credit union or life insurance company violated any laws.

In response to an inquiry from the Journal, Black Hills Federal
Credit Union sent a written statement about the settlement from
Vice President of Marketing Carol Brown.

"Black Hills Federal Credit Union denies any wrongdoing; however,
the parties agreed to settle because of the uncertainty, expense,
and inconvenience associated with continued litigation," the
statement said. "We believe the settlement is in the best interest
of BHFCU and our members. We're moving on and focusing our
attention on the future and our mission to improve lives."

A spokeswoman for CMFG Life Insurance Company sent the Journal the
following written statement.

"CMFG Life Insurance Company maintains it acted properly, but we
believe this settlement is a satisfactory conclusion to this matter
and in the best interests of all parties."

Leach and Edward Thurman declined to speak publicly about the case
prior to the upcoming hearing on the settlement.

The plaintiffs' motion for approval of the settlement says that as
a result of the Thurman lawsuit, "CMFG would be foolhardy ever to
tell a credit union again that it can switch its customers' credit
disability policy in this same manner." If the insurance company
ever repeats the action, the motion says, other lawyers could bring
copycat litigation, and the company would be vulnerable to large
punitive damages because of its recidivism.

"The deterrence of potential future misconduct that this case will
result in is a substantial benefit to the public interest," the
plaintiffs' motion says. [GN]


BRE SELECT: Settlement Reached in Battaglia Action
--------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case, Battaglia, the Plaintiff, vs. BRE Select
Hotels Corp., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv01046-MKB-ST
(E.D.N.Y.), have reached a settlement agreement.

The Plaintiff had sought an adittional week, up to Feb. 25, 2019,
to submit a settlement agreement and motion for preliminary
approval and conditional certification.

The Plaintiff's counsel said, "At the time we requested 30 days
from Jan. 18, 2019 to finalize the Settlement Agreement and submit
a motion for preliminary approval and conditional certification. On
Jan. 22, 2019, by docket entry, the Court granted that request.
Since that date the parties have been jointly working on the said
submission and have exchanged drafts of a complete set of papers,
However, the parties require more time to finalize the complete
subsmission."[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee Squitieri, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON LLP
          www.sfclasslaw.com
          32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 421 6492
          Facsimile: (212) 421 6553
          E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Landers Sues Board Over Celgene Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH LANDERS, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY v. GIOVANNI
CAFORIO, PETER J. ARDUINI, ROBERT BERTOLINI, MATTHEW W. EMMENS,
MICHAEL GROBSTEIN, ALAN J. LACY, DINESH C. PALIWAL, THEODORE R.
SAMUELS, VICKI L. SATO, GERALD L. STORCH and KAREN H. VOUSDEN, Case
No. 2019-0125 (Del. Ch., February 18, 2019), arises from breaches
of fiduciary duty by the Defendants in connection with the
solicitation of stockholder approval regarding Bristol-Myers
Squibb's proposed issuance of common stock and the Company's
related acquisition of Celgene Corporation.

On January 3, 2019, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Celgene entered into a
merger agreement pursuant to which Bristol-Myers Squibb will
acquire all of the outstanding shares of Celgene common stock in a
cash and stock transaction with an equity value of approximately
$74 billion.  Bristol-Myers Squibb will be acquiring each share of
Celgene in exchange for $50.00 in cash, 1.0 share of Bristol-Myers
Squibb common stock, and one contingent value right.

The Individual Defendants failed to fulfill their fiduciary duties
in connection with the Proposed Transaction by failing to disclose
all material information necessary to allow Bristol-Myers Squibb
stockholders to cast a fully informed vote on the Proposed
Transaction and Issuance, Ms. Landers alleges.  She asserts that
the Registration Statement fails to disclose to Bristol-Myers
Squibb stockholders the amount of fees and/or compensation that
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, serving as lead financial advisor, will
receive for "acting as a counterparty to Bristol-Myers Squibb for
certain derivatives transactions in connection with the merger, and
for the accelerated share repurchase program previously announced
by Bristol-Myers Squibb, which may be implemented following
consummation of the merger, subject to market conditions and board
approval."

Relevant non-party Bristol-Myers Squibb is engaged in the
discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing, marketing,
distribution and sale of biopharmaceutical products.  Bristol-Myers
Squibb is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal
executive offices in New York City.  The Defendants are directors
and officers of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 West Street, 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-3800
          E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com

               - and -

          D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
          KASKELA LAW LLC
          201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (888) 715-1740
          E-mail: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com


BRIXMOR PROPERTY: Pays $8MM Settlement to Opt-Out Plaintiffs
------------------------------------------------------------
Brixmor Property Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
has already paid the $8 million amount to institutional investors
who elected to opt out of the  settlement in the class action
lawsuit by the Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers
Local 60 Benefit Funds.

Certain institutional investors elected to opt out of the class
action settlement and accordingly were not bound by the release and
will not receive any of the class action settlement proceeds in the
Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60
Benefit Funds suit and
accordingly were not bound by the release and will not receive any
of the class action settlement proceeds.  The opt-out case is,
Cohen & Steers Global Realty Shares, Inc., et al v. Brixmor
Property Group Inc., et al. (Case No. 653091/2018).

On October 10, 2018, the Company entered into an agreement to
settle these claims for $8.0 million.  This amount, which was paid
in full during the year ended December 31, 2018, was within the
coverage amount of the Company's applicable insurance policies and
was paid by the insurance carriers.

The settlement provides for the release of, among others, the
Company, its subsidiaries, and their respective current and former
officers, directors and employees from the claims that were or
could have been asserted in the opt out lawsuit.

Brixmor Property Group, Inc. operates as a real estate investment
trust. The Company owns and operates grocery-anchored community and
neighborhood shopping centers. Brixmor Property Group serves
customers in the United States.


BUSINESS REVENUE: Moulton Files Suit under FDCPA in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Business Revenue
Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Genice Moulton, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Business Revenue Systems, Inc. and John Does 1 - 25, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-06327 (D. N.J., February 20, 2019).

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

Business Revenue Systems, Inc. is a Debt collection agency in Fort
Wayne, Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CENTRAL MAINE: Fails to Resolve Faulty Bills Amid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tux Turkel, writing for Portland Press Herald, reports that more
than a year after discovering major problems with its new billing
system, Central Maine Power is still generating inaccurate bills
for many customers and in many cases not sending bills at all.

To this day, CMP is flagging more than 700 flawed bills a day that
need to be examined manually to fix inaccuracies before they're
sent to customers. The electric utility has a backlog of roughly
6,000 faulty bills that require adjustments.

The utility's failure to resolve its billing problems drew the ire
of regulators, who threatened fines and other sanctions. The
charges by the Public Utilities Commission's consumer division were
the latest hit for a company under fire by regulators, in court and
in the Legislature.

CMP said it would respond to the issues raised by the PUC. And in
an interview with the Maine Sunday Telegram/Portland Press Herald,
CMP acknowledged that ongoing programming errors continue to
generate flawed bills.

"The backlog for review is now under 6,000," said Catharine
Hartnett, CMP's spokeswoman, "and we expect it will be addressed
entirely by the end of March. With added staff, more training and
experience gained, we are processing faster and preventing the
queue from growing."

But problems keep piling up. On Feb. 7, the company disclosed that
it had erroneously told 62,000 customers they are getting refunds
-- a mailing intended only for 122 commercial customers.

But why did CMP have such extensive billing problems in the first
place?

The cutover from an aging billing system to the new system, called
SmartCare, had been planned for years and was in the works for
months.

Who made the decisions leading to go live in late October 2017?

How are those decisions documented?

Was the company negligent in the way it rolled out and staffed the
upgrade?

"We find ourselves frustrated by the fact that we're over a year
into this and we don't have those answers for ratepayers," said
Barry Hobbins, Maine's public advocate.

With key questions unanswered, a pending review of an eight-month
independent audit ordered by the PUC and its conclusions is just a
warm-up for lines of inquiry that are bound to stretch well into
the year and maybe longer.

Some insight was gained by the audit released in December that
pegged much of the blame for high bills on last winter's cold spell
and a jump in electric supply rates. The Liberty Group audit, which
cost $400,000 to conduct, said CMP's new system functioned largely
as planned, but defects in its operation generated an excessive
number of incorrect bills.

This confounding assessment now has the PUC taking a deeper dive
into the issue.

And based on an initial meeting Feb. 1 of formal participants in
the case, the scope and complexity will be extraordinary. The
volume of data being requested is so large that a CMP executive
questioned whether the PUC's online computer system could handle it
and whether it would have to be provided by other means.
Advertisement

The PUC was set to wade into this sea of data on Feb. 15, when a
top Liberty executive would come to the agency's headquarters to
walk through its findings and answer some questions. Liberty
extracted more than 4 million records from CMP's systems to create
a master database to test usage information registered by the
utility's smart meters. The Public Advocate's office, which has a
team of lawyers working on the case -- plus a private consultant it
hired -- is requesting that database.

CMP says it's preparing a response to the independent audit to
clarify the SmartCare implementation procedures and oversight.

'I JUST WANT AN ACCURATE ELECTRIC BILL'

But to customers who worry every day about mounting electric bills
that they can't understand, what's going on at the PUC is distant
and abstract.

While renovating an 18th-century farmhouse last winter, Jennifer
Gamage and her young family stayed warm with wood stoves and hauled
water because the pipes were frozen. Despite essentially living off
the grid, the Dixmont home drew a $130 electric bill in January,
leading the Gamages to scrimp on lighting and whatever else they
could think of. It felt like camping out.

"We called it CMPing out," she said.

This winter, they've got a furnace, new appliances and an electric
water heater. But her January kilowatt-hour totals from this year
and last year are roughly the same. She also can't understand why
several $150-a-month payments she says she made to keep her service
connected don't show up online and haven't been debited from her
bank account. One thing is clear and troubling to her: The February
bill says she owes $2,131.69.

"I just don't get it," she said. "Nothing adds up. I'm a chemistry
major, and I should be able to do the math. I just want an accurate
electric bill."

In North Berwick, Pamela Parks was able to handle her mobile home's
electric bill by earmarking $123 a month to be deducted from her
bank account and forwarded to CMP. Because it's automatic, she
hadn't noticed that the money stopped being debited in October. In
February, two things happened: She heard a voicemail from CMP
telling her they had been working on a problem with her account.
And she got a bill for $492 that's due Feb. 25.

Parks said she tried to call CMP but was on hold for hours.
Advertisement

"My mom called me and told me they didn't get a bill in January
2019," she said. "What the heck is wrong with this company?"

CMP doesn't discuss individual customer accounts, but Hartnett said
the company holds off on billing until inaccuracies are fixed.

"We believe it's better to send an accurate bill," she said, "than
to send a questionable bill and risk later rebilling and cause
greater customer confusion."

DAUNTING REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

But confusion persists. The search for clarity will be contentious
and tedious, reflected in a mind-boggling battle for information
that's just ramping up in the PUC case.
Advertisement

For instance: A party to the case represents 11 customers who also
are part of a group seeking a class-action lawsuit against CMP. One
of their lawyers, James Belleau, attended the case conference to
follow up on a letter he sent to the commissioners laying out the
information he would be seeking. His request includes all documents
and communications concerning CMP's metering system; SmartCare
billing issues, defects and customer complaints; efforts by CMP and
its parent company, Avangrid, to fix problems; communications with
various vendors and consultants, as well as those between CMP and
its call centers. Each request is for various time periods, dating
as far back as 2010.

Mr. Belleau will seek to depose, or gather sworn evidence from, a
dozen officials that range from CMP's president, Doug Herling, to
Avangrid executives with varied knowledge of the SmartCare rollout.
He also wants the PUC to subpoena, or summon, entities that made
the smart meters and developed and troubleshot the billing system
and its software.

At the case conference, Mr. Belleau also said he'd like to hear
from Scottish Power, which, like CMP, is a subsidiary of Spanish
energy giant Iberdrola that had major problems when launching a new
billing system. Chuck Cohen, a longtime PUC staff lawyer and
hearing examiner in the case, told Belleau the PUC's subpoena power
doesn't extend to Scotland. Belleau said he understood, but needed
to report back to the judge who is considering the class-action
lawsuit request.

Mr. Hobbins, a former co-chairman of the Legislature's energy and
utilities committee, said it was unusual -- if not unprecedented --
for a party seeking a class-action lawsuit in court to present a
parallel case at the PUC.

CMP already is pushing back on some of the requests, citing
confidential business and cybersecurity concerns. It's seeking to
block several specific bids for information by asking the PUC to
issue so-called protective orders. Mr. Belleau filed paperwork in
an attempt to block those motions and the PUC has set a meeting to
consider the competing interests.
Advertisement

Mr. Belleau also is seeking to intervene in a related rate case at
the PUC, in which customer service and communication problems
related to the SmartCare cutover were split off from the main case
by the commission.

Cases such as these are adversarial by nature, but lawyers steering
the class-action request have struck a tone that's
uncharacteristically combative and personal. It has put state
regulators on the defensive.

Sumner Lipman, a former state politician who focuses on personal
injury and medical malpractice law, in January accused the consumer
division staff at the PUC of favoring CMP, and the agency of lying
to customers seeking help. The PUC's chairman, Mark Vannoy, fired
back in a letter in the Press Herald to say those charges were
false and unsubstantiated.

At the recent case conference, Belleau requested that the PUC
disclose any connections or conflicts of interest between the
commissioners or hearing officer and CMP, Avangrid, Iberdrola or
Scottish Power. Mr. Cohen said he found the implication offensive
and told Belleau that if a conflict or an appearance of one
existed, those officials would have recused themselves.

"That's what the statute requires," Cohen said. "And that's what
our principles require. Understood?"
Advertisement

A trial lawyer, Mr. Belleau said he just wanted to make sure there
was an opportunity to confirm it before testimony was presented.

ARE STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN STORE FOR CMP?

The tactics of experienced civil litigators will add a new
dimension to the case, as will the intervention of one of CMP's
chief political adversaries.

Seth Berry of Bowdoinham has intervened as a "concerned citizen."
But unlike other citizen intervenors, Berry is a state
representative and the Democratic co-chairman of the Legislature's
energy and utilities committee. He's also the lead sponsor of a
bill to force the sales of investor-owned CMP and Emera Maine and
set up a public power authority.

Customer anger and frustration over the billing problems have
created fertile ground in which to plant the seed for a statewide,
consumer-owned electric company. By becoming a formal party to the
PUC case, Berry will obtain another forum in which to advance the
agenda.
Advertisement

A consumer-owned utility sounds like a good idea to Jennifer
Gamage, but it won't do anything to sort out her electric bill.

As have thousands of other customers, Ms. Gamage has been in
contact with CMP and the PUC in an attempt to resolve her dispute.
At one point, she said, a customer service representative wondered
if her family was taking enough showers, because more energy is
required to keep reheating the electric water tank.

"And I just refuse to call them," she said, "because it makes me so
angry to talk to them about my bills and just get the many
ridiculous excuses as to how I owe as much as I do."

But Ms. Gamage said she knows she must at least figure out why her
online payments aren't going through, to chip away at that $2,131
bill. She's afraid of being disconnected, once spring comes.

She said she'll be calling CMP soon; she's just waiting for her tax
refund. [GN]


CHIQUITA BRANDS: Certification of AUC Victims Class Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
ALIEN TORT STATUTE AND SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, Case No.
0:08-md-01916-KAM (S.D. Fla., Feb. 15, 2019), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to grant Plaintiffs' motion to certify the following
class:

   "all persons who were the victims of (or who are the relatives
   and/or legal representatives of decedent victims) of
   extrajudicial killing; forced disappearance; torture; cruel,
   inhuman, or degrading treatment; kidnapping; rape; forced
   displacement; crimes against humanity; or crimes against
   civilians constituting war crimes committed by the AUC in the
   banana-growing regions of Uraba and Magdalena from 1995
   through 2004."

According to the complaint, between 1995 and 2004, Chiquita
financed paramilitaries in Colombia -- principally, the
Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia (AUC) -- that killed more than
10,000 people in the banana-growing regions where the company
operated. Chiquita’s payments to the AUC were regular and made
pursuant to a corporate policy that was approved at the highest
levels of the company, including the individual Defendants in this
case. The Plaintiffs move now to certify a class of the victims who
were brutalized by the AUC in the regions of Uraba and Magdalena
between 1995 and 2004.

Counsel for the Plaintiffs:

          Sean Powers, Esq.
          Marco Simons, Esq.
          Richard Herz, Esq.
          Marissa Vahlsing, Esq.
          Michelle Harriso, Esq.n
          Kelsey Jost-Creegan, Esq.
          Wyatt Gjullin, Esq.
          EARTHRIGHTS INTERNATIONAL
          1612 K Street N.W., Suite 401
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: 202 466-5188
          Facsimile: 202 466-5189

               - and -

          Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
          Leslie M. Kroeger, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          2925 PGA Blvd Ste 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410-2909
          Telephone: 561 515-1400
          Facsimile: 561 515-1401
          E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com
                  lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          John de Leon, Esq.
          jdeleon@chavez-deleon.com
          LAW OFFICES OF CHAVEZ & DE LEON, P.A.
          1399 SW 1st Avenue, No. 202
          Miami, FL 33120
          Telephone: 305-740-5347
          Facsimile: 305-740-5348

               - and -

          Agnieszka M. Fryszman, Esq.
          Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave., N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005-3964
          Telephone: 202 408-4600
          Facsimile: 202 408-4634

               - and -

          Paul L. Hoffman, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN, DESIMONE, SEPLOW,
          HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP
          723 Ocean Front Walk
          Venice, CA 90291
          Telephone: 310 396-0731
          Facsimile: 310 399-7040

               - and -

          Judith Brown Chomsky, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JUDITH BROWN CHOMSKY
          Post Office Box 29726
          Elkins Park, PA 19027
          Telephone: 215 782-8367
          Facsimile: 202 782-8368

               - and -

          Arturo Carrillo, Esq.
          COLOMBIAN INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
          5425 Connecticut Ave., N.W., No. 219
          Washington, D.C. 20015
          Telephone: 202 365-7260

               - and -

          Anthony DiCaprio, Esq.
          64 Purchase Street
          Rye, NY 10580
          Telephone: (917) 439-5166

CHOICE HOTELS: De la Rosa Sues over Biometrics Data Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAVIER DE LA ROSA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHOICE HOTELS INT'L, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH01258 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 30, 2019) alleges
that the Defendant captures, collects, and use the biometrics of
the Plaintiffs and the class, without their informed written
consent in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that by obtaining and
operating an employee timekeeping system which uses biometrics that
was devoid of the privacy protections required by the Biometric
Information Privacy Act, the Defendant profited from the
Plaintiff's and the Class members' biometric identifiers and
biometric information. The Defendant knew, or was reckless in not
knowing, that the biometric systems it was using would be subject
to the provisions of Biometric Information Privacy Act, yet it
wholly failed to comply with the statute.

Choice Hotels International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a hotel franchisor worldwide. Choice Hotels
International, Inc. was founded in 1939 and is based in Rockville,
Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Kingston, Esq.
          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
          Chicago, FL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          E-mail: wkingston@mcgpc.com
                  jsheikali@mcgpc.com


CKJ TRANSPORT: De La Rosa Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR DE LA ROSA, and all others similarly situated v. CKJ
TRANSPORT - ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, and JONATHAN KENNEMER, Case No.
4:19-cv-00126 (E.D. Tex., February 18, 2019), seeks damages for
alleged unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and a reasonable
attorney's fee and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

CKJ Transport - Energy Services, LLC, is a limited liability
company existing under the laws of the state of Texas and maintains
offices in McKinney, Texas.  Jonathan Kennemer is the President and
CEO of CKJ.

CKJ operates a company that primarily operates a logistics and
trucking business.  The Defendants have numerous trucks hauling
road materials solely within the state of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
          Daniel B. Ross, Esq.
          ROSS LAW GROUP
          1104 San Antonio Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 474-7677
          Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
          E-mail: Charles@rosslawpc.com
                  dbr@rosslawpc.com


CRST EXPEDITED: Court Decertifies Sexual Harassment Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Sparkman, writing for Material Handling & Logistics, reports
that in an important legal ruling, a federal district court has
reversed itself in a prominent case and now says usual kinds of
sexual harassment cannot be challenged in class action lawsuits
brought against an employer on behalf of a group of employees in
most cases that involve individual circumstances.

The impact could be wide-ranging and extend far beyond the
jurisdiction of the Iowa U.S. District Court, says attorney Gregory
V. Mersol of the law firm Baker & Hostetler "The bottom line:
Hostile environment sexual harassment claims may be poor candidates
for class action treatment due to the need to evaluate the conduct
itself, the complaining party's reaction to it, and the employer's
response under the circumstances it knew or should have known
about."

A group of female professional drivers had brought suit against
nationwide trucking company CRST Expedited Inc., alleging that its
policies and practices in handling sexual harassment complaints
were discriminatory. In addition to ultimately decertifying the
class action, the court also rendered summary judgment on behalf of
the company, dismissing the complaint on its merits and held that
the women who brought the suit had failed to prove a retaliatory
motive behind any of the company's pay or other policies.

The case sprung from CRST's practice of using two-driver teams in
its long-distance trucking operations to make sure it met federal
Hours-of-Service regulations applying to interstate truck drivers.
The two would switch off driving duties when each one's hours ran
out.

The women truck drivers who brought suit contended there existed a
hostile environment of sexual harassment both in training, where a
trainer would ride with a trainee, and in regular service when a
woman and a man were riding together.

Under CRST's sexual harassment policy, when a problem arose it was
generally required that the complaining female driver had to leave
the truck and travel home separately at the company's expense. The
women who brought suit took issue with the company policy,
including how harassment allegations were resolved, how frequently
their complaints resulted in discipline against the harasser, and
how the separation of the female complainant and the other driver
who was the alleged harasser was handled.

The women bringing suit cited no fewer than 135 complaints brought
by CRST's women drivers claiming sexually harassing conduct had
occurred. The company introduced evidence that it employs far more
women than its competitors in the trucking industry. It also
maintains a tab on its website promoting the experience of its
women drivers, including testimonials from women employees and
others.

The court's decision decertifying the class action relied largely
on settled legal principles which hold that plaintiffs need to
prove a pattern and practice of sexual harassment, the harassment
was objectively offensive and it was subjectively offensive to the
victim, and the employer was or should have been aware of it and
failed to take appropriate remedial action.

The court found that the female plaintiffs never explained how they
would prove sexual harassment on a class basis. The incidents they
cited occurred between employees far beyond the view of any
supervisor, and an incident on one ride could not be imputed to a
different trip with different individuals miles away. The court
declared, "This is where the class structure falls apart, as there
is no common evidence regarding the alleged harassment female
drivers experienced."

Similarly, although a claim of hostile environment required
establishing a pattern of pervasive sexual conduct, many of the
women alleged only individual incidents—and the court said none
of those were likely to trigger liability for the employer. In
addition, the women could not explain how they would prove the
subjective element that depended on individual perceptions on a
classwide basis.

The court also explained that, unlike in a race discrimination case
focusing on an employer's racial animus underlying employment
decisions, which is something that can be proven by common
evidence, a pattern or practice sexual harassment suit requires
individualized proof because liability focuses "on the gravity of
the conduct to which the claimant was exposed."

As a result, the court also found that the question of the
appropriateness of the employer's response could not be made on a
classwide basis. It held that CRST's formal policies and practices
were lawful, and the company's response to each of the complaints
would have to be evaluated on their own merits. [GN]


CRST EXPEDITED: Faces Askins Suit over Credit Background Check
--------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY ASKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CRST EXPEDITED, INC.; CRST INTERNATIONAL,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19CIV00644 (Cal. Super., San Mateo Cty., Jan. 30, 2019) alleges
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants routinely acquire
consumer, investigative consumer and consumer credit reports to
conduct background checks on the Plaintiff and other prospective,
current and former employees and use information from credit and
background reports in connection with their hiring process without
providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in
compliance with the law.

CRST Expedited, Inc. provides truckload carrier services in the
United States. CRST Expedited, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
CRST International, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Thomas Segal, Esq.
          Farrah Grant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  thomas@setarehlaw.com
                  farrah@setarehlaw.com


CST WORLDWIDE: Coonce Sues Over Deceptive Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wanda Coonce, Plaintiff, v. CST Worldwide, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00449-M (N.D. Tex., February 21, 2019) is a Class
Action Complaint against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").

The Defendant attempted to collect an alleged Consumer Debt for
Dog's Day Out who is defined as a "creditor". On or about January
24, 2019, the Defendant sent Plaintiff a collection letter.

The complaint asserts that the Defendant's Letter was a false,
deceptive, or misleading representation (1) regarding when the
payment was due and Plaintiff has the right to dispute the validity
of the alleged Consumer Debt and (2) that the Defendant would
initiate a civil action or other court proceedings against
Plaintiff.

The Defendant's Letter was a false representation or deceptive
means to collect or attempt to collect any debt, says the
complaint. The Defendant's conduct violated the FDCPA when it sent
Plaintiff the Letter demanding immediate payment and threatening
legal action and embarrassment, it adds.

Plaintiff is a "Consumer" and a natural person residing at 605
Toledo Drive, Little Elm, Denton County, Texas, 75068.

CST Worldwide, Inc. is a collection agency headquartered in Dallas,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shawn Jaffer, Esq.
     SHAWN JAFFER LAW FIRM PLLC
     6136 Frisco Square Blvd, Suite 400
     Frisco, TX 75034
     Phone: (214) 210-9910
     Fax: (214) 594-6100
     Email: shawn@jafflaw.com


DOMINION LENDING: Faces Class Action Over MPP Product
-----------------------------------------------------
Founders Advantage Capital Corp. (TSX-V: FCF) (the "Corporation")
reports that its investee Dominion Lending Centres Inc. ("DLC") has
received a statement of claim (the "Claim") filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice by two individual plaintiffs (the
"Plaintiffs").  The Plaintiffs are seeking certification of the
Claim under the Class Proceedings Act (Ontario) and are seeking an
order for damages of $800 million.

The Claim relates to a product called Mortgage Protection Plan
("MPP"), mortgage creditor insurance underwritten by The
Manufacturers Life Insurance Company ("Manulife"), formerly
administered by Benesure Canada Inc. ("Benesure"), and offered
through Credit Security Insurance Agency Inc. ("CSIA").  The Claim
alleges that Benesure is an unlicensed insurer and that DLC is
liable for distributing the MPP product through the DLC network.
Benesure, Manulife and other parties were subject to a BC class
action lawsuit in 2013 relating to the MPP product which failed to
be certified in 2016.

DLC is contractually indemnified from Benesure, Manulife and CSIA
for any costs, expenses, damages or liability arising from the
offering of MPP through the DLC network of brokers.

Lastly, we note that the Superintendent of Financial Institutions
in British Columbia did investigate the practices and procedures of
Benesure and Manulife with respect to the sale of MPP in British
Columbia through mortgage brokers in 2013/2014. The Settlement
Agreement and Consent Order from such investigation includes the
following: "the Superintendent, after investigation, is not aware
of any harm to policyholders, and the Companies advise and confirm
that the insurance coverages issued by the Companies under the MPP
program continue to be valid and in effect".

Gary Mauris, President of DLC commented: "We consider this claim to
be frivolous and entirely without merit and we intend on launching
a vigorous defense.  Unfortunately, when you are the largest player
in your sector, you become a target for these types of nuisance
claims. We are comfortable with both our legal position relating to
the Claim and our contractual indemnity from Benesure, Manulife and
CSIA."     

The Corporation's Common Shares are listed on the TSXV under the
symbol "FCF".

For further information please refer to the Corporation's website
at www.advantagecapital.ca. [GN]


DOORDASH INC: Heninger Garrison Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Attorneys from Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC's class action group
have filed a class action complaint against DoorDash, Inc.
(Defendant) for breach of contract and unlawfully taking tips that
were intended for their delivery drivers.  DoorDash is a national
food delivery service, and the case arises from their improper
conversion of tips directed and intended for drivers.

DoorDash is an on-demand food delivery service which delivers meals
from national restaurant chains and local restaurants, as well as
groceries from places like Wal-Mart.  When a customer places an
order with DoorDash, a customer has the ability to leave an
additional gratuity, or tip, for the DoorDash delivery drivers
(called "Dashers"). The default "Dasher Tip" is currently set to
10% of the order, but the customer may also leave a custom tip.

In terms of compensation to its drivers, DoorDash promises each
driver a guaranteed base pay for each delivery job, plus 100% of
the gratuity.  However, DoorDash does not remit the full amount of
gratuity that a consumer leaves for a Dasher.  Instead of paying
this tip to the Dasher, DoorDash actually uses the gratuity to
cover its costs for the guaranteed base pay promised to Dashers.  
For example, if DoorDash promised the Dasher $5 base pay for the
delivery, and the customer tips the Dasher in an amount of $2, the
Dasher still only gets $5.

On its website and other marketing materials, DoorDash deceptively
advertises and represents that a gratuity can be added for a
delivery and that the driver would receive "100% of tips" from the
customer. DoorDash does not disclose that it keeps a substantial
portion of this additional charge for itself as its own additional
revenue to offset the guaranteed base pay promised to Dashers. This
deceptive compensation scheme is illegal and violates federal and
state law.

HGD attorneys Jim McDonough and Lew Garrison bring the action on
behalf of the Dasher plaintiffs against DoorDash, Inc. for breach
of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement,
conversion, unjust enrichment, and violations of consumer
protection laws.  The lawsuit seeks the return of tips rightfully
earned by Dashers in order to remedy DoorDash's improper
withholding of those tips, which resulted in Dashers not receiving
100% of the tips that were intended for them.

Case Name: Jamie Webb and Aaron Hodge V. DoorDash, Inc.

Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC -- http://www.hgdlawfirm.com-- is a
national law firm and its attorneys defend valuable rights for its
clients. To determine if you should file suit, consult one of our
qualified lawyers as soon as possible to understand your options.
[GN]


EQUIFAX: Short Selling Positions Spike Following Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Business Insider reports that short sellers are piling into bets
against Equifax, one of the US's largest credit agencies, after
class action lawsuits and criticism by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
heightens focus on what the New York Democrat calls a "dice game."

Part of motivation on part of short sellers may be relating to
class action lawsuits resulting from a 2017 Equifax data breach,
one of the largest in US history.

Bearish hedge funds have built up a $600 million short position in
Equifax, according to data from IHS Markit. That's the highest
amount since September 2017, when Equifax announced a data breach
that could have jeopardized sensitive information from 143 million
customers.

The shares have plummeted about 25% since. But IHS Market says the
number of short positions in Equifax have increased alongside the
company's share price in recent weeks.

The data breach put the role of private credit scores into the
public consciousness, with Ms. Ocasio-Cortez taking to Twitter on
February 9 to slam the industry:

The company was also sued by renowned short seller Carson Block,
founder of Muddy Waters Capital, over the scandal.

A short seller borrows shares, sells them, waits for the stock to
fall, then repurchases them at the lower price. The short seller
then returns them to the lender and pockets the difference.

Equifax reports in early March. Business Insider has attempted to
contact Equifax for comment. [GN]


ESPRIT HOME: Allie Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
---------------------------------------------------------
Baba Allie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Esprit Home Healthcare, LLC, Michael
Solomon and Eyerusalem Abayneh, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00108,
(E.D. Va., January 29, 2019), seeks unpaid wages and statutory
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Esprit is a home health care agency that provides in-home health
care services and related personal care assistant services for
children and adults primarily in the Commonwealth of Virginia where
Allie works as a Home Health Aide since October 2017. Allie claims
to have regularly and customarily worked approximately sixty or
more hours per week without being paid overtime. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
      ZIPIN, AMSTER, & GREENBERG, LLC
      8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Office: (301) 587–9373
      Fax: (240) 839-9142
      Email: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com

            - and -

      Matthew T. Sutter, Esq.
      SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC
      7540 A Little River Turnpike, First Floor
      Annandale, VA 22003
      Telephone: (703) 256-1800
      Facsimile: (703) 991-1661
      Email: matt@sutterandterpak.com


EVERQUOTE INC: Townsend Says IPO Registration Statement Misleading
------------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN F. TOWNSEND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. EVERQUOTE, INC., SETH
BIRNBAUM, JOHN WAGNER, DAVID BLUNDIN, SANJU BANSAL, JOHN LUNNY,
GEORGE NEBLE, JOHN SHIELDS, MIRA WILCZEK, DAVID MASON, J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED,
CANACCORD GENUITY LLC, JMP SECURITIES LLC, NEEDHAM & COMPANY LLC,
OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC. and
WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., the Defendants, Case No.
650997/2019 (Feb. 15, 2019, N.Y. Sup. Ct.), is a securities class
action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired EverQuote common stock pursuant or traceable to
the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
EverQuote's June 2018 initial public offering.

According to the complaint, in late June 2018, the Defendants
commenced the IPO, issuing approximately 4.7 million shares of
EverQuote common stock to the investing public at $18 per share,
all pursuant to the Registration Statement. 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. Foremost, the
Registration Statement was replete with reference to EverQuote's
purportedly growing "quote request volume." For example, the
Registration Statement stated: "Our success depends in part on the
growth of our consumer traffic, as measured by quote requests.

The Registration Statement also purported to warn of numerous
potential risks that, "if they were to occur, could or may"
adversely affect the Company while failing to disclose that these
very "risks" had already begun to materialize before the IPO. The
foregoing representations and purported risk disclosures were false
and misleading because, in truth, throughout the second quarter of
2018, which ended before the IPO closed, the Defendants had engaged
in a strategy to lower the Company's quote request volume in order
to inflate other financial metrics ahead of the IPO, including
margin and revenue per quote. As such, before the IPO, not only did
the Defendants know their statements touting growing quote request
volume were misleading and unattainable, but in fact the Defendants
had adopted a strategy to achieve exactly the opposite -- declining
quote request volume -- in an effort to inflate margins and other
metrics and thus paint a misleading picture of improving
profitability. The Defendants were required to disclose this
material information in the Registration Statement for at least
three independent reasons. First, SEC Regulation S-K, 17 C.F.R.
section 229.303 ("Item 303"), required disclosure of any known
events or uncertainties that at the time of the IPO had impacted or
were reasonably likely to materially impact EverQuote's future
operating results and prospects. The Company's undisclosed strategy
of lowering quote request volume, the actual already occurring
declines in quote request volume, and the complete, in-hand, yet
undisclosed, materially negative second quarter 2018 financial and
operating results reflecting those undisclosed declines and
negative trends, were all likely to (and in fact did) materially
and adversely affect EverQuote's results and prospects and rendered
the foregoing representations in the Registration Statement
misleading and not indicative of EverQuote's future operating
results and prospects.

Second, SEC Regulation S-K, 17 C.F.R. section 229.503 ("Item 503"),
required, in the "Risk Factors" section of the Registration
Statement, a discussion of the most significant factors that make
the offering risky or speculative and that each risk factor
adequately describe the risk. The Registration Statement's
discussion of risk factors did not even mention, much less
adequately describe, the risk posed by the Company's undisclosed
strategy of lowering quote request volume, the actual already
occurring declines in quote request volume, and the complete,
in-hand, yet undisclosed, materially negative second quarter 2018
financial and operating results reflecting those undisclosed
declines and negative trends, nor the likely and consequent
materially adverse effects on the Company's future results, share
price, and prospects.

Third, the Defendants' failure to disclose the Company's
undisclosed strategy of lowering quote request volume, the actual
already occurring declines in quote request volume, and the
complete, in-hand, yet undisclosed, materially negative second
quarter 2018 financial and operating results reflecting those
undisclosed declines and negative trends, much less the likely
material effects these omissions would have on EverQuote's share
price, rendered false and misleading the Registration Statement's
many references to known "risks" that "could" or "may" adversely
affect the Company's results and prospects. These "risks" had
already begun to materialize before the IPO.

With these misrepresentations and omissions in the Registration
Statement, the IPO was extremely lucrative for the Defendants, who
raised more than $84 million in gross proceeds. But when the truth
of the Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions became known,
the price of EverQuote shares suffered sharp declines. In August
2018, the Company's first pubic earnings report revealed that
second quarter 2018 quote request volume had worsened to a
year-over-year growth rate of only 2.3% (down from the 14.3% first
quarter 2018 growth rate touted in the Registration Statement) and,
moreover, to a quarterly decline of 12%. During a related
conference call with investors and analysts, the Defendants
admitted to having taken steps in the second quarter of 2018 (i.e,
before the IPO) to moderate quote request volume.

On this news, the price of EverQuote common stock declined nearly
20%, from approximately $15.50 per share down to approximately
$12.50 per share by the beginning of September. But the Defendants
still failed to disclose the full extent of the negative impact
caused by the undisclosed decline in quote request volume. Then, in
November 2018, the Company revealed dramatically worse third
quarter 2018 results. Among other things, quote request volume had
worsened into not only zero growth, but in fact had declined 6%
year-over-year. On this news, the price of EverQuote shares
plummeted nearly 50%, from $11.91 per share down to $6.15 per
share. By the commencement of this action, EverQuote stock was
trading as low as $5.55 per share, a nearly 70% decline from the
Offering price. As a result, investors have suffered tens of
millions of dollars in losses, the lawsuit says.

EverQuote is an online lead generation company, specializing
primarily in leads for auto insurance. EverQuote's common stock
trades on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "EVER." J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC is a financial services company that acted as an
underwriter for the IPO, helping to draft and disseminate the
Registration Statement and solicit investors to purchase the issued
EverQuote stock.  Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated is a financial services company that acted as an
underwriter for the IPO, helping to draft and disseminate the
Registration Statement and solicit investors to purchase the issued
EverQuote stock.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          James I. Jaconette, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: 631/367-7100
          Facsimile: 631/367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                   jamesj@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
          JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
          99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212/802-1486
          Facsimile: 212/602-1592
          E-mail: scotth@johnsonfistel. com

               - and -

          David W. Hall, Esq.
          HEDIN HALL LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415/766-3534
          Facsimile: 415/402-0058
          E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com

EXPERIAN HOLDINGS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Stover Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Rachel Stover filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Rachel Stover v. Experian Holdings, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 8:18-cv-00826-CJC-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Santa Ana.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The appellate case is captioned as Rachel Stover v. Experian
Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-55204, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Rachel Stover's opening brief is due on April 22,
      2019;

   -- Appellees ConsumerInfo.com, Inc., Experian Holdings, Inc.
      and Experian Information Solutions, Inc.'s answering brief
      is due on May 22, 2019; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant RACHEL STOVER, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
          Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
          PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 389-0602
          E-mail: jbourne@pswlaw.com
                  mweiner@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          George Granade, Esq.
          Michael Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com
                  mreese@reesellp.com

Defendants-Appellees EXPERIAN HOLDINGS, INC.; EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC.; and CONSUMERINFO.COM, INC., DBA Experian Services,
are represented by:

          Edward San Chang, Esq.
          Jeremy Close, Esq.
          Richard Joseph Grabowski, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612-4408
          Telephone: (949) 851-3939
          E-mail: echang@jonesday.com
                  jsclose@jonesday.com
                  rgrabowski@jonesday.com


FAMILY DOLLAR: Amador's Bid to Notify Employee Class Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Cecilia M. Altonaga denied the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion
to Permit Court Supervised Notice to Employees of their Opt-In
Rights in the lawsuit titled SEVERINO JAVIER AMADOR and PAULETT A.
HUNTER-YOUNG v. FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF FLORIDA, INC.; et al., Case
No. 0:18-cv-62437-CMA (S.D. Fla.).

Plaintiff Severino Javier Amador filed this action on October 11,
2018.  Before an April 2019 trial that would address the existence
of an arbitration agreement, Family Dollar advised the Court it was
withdrawing its request to compel arbitration and no longer wished
to proceed with the limited arbitration trial.

At the Defendant's behest, the Court required the parties to submit
a proposed joint scheduling report, and directed the Plaintiff to
submit an amended complaint.  The Plaintiff complied, filing his
First Amended Complaint, naming two new Defendants –– Family
Dollar Stores of Florida, LLC and Felicia Gainer.  In their Joint
Scheduling Report, the parties acknowledge the Plaintiff has not
served Ms. Gainer with the Amended Complaint.

Notwithstanding Ms. Gainer appears to have never been served with
process, the Plaintiff filed his and Opt-In Plaintiffs' Amended
Motion to Permit Court Supervised Notice to Employees of their
Opt-In Rights contemporaneously with the Amended Complaint and
Joint Scheduling Report, Judge Altonaga notes.  The Amended Motion
rather remarkably states it "seeks to create [] a collective action
against the Defendants."

The Court is hard-pressed –– without compromising fundamental
due-process principles –– to certify a collective action
against Ms. Gainer, a named Defendant who has not appeared and will
have had no opportunity to oppose certification of a collective
action against her, Judge Altonaga explains.  Consequently, the
Court denied the Amended Motion.[CC]


FARMERS INSURANCE: Gould Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit CATHERINE GOULD, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FARMERS
INSURANCE EXCHANGE et al, the Defendants, Case No.
4:17-cv-02305-RWS (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons, with Missouri area codes, from October 16,
2013
      to the present: (1) who were sent text message advertisements

      by Farmers agents Jody Ridgway and/or James Lohse though the

      Touchpoints text message program; and (2) whose cellular
      phone number appeared on a lead list purchased by Jody
      Ridgway or James Lohse from Aged Lead Store";

   2. appointing herself as class representative; and

   3. appointing Butsch Roberts & Associates LLC as class
      counsel.[CC]

Attorneys for Catherine Gould and the putative class:

          David T. Butsch, Esq.
          Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
          BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
          231 South Bemiston Ave., Suite 260
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863-5700
          Facsimile: (314) 863-5711
          E-mail: Butsch@ButschRoberts.com
                  Roberts@ButschRoberts.com

FCA US: Flores Files Class Action Over Defective Vehicles
---------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Flores, Adam Yates, and Edward Garcia, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA
US, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-10417-NGE-EAS (E.D. Mich.,
February 11, 2019) asserts claims against the Defendant for fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, breach of express and implied warranties, and
violations of consumer statutes under the New Mexico Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

Plaintiffs are current and former owners of model year 2015-2017
Jeep Renegade and Ram ProMaster City vehicles. Upon information and
belief, the Class Vehicles contain a defectively designed and
manufactured radiator cooling fan bearing Part No. 68247205AA

The internal mechanism of the Original Fan is prone to premature
failure, which prevents the engine from properly cooling,
particularly when the vehicle is idling or operating at slower
speeds. Because the Fan is essential to safe operation of the Class
Vehicles, when the Fan fails, the Class Vehicles are typically
inoperable until it is replaced. The Defendant at all times
relevant knew, or through the exercise of reasonable care had
reason to know, that the Fans contain the Defect, asserts the
complaint.

The Defendant misrepresented the standard, quality and grade of the
Class Vehicles and knowingly, actively, and affirmatively omitted
and/or concealed the existence of the Defect in the Original Fans
to increase profits by selling additional Class Vehicles. The
Defendant was aware of the Defect in the Original Fans and
materially omitted the existence of and/or fraudulently concealed
the defect from Plaintiffs and members of the Classes, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs purchased new 2015 Jeep Renegades on or about April 10,
2015 to March 12, 2016.

FCA U.S., LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business at 1000 Chrysler Drive, Auburn Hills,
Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     E. Powell Miller, Esq.
     Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
     THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
     950 West University Drive, Suite 300
     Rochester, MI 48307
     Phone: (248) 841-2200
     Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
     Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
            ssa@millerlawpc.com

          - and -

     William H. Anderson, Esq.
     Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
     George F. Farah, Esq.
     HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
     777 6th Street, NW—Eleventh Floor
     Washington, DC 20001
     Phone: (202) 559-2433
     Facsimile: (866)-912-8897
     Email: wanderson@hfajustice.com
            mhandley@hfajustice.com
            gfarah@hfajustice.com

          - and -

     Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
     Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
     Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
     SAUDER SCHELKOPF
     555 Lancaster Avenue
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Phone: (888) 711-9975
     Facsimile: (610) 421-1326
     Email: jgs@sstriallawyers.com
            mds@sstriallawyers.com
            jbk@sstriallawyers.com


FENIX PARTS: Beezley Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------
In the case, AMANDA BEEZLEY, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FENIX PARTS, INC.,
KENT ROBERTSON, and SCOTT PETTIT, the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-07896 (N.D. Ill.), the Lead Plaintiffs Thomas Weeks,
Douglas Barnard and Keith B. White move the Court for an order:

   1. certifying case as a class action;

   2. appointing Lead Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing Lead Counsel as Class Counsel.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Peter S. Lubin, Esq.
          LUBIN AUSTERMUEHLE
          360 West Butterfield Road, Suite 325
          Elmhurst, IL 60126
          Telephone: (630) 333-0002
          E-mail: Peter@L-A.law

               - and -

          Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
          Adam M. Apton, Esq.
          Adam C. McCall, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
          E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com
                  aapton@zlk.com
                  amccall@zlk.com

               - and -

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Ex Kano S. Sams II, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
                  esams@glancylaw.com

FOUR SEASONS LANDSCAPE: Fails to Pay Overtime, Fear Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM FEAR, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. JOHN W. PARTRDIGE DBA FOUR SEASONS LANDSCAPE AUSTIN,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00125 (W.D. Tex., February 18, 2019), arises from
the Defendant's alleged failure to pay overtime compensation under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

John W. Partridge is a resident of Spicewood, Texas, and does
business as Four Seasons Landscape Austin.  The Defendant employed
the Plaintiff as a general laborer in the fourth quarter of 2018.

The Defendant provides commercial and residential landscaping
services in and around Austin, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
          MORELAND VERRETT, PC
          2901 Bee Cave Rd, Box L
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com


FREDDIE MAC: Dismissal of Jacobs and Hindes Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
14, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the
Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal by the District Court of
the case entitled, Jacobs and Hindes vs. FHFA and Treasury.

This case was filed on August 17, 2015 as a putative class action
lawsuit purportedly on behalf of a class of holders of preferred
stock or common stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae. The case
was also filed as a shareholder derivative lawsuit, purportedly on
behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as "nominal" defendants.

The complaint alleges, among other items, that the August 2012
amendment to the Purchase Agreement violated applicable state law
and constituted a breach of contract, as well as a breach of
covenants of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs seek equitable
and injunctive relief (including restitution of the monies paid by
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to Treasury under the net worth sweep
dividend), compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses.

On November 27, 2017, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice
after defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On December 21, 2017,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, and on November 14, 2018, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the dismissal.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation or Freddie Mac operates in
the secondary mortgage market in the United States. The company
purchases residential mortgage loans originated by lenders, as well
as invests in mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities. It
operates in three segments: Single-family Guarantee, Multifamily,
and Capital Markets. Freddie Mac was founded in 1970 and is
headquartered in McLean, Virginia.


FREDDIE MAC: Petition for Leave to Appeal Decision in OPERS Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
14, 2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the
Court of Appeals has rejected plaintiff's petition for leave to
appeal the decision by the District Court denying plaintiff's
motion for class certification in Ohio Public Employees Retirement
System vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, Et Al.

This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from August
1, 2006 through November 20, 2007.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) later intervened as
Conservator, and the plaintiff amended its complaint on several
occasions. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by making false and
misleading statements concerning the company's business, risk
management, and the procedures the company put into place to
protect the company from problems in the mortgage industry. The
plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and interest, and reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorney and expert fees.

In October 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint.
In October 2014, the District Court granted defendants' motions and
dismissed the case in its entirety against all defendants, with
prejudice. In November 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

On July 20, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed the District
Court's dismissal and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings. On August 14, 2018, the District Court denied
the plaintiff's motion for class certification. On January 23,
2019, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's petition for leave to
appeal that decision.

Freddie Mac said, "At present, it is not possible for us to predict
the probable outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on our
business, financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations.
In addition, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse judgment in
the foregoing matter due to the following factors, among others:
pre-trial litigation is inherently uncertain; while the District
Court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification, this
denial may be appealed upon the entry of final judgment; and the
District Court has not yet ruled upon motions for summary judgment.
In particular, absent a final resolution of whether a class will be
certified, the identification of a class if one is certified, and
the identification of the alleged statement or statements that
survive dispositive motions, we cannot reasonably estimate any
possible loss or range of possible loss."

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation or Freddie Mac operates in
the secondary mortgage market in the United States. The company
purchases residential mortgage loans originated by lenders, as well
as invests in mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities. It
operates in three segments: Single-family Guarantee, Multifamily,
and Capital Markets. Freddie Mac was founded in 1970 and is
headquartered in McLean, Virginia.


GENERAL MOTORS: Compton Files Suit Over Defective Braking Systems
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Compton, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
General Motors LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00033-MW-GRJ (N.D.
Fla., February 21, 2019) is an action over GM's deceptive trade
practices in violation of the consumer protection laws of Florida.

This action arises from the sale or lease of hundreds thousands of
vehicles throughout Florida manufactured by Defendant GM that are
equipped with defective braking systems. These defective braking
systems were installed in all model year 2015 to present Cadillac
Escalades, 2014 to present Chevrolet Silverados, 2015 to present
Chevrolet Suburbans, 2015 to present Chevrolet Tahoes, 2014 to
present GMC Sierras, and 2015 to present GMC Yukon/Yukon XLs sold
or leased to consumers in Florida, including Plaintiff.

GM sold, leased, and continues to sell and lease the Class Vehicles
despite its awareness of the defect and the danger it poses to
consumers and other drivers. GM chose and continues to choose
financial gain at the expense of consumer safety by concealing and
omitting a disclosure of this critical safety defect to consumers
who purchase or lease Class Vehicles, notes the complaint.

Since at least 2014, GM has been aware of the safety hazard posed
by its defective braking system installed in all Class Vehicles. GM
should not have sold, leased, or marketed the Class Vehicles
without a full and complete disclosure of the Class Vehicles'
safety defect, and GM should have voluntarily recalled the Class
Vehicles long ago, says the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased a 2015 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 at a franchised
General Motors dealership in Florida, in June of 2017.

General Motors, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company whose
principal place of business is in the State of Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
     Hirlye R. "Ryan" Lutz, III, Esq.
     Adam W. Pittman, Esq.
     CORY WATSON, P.C.
     2131 Magnolia Avenue South
     Birmingham, AL 35205
     Phone: (205) 328-2200
     Fax: (205) 324-7896
     Email: jtapley@corywatson.com
            rlutz@corywatson.com
            apittman@corywatson.com

          - and -

     James C. Wyly, Esq.
     Sean F. Rommel, Esq.
     WYLY~ROMMEL, PLLC
     4004 Texas Boulevard
     Texarkana, TX 75503
     Phone: (903) 334-8646
     Fax: (903) 334-8645
     Email: jwyly@wylyrommel.com
            srommel@wylyrommel.com

          - and -

     Clay Barnett, Esq.
     Archie Grubb, Esq.
     BEASLEY ALLEN
     4200 Northside Pkwy NW
     Building One, Suite 100
     Atlanta, GA 30327
     Phone: (334) 269-2343
     Fax: (855) 674-1818
     Email: clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com
            archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com


GOOD TECH: Ex-Director Seeks Share in $52MM Settlement Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a former director of Good Technology Corp. told
a panel of Delaware Supreme Court justices on Feb. 6 that he was
improperly excluded from sharing in a $52 million investor
settlement fund. [GN]


GRAIN PROCESSING: Judge Describes Settlement as Extraordinary
-------------------------------------------------------------
Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C. on Feb. 6 disclosed that describing
both the litigation and settlement as extraordinary, Iowa District
Judge John Telleen granted final approval of a $51.5 million
settlement in Freeman v. Grain Processing Corporation (GPC). The
case was a nuisance class action lawsuit over smoke, odor and haze
emitted by a corn wet-milling plant in Muscatine, Iowa. Lead
counsel were Miner, Barnhill & Galland (MBG) partners Sarah Siskind
and Scott Entin. Their class counsel team included Deanna Pihos,
David Baltmanis, Betty Eberle and Matt Owens of MBG, and James
Larew and Claire Diallo of the Larew Law Office.

At issue since the case was filed in 2012: property rights and
clean air. The GPC plant processes Iowa corn into various products,
emitting particulates, SO2 and odorous VOCs. The Plaintiffs --
families living in the residential neighborhoods surrounding the
plant -- sought to vindicate their right to breathe clean air.
"Clean air is a right, not a privilege," Sarah Siskind said.

The case was hard-fought from the beginning to the eve of trial. In
two appeals to the Iowa Supreme Court, Plaintiffs made law on
issues of first impression in Iowa and of national significance.
First, in 2014, the Iowa Supreme Court considered GPC's preemption
defense -- that citizens' private common law property rights (e.g.,
nuisance, trespass, negligence claims) were wiped out when Congress
passed the Clean Air Act. The Court unanimously rejected it. In May
2017, the Iowa Supreme Court took up the lower court's decision to
grant class certification, and unanimously affirmed it over GPC's
argument that plaintiffs' claims raised too many individual issues
to be handled in a class action.

"Both decisions will have far-reaching significance for claims like
these in other states," said Scott Entin. The Settlement provides
substantial relief for past harms (ranging from $2,000 to 16,000
per person, with residency in the class area for the full period),
and significant affirmative relief to minimize pollution going
forward. "We're eager to close this chapter on the litigation so
that Muscatine citizens, and GPC, can move on."

               About Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C.

Founded in 1971, MBG -- http://www.LawMBG.com-- represents a broad
range of individual, government, non-profit and corporate clients
with offices in Chicago, Ill., and Madison, Wis. The firm is
nationally known for its class action practice in environmental
law, civil rights, employment rights, voting rights, predatory
lending, as well as for complex litigation against government
fraud. Its environmental practice includes individual and
organizational representations, regulatory enforcement, and private
law claims to protect the environment, people and their property
from corporate polluters. Distinguished MBG alumni include
President Barack Obama, a MacArthur Foundation fellow, and law
professors at leading universities. [GN]


GRAIN PROCESSING: March 19 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meredith Roemerman, writing for Quad-City Times, reports that the
Grain Processing Corporation class-action settlement has been
approved, and anyone who plans to file a claim to receive benefits
has until March 19 to mail in forms.

During a hearing on Feb. 5, Judge John Telleen approved the
settlement at a hearing at the Muscatine School District
Administration Center. With more than 30 class members present
including plaintiffs, Judge Telleen said he found "wholeheartedly"
the settlement is fair and reasonable to class members.

The case began in 2012, when a class action was brought against GPC
by eight residents who claimed smoke, odor and haze from the plant
caused a nuisance. The class was certified in October 2015 when
around 200 people filed claims. Class certification was affirmed in
May 2017 by the Iowa Supreme Court and the class prepared for trial
set for July 2018. Judge Telleen ordered the parties into mediation
in April 2018, and a settlement was reached in October 2018.

During the course of the case, attorneys for the class argued plant
emissions were negligent and odor was a nuisance that lead to the
loss of enjoyment for property owners. The agreement had GPC paying
$45 million into a fund to cover an estimated 14,000 class member
claims and another $6.5 million covering pollution controls at the
plant. Depending on where class members live, each person in a
household may receive $2,000 to $16,000.  The settlement releases
GPC from liability from all known and unknown claims based on air
emissions and odor on or before the settlement was approved and for
the next five years.

To qualify to make a claim, a person must have lived at a property
in the class area, 1.5-mile radius of the plant, as a renter, owner
or dependent of a renter or owner anytime between April 24, 2007
and Sept. 1, 2017. Each class member, adults and children, must
fill out a form to receive a share of the settlement. A notice was
sent to class members Nov. 19 following preliminary approval.

People employed by GPC with titles of manager, director, vice
president, senior vice president or president do not qualify, nor
do persons who opted out of the class action in 2017.

Full settlement documents are available at GPCclassaction.com or by
calling 1-888-952-9083. For local assistance with the claim form or
other questions, class counsel members are available by appointment
at Larew Law Office, 210 Cedar St. by calling 563-263-2120.

Class members are encouraged to file claims as soon as possible,
according to Judge Telleen and class counsel. Forms may be
time-intensive and claimants may have questions before the March 19
final postmark date to file.

"I would hate to see people not take advantage of that," Judge
Telleen said.

Attorneys associated with the class will be available by
appointment at Larew Law Office in Muscatine. Those services will
be provided at no cost.

"We are in Muscatine three days a week," said Sarah Siskind, lawyer
for the class. "And we plan to expand."

If money is leftover after payouts, Frank said the first $2 million
would go into a community fund to make improvements to the
neighborhood around the plant.

Lawyers warned outside groups offering settlement recovery services
may start to appear. The Federal Trade Commission offers this
advice:

  -- Don't give money or your bank or credit card account number to
anyone who calls offering to recover money, merchandise, or prizes
you never received if the caller says you have to pay a fee in
advance.

  -- Before you use any company to recover either money or a prize,
ask what specific services the company provides and the cost of
each service. Check out the company with local government law
enforcement and consumer agencies; ask whether other people have
registered complaints about the business. You also can enter the
company name into an online search engine to look for complaints.

Siskind said class counsel "can't speak to the quality, cost or
expertise of service" of companies offering recovery services, but
counsel is "accountable to the court."

"We are basically (the class's) court designated lawyers," she
said, "and have been vetted as such." [GN]


GREATER NEW YORK: Service Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Service, Niessence Pope, Shadene Pinnock, and Tabbatha
Ennis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Greater New York HC Services LLC, d/b/a Greater New
York Career Services a/d/b/a Greater New York Nursing Services
a/d/b/a Greater New York Home Care, and Shlomie Weiss, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00821 (E.D. N.Y., February 11, 2019) is an action
seeking equitable and legal relief for Defendants' violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the New York
Labor Law ("NYLL").

The Defendants have intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly harmed
Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs by engaging in a
pattern, practice, and/or policy of violating the FLSA. This policy
and pattern or practice includes, inter alia, failing to pay
employees the applicable overtime rate for all time worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Service and Pope worked for the Defendants as Private
Duty Nurse ("PDN") Coordinators from in or around August 2017 until
on or about May 16, 2018.

Plaintiff Pinnock worked for the Defendants as a Position Admission
and Staffing Coordinator from on or about September 14, 2017 until
on or about May 25, 2018.

Plaintiff Ennis worked for the Defendants as a Uniformed Assessment
System ("UAS") Coordinator from in or around November 2017 until on
or about November 16, 2018.

Greater New York is a private nursing agency that provides nurses
to patients at their homes.

Weiss is owner and president of Greater New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Nicole Grunfeld, Esq.
     Katz Melinger PLLC
     280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 460-0047
     Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
     Email: ndgrunfeld@katzmelinger.com


HAWAII: DOE Responds to ACLU's Title IX Violations Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Ako, writing for KITV4, reports that there's an update on the
federal lawsuit the ACLU filed against the state Department of
Education on December 6, 2018. It's a class action lawsuit that
alleges Title IX violations. That's the federal law that requires
boys and girls to have equal opportunities in sports, for any
institution that accepts federal money.

The DOE answered the lawsuit just over three weeks ago, on January
18. The DOE has consistently said it cannot comment on pending
litigation, but KITV4 obtained a copy of the DOE's response.

In short, the DOE denied most of the claims. "That kind of blanket
denial is incredibly rare. Typically, parties will admit or deny
each paragraph, in paragraph-by-paragraph fashion. The DOE denied a
lot of paragraphs that stated undisputable facts," responded Kit
Grant, ACLU Deputy Director. Magistrate Judge Trader set a trial
date before Judge Kobayashi for Feb 24, 2020.

The Oahu Interscholastic Association, which coordinates public
school sports, filed a motion to dismiss because, OIA says, it does
not receive direct federal funding. That case is up for a hearing
on April 5 before Judge Kobayashi.

The ACLU says it's disappointed with the response. [GN]


HOTELMACHER: Settles Immigrant Workers' Pay Claims
--------------------------------------------------
Ken Miller, writing for Associated Press, reports that two Oklahoma
companies accused in a federal human trafficking lawsuit of
underpaying immigrant workers have reached a settlement with the
U.S. Department of Labor.

A Jan. 25 order from a department Wage and Hour Division
administrative law judge shows Hotelmacher and Steakmacher, both of
Clinton, will pay more than $31,500, including nearly $16,200 to
immigrants who were in the U.S. in 2012 on work visas.

The companies do not acknowledge any violations, but agreed to make
the payment "as a good faith effort with the Administrator
concerning the alleged violations," according to the order. It was
not immediately clear if the workers who were expected receive
payments as part of the Department of Labor settlement were still
in the U.S.

Meanwhile, two separate human trafficking lawsuits allege company
owners Walter Schumacher and his wife, Carolyn Schumacher, lured
the immigrants to the U.S., then paid substandard wages at two
hotels, a water park and Montana Mike's steakhouse. Steakmacher has
since sold Montana Mike's and the company now operating the
restaurant is not involved in the litigation.

The ongoing lawsuits come amid a national debate over immigrants in
the U.S. and whether a wall should be built along the Mexican
border.

Separate motions to dismiss the lawsuits were denied on Feb. 5 by a
federal judge in Oklahoma City and Equal Justice Center attorney
Chris Willett, who represents the immigrants, said the settlement
with the Labor Department does not affect the legal action.

"The department was not a party in our actions and that settlement
by no means resolves the claims at issue in our litigation,"
Willett told The Associated Press.

An attorney for the Schumachers did not return phone calls seeking
comment but has previously said the couple denies all allegations.

The first lawsuit was filed by three Filipino residents who came to
the U.S. on temporary work visas, the second by three Jamaican
nationals who came on student work visas.

Both lawsuits were filed as class action complaints.

Kent Felty, an immigration attorney in Denver who successfully sued
the John Pickle Company in Tulsa and Falcon Steel Structures, Inc.,
in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, over claims similar to the allegations
against the Schumachers said in an August interview that jury
selection for the lawsuit would be problematic, given the current
national debate.

"Half the country would give them a million dollars on a
thousand-dollar case, and half the country would like to see them
deported," said Felty, who is not involved in the current Oklahoma
lawsuits.

Mr. Felty said none of judgment in the Pickle case was paid while
the Falcon case was settled for an undisclosed sum. [GN]


HYDRO ONE: Borden Ladner Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bevan Brooksbank, Esq. -- BBrooksbank@blg.com -- of Borden Ladner
Gervais LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on December 31,
2018, the Divisional Court released its decision in Bennett v.
Hydro One Inc. et al with respect to the appeal of the dismissal of
a motion for certification of the action as a class proceeding. The
decision provides further guidance concerning the Court's treatment
of common issues, the extent to which the merits of a matter may
influence the assessment of commonality, and when a regulatory
regime will be deemed a preferable procedure for the purposes of
the certification test.

By way of background, on November 28, 2017, the Ontario Superior
Court dismissed a motion to certify a class action against Hydro
One Networks Inc. ("Hydro One") that sought damages of $100 million
related to alleged overcharges resulting from the rollout of a new
customer information system. [GN]


I.C. SYSTEM: Showers Alleges Violation under FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.C.System, Inc.  The
case is styled as Tquarius Showers, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. I.C.System, Inc. and
John Does 1 - 25, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00220-HES-MCR (M.D.
Fla., February 20, 2019).

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

I.C. System, Inc., doing business as Adams, Cooper and Mark,
operates as an accounts receivable company. It serves healthcare,
dental, commercial, communications, utilities, government,
financial services, and small and medium collection agencies,
including small and medium businesses, pest control, optometry,
veterinary, and chiropractic industries. The company was founded in
1938 and is based in St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Zeig, Esq.
   Zeig Law Firm, LLC
   3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
   Hollywood, FL 33024
   Tel: (754) 217-3084
   Fax: (754) 217-3084
   Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


IHERB, LLC: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Dawson Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN DAWSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. IHERB, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01437-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 14, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website at www.iherb.com to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, a violation of the Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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


II-VI INCORPORATED: Kaskela Law Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC on Feb. 10 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:19-cv-00062, on behalf of
shareholders of II-VI Incorporated ("II-VI") (Nasdaq: IIVI),
alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with II-VI's proposed
transaction with Finisar Corporation (the "Proposed Transaction").

In connection with the Proposed Transaction, on December 28, 2018,
II-VI filed a Registration Statement with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.  The complaint alleges that the Registration
Statement provides materially incomplete information to II-VI
shareholders about the Proposed Transaction.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this action, you must
move the Court no later than 60 days from 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.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class in the action. Your
ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at
(888) 715-1740 or (484) 258-1585.

Kaskela Law LLC -- http://www.kaskelalaw.com-- exclusively
represents investors in state and federal courts throughout the
country. [GN]


INCARE HOME HEALTH: Cantave Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Micheline Cantave, Plaintiff, v. Incare Home Health Care Group LLC,
Hanna Wolhendler, Martin Schlosser, Baruch Wolhendler, and Chanie
Wolhendler, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01060 (E.D. N.Y., February
21, 2019) is an action seeking to recover money damages arising,
inter alia, out of the violation of Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law for the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees overtime wages, minimum wages,
and wages due, among other causes of action.

Plaintiff Ms. Cantave was only paid for 13 hours of work when she
worked a 24-hour overnight shift and was not paid for all hours
worked during 24 hour assignments during which she was not able to
get uninterrupted sleep and meal breaks, says the complaint.  The
complaint further asserts that Ms. Cantave was not paid for her
time and expenses traveling between clients, and for overtime
premium wages of one and one half times her regular hourly rate (or
at time and one half the minimum wage rate) for overtime hours
worked.

Plaintiff Ms. Cantave began working with the Defendant Incare in or
about late 2016 as a live-in home health care aide.

Incare Home Health Care Group LLC is a domestic limited liability
company organized and existing under the laws of the State of New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregory P. Mouton, Jr., Esq.
     Law Office of Gregory P. Mouton, Jr., LLC
     305 Broadway, 7th Floor
     New York, NY 10007
     Phone & Fax: (646) 706-7481
     Email: gmouton@moutonlawnyc.com


INSPERITY INC: Bid to Dismiss 401(K) Plan Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Insperity, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company is awaiting
the court's decision on its motion for summary judgment seeking
dismissal of all claims in the class action suit involving the
company's 401(k) retirement plan.

In December 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and the third-party discretionary trustee of the Insperity
401(k) retirement plan that is available to eligible worksite
employees (the "Plan") in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on behalf of Plan
participants.

The suit generally alleges that Insperity's third-party
discretionary trustee of the Plan and Insperity breached their
fiduciary duties to plan participants by selecting an Insperity
subsidiary to serve as the recordkeeper for the Plan, by causing
participants in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees to the
Insperity subsidiary, by failing to monitor other fiduciaries, and
by making imprudent investment choices.

The parties filed a stipulation concerning class certification that
defined the class as "all participants and beneficiaries of the
Insperity 401(k) Plan from December 22, 2009 through September 30,
2017." In November 2017, the court approved the class certification
stipulation and denied the plaintiffs' request for a jury trial. A
date for the bench trial has not yet been set. Discovery is
complete.

On June 8, 2018, the company filed a motion for summary judgment
seeking dismissal of all claims. Briefing on that motion was
completed in September 2018, which motion is now awaiting a ruling
by the court.

Insperity said, "We believe we have meritorious defenses, and we
intend to vigorously defend this litigation. As a result of
uncertainty regarding the outcome of this matter, no provision has
been made in the accompanying consolidated financial statements."

Insperity, Inc. provides human resources (HR) and business
solutions to enhance business performance for small and
medium-sized businesses in the United States. The company was
formerly known as Administaff, Inc. and changed its name to
Insperity, Inc. in March 2011. Insperity, Inc. was founded in 1986
and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


INSTACART: Revises Tipping Policy Following Complaints
------------------------------------------------------
Eater's Brenna Houck, citing Buzzfeed News, reports that app-based
grocery delivery service Instacart announced on Feb. 6 that it is
rolling back an underhanded policy in which customers' tips were
used to subsidize the wages of delivery workers.

Over the past several days, the controversial practices used by
on-demand food delivery service Doordash and Instacart had drawn
the condemnation of both by customers and the app's own delivery
workers, who shared screenshots of their earnings and details of
the misleading pay policies in online forums.

Through the policy, workers were guaranteed a base amount of $10
per delivery; Instacart would apply tips to the overall payment,
according to Business Insider. For example, if a customer tipped
$4, Instacart would only pay an additional $6 to the driver. If the
tip was $6, the company would pay even less -- just around $4 for
that delivery. Some observers characterized this as a deceptive
business practice equivalent to tip theft, but because of the
relatively unregulated nature of the gig economy, delivery workers
had little legal recourse.

The troubles with Instacart began in October when the company
unveiled a new pay structure for "shoppers" (the term Instacart
uses for its delivery workers), but in November workers began to
notice a significant drop in earnings -- up to 40 percent in some
cases. The same was true for Doordash, which implemented a similar
payscale to Instacart's back in 2017 that applied tips to base pay
for orders.

As Doordash's delivery worker porthole puts it: "For each delivery,
you will always receive at least $1 from DoorDash plus 100% of the
customer tip. Where that sum is less than the guaranteed amount,
DoorDash will provide a pay boost to make sure you receive the
guaranteed amount. Where that sum is more than the guaranteed
amount, you pocket the extra amount." Thus, if the minimum amount a
so-called "dasher" is owed is $6 for a delivery and the customer
tips $5, Doordash only has to pay the driver $1. If the delivery
worker is tipped $4, Doordash pays out $2. Only if the amount is
more than $5 for that $6 delivery, does the dasher receive an
actual tip.

In statements to the New York Times, both companies denied that the
policies were deceptive. However, shortly after the article's
publication on February 6, Instacart reversed course in a statement
from founder and CEO Apoorva Mehta published to Medium.

Among the changes, Mehta pledged to: keep tips separate from
standard payments, have a higher guaranteed compensation floor for
shoppers, and retroactively compensate shoppers for the lost income
that resulted from its previous policy. "Specifically, we will
proactively reach out to all shoppers who were adversely affected
by instances in which Instacart's payment was below the $10
threshold," Mehta writes. "For example, if a shopper was paid $6 by
Instacart, to compensate for our mistake, he or she will receive an
additional $4 from Instacart."

Going forward, Instacart shoppers will receive a minimum of $10 per
order -- including tips -- and the platform will make up the
difference if a tip isn't high enough to surpass the $10 threshold.
The company also plans to raise its minimum payment from $3 to
between $7 and $10 depending on the region.

Eater has reached out to Doordash for comment regarding its pay
structure for delivery workers.

While Instacart is making an about face due to public pressure,
it's not the first time that the company has come under scrutiny
for its treatment of delivery workers. The Silicon Valley-based
startup settled a class action lawsuit for $4.6 million in 2017. In
the suit, independent contractors claimed 18 violations against the
company including including improper tip pooling. As part of the
settlement, Instacart agreed to change how it described a service
fee on its platform, which many customers had misinterpreted as a
tip. Some things never change. [GN]


INTEGRATED PAIN: Faces Armendariz Labor Suit in Kern County
-----------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Integrated Pain Management Medical Group, Inc. The case is
captioned as GINA ARMENDARIZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTEGRATED PAIN MANAGEMENT
MEDICAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-100267 (Cal.
Super., Kern Cty., Jan. 30, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge
Stephen D. Schuett.

Integrated Pain Management Medical Group, Inc. is a health care
provider in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
          GAINES & GAINES, APLC
          27200 Agoura Road Suite 101
          Calabasas, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 703-8985
          Facsimile: (818) 703-8984


KERNERSVILLE, NC: Settles Sewer Class Action for $12.3MM
--------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina Lawyers Weekly reports that more than 10,000 sewer
customers in Kernersville will receive $12.3 million in refunds and
interest for excess charges they paid from 2012-2016, plaintiffs'
attorneys have reported. According to a media release by those
attorneys, the town of Kernersville and the City/County Utilities
Commission overcharged customers by failing to follow a 2011
agreement. [GN]


KIMBERLY CLARK: Award in Bahamas Surgery Suit Reduced to $25MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly-Clark Corporation 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 total
compensatory and punitive damages plus pre-judgment interest
awarded against Kimberly-Clark in the case entitled, Bahamas
Surgery Center v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., is
approximately $25 million.

The company is a party to certain legal proceedings relating to its
former health care business, Avanos Medical, Inc. ("Avanos",
previously Halyard Health, Inc.), which the company spun-off on
October 31, 2014, including civil actions, consumer class actions,
qui tam matters, a shareholder derivative suit, a securities class
action and certain subpoena and document requests from the federal
government.

The health care matters include Bahamas Surgery Center v.
Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., a California consumer class
action relating to the sale of surgical gowns. In April 2017, the
jury awarded the plaintiff class $3.9 million in compensatory
damages and $350 million in punitive damages against the company.

During the first quarter of 2018, the Court reduced the punitive
damages award to approximately $19 million. As a result, the total
compensatory and punitive damages plus pre-judgment interest
awarded against Kimberly-Clark is approximately $25 million.

Kimberly-Clark said, "We intend to continue our vigorous defense of
the Bahamas matter."

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

Kimberly-Clark Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and markets personal care, consumer tissue, and
professional products worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Personal Care, Consumer Tissue, and K-C Professional.
Kimberly-Clark Corporation was founded in 1872 and is headquartered
in Dallas, Texas.


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Murphy Suit over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN E. MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00609 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 30, 2019)
alleges that the Defendant failed to comply with industry standards
for data security.

Marriott International, Inc. is a globally recognized hotel
conglomerate and is the parent company of Starwood Hotels & Resorts
Worldwide, LLC ("Starwood"). Starwood, which has now merged with
Marriott, collected a panoply of its customers' private personal
information that included, but is not limited to, customers' names,
dates of birth, gender, phone numbers, mailing addresses and
passport information, as well as credit and debit card numbers and
other charge card data ("Private Data"). The Private Data was
collected whenever a customer registered on Starwood's website,
checked-in to one of its hotels, used their loyalty program (the
"Loyalty Program") and transacted at one of its dining or retail
operations within its hotels.

Thereafter, Starwood electronically stored the Private Data on
servers with the intent that it would remain secure. However, from
2014 through November 2018, Starwood failed to protect its
customers' Private Data and allowed it to be plundered by hackers
who exploited Starwood's network vulnerabilities (the "Breach").
Making matters worse, Starwood failed to provide timely, adequate
and accurate notice to Plaintiff, and other Class Members, that
their Private Data had been stolen after Starwood became aware of
the Breach. Due to Starwood's inability to protect its customers'
Private Data, and its inaction following the Breach, Plaintiff and
other Class Members have been
damaged by the unauthorized access to and use of their Personal
Data prompting the filing of the suit.

Marriott International, Inc. operates, franchises, and licenses
hotel, residential, and timeshare properties worldwide. Marriott
International, Inc. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in
Bethesda, Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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@glancy.com

               - and -

          Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
          Frank Castiglione, Esq.
          THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC
          8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 356-3200
          Facsimile: (312) 386-5800
          E- mail: kasif@khowajalaw.com
                   fcastiglione@khowajalaw.com


MASTERCARD INC: Urges Appeals Court to Dismiss Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Mastercard Inc. told an English appeals court
on Feb. 6 that a panel of specialist antitrust judges was right to
toss a multibillion-pound proposed class action lawsuit over its
credit card charges. [GN]


MDL 2197: Neely Suit Transferred to Northern District of Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: DePUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., ASR HIP IMPLANT
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2197, Judge Sarah S. Vance
of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered
an order transferring the action styled, NEELY v. DEPUY
ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:18-02701, from the District
of Colorado to the Northern District of Ohio and, with the consent
of that court, assigned the action to the Honorable Jeffrey J.
Helmick for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

Plaintiff in the District of Colorado action (Neely) moves under
Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order conditionally
transferring her action to MDL No. 2197.  Defendants DePuy
Orthopaedics, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson oppose the motion.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds that
this action involves common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2197, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  Transfer is warranted for reasons set out in the
Panel's order centralizing this litigation.  In that order, the
Judge held that the Northern District of Ohio was an appropriate
Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising
from alleged injuries from DePuy's recalled ASR XL Acetabular Hip
System.  Neely involves injuries arising from implantation of a
DePuy ASR hip implant, and it clearly falls within the MDL 's
ambit.

Plaintiff acknowledges the factual overlap of her case with the MDL
cases, but she argues that transfer will slow the resolution of her
case.  Plaintiff does not qualify for the MDL global settlements to
date because she had her hip removed in October 2017.  She wants to
be allowed to proceed in the District of Colorado, where a trial
ultimately would be held.  Judge Vance does not find these
arguments persuasive in light of the significant factual overlap
between Neely and the approximately 1,675 cases that remain in MDL
No. 2197.  Plaintiff's case will not be the only one not covered by
the three previous settlements.  In any event, the Judge does not
condition transfer to an MDL upon a given plaintiff's participation
in a global settlement.  Instead, she focuses on the factual
commonality among the actions and whether transfer will allow the
parties as a whole to obtain the benefits of centralized
proceedings.  While MDL No. 2197 is nearing a point where it may
begin winding down, it has not yet reached that point.  All parties
stand to benefit from the pretrial efficiencies transfer provides.

A full-text copy of the Court's February 7, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2T0T7D4


MDL 2441: Hughes v. Raymon, et al., Moved to District of Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: STRYKER REJUVENATE AND ABG II HIP IMPLANT
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2441, Judge Sarah S. Vance
of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered
an order transferring the action styled, HUGHES V. RAYMON, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:17-947, from the Southern District of Illinois to the
District of Minnesota and, with the consent of that court, assigned
the action to the Honorable Donovan W. Frank for inclusion in the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Pro se plaintiff in the Southern District of Illinois action
(Hughes) moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel's order
conditionally transferring her action to MDL No. 2441.  Defendant
Stryker Corp. opposes the motion.

After considering the parties' arguments, Judge Vance finds that
this action involves common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2441, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.  Moreover, transfer is warranted for reasons set out in
the Panel's order centralizing this litigation.  In that order, the
Judge held that the District of Minnesota was an appropriate
Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising
from alleged injuries from Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II hip
implants.  This action involves injuries arising from the
implantation of Stryker Rejuvenate hip components and clearly falls
within the MDL's ambit.

Plaintiff does not dispute that her action shares questions of fact
concerning Rejuvenate hip implant components.  Plaintiff instead
opposes transfer by arguing that travel to the transferee forum
will cause her significant hardships, including physical discomfort
and costs, which she cannot bear.  These arguments rest on a faulty
premise.  Because "Section 1407 transfer is for pretrial
proceedings only, there is usually no need for the parties and
witnesses to travel to the transferee district for depositions or
otherwise." Transfer is appropriate in light of the substantial
factual questions Hughes shares with the other 1,200 pending MDL
actions.

A full-text copy of the Court's February 7, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2T0LxYS


MDL 2492: Allen v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, ANDREW ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00255 (Filed Jan. 25,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 19, 2019. The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00947 to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of New
Mexico Highlands University student-athletes.

The Allen case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

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

MDL 2492: Conway v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, ATCHESON CONWAY IV, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00258 (Filed
Jan. 25, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb 19, 2019. The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00950 to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
Bowie State University student-athletes.

The Conway case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

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

MDL 2492: Herman v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Samuel Herman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00284 (Filed Jan. 25,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 19, 2019. The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00966 to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of student-athletes.

The Herman case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

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

MDL 2492: Kuehne v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, David Kuehne, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00277 (Filed Jan. 25,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 19, 2019. The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00962 to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of student-athletes.

The Kuehne case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

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

MDL 2492: Lewis v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Michael Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00302 (Filed Jan. 25,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 19, 2019. The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00980 to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of student-athletes.

The Lewis case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

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

MDL 2492: McGuirl v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Kevin McGuirl, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00297 (Filed Jan. 25,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 19, 2019. The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00976 to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of student-athletes.

The McGuirl case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

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

MDL 2492: Nowell v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Dwight Nowell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00282(Filed Jan. 25,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 19, 2019. The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00964 to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of student-athletes.

The Nowell case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

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

MDL 2492: Seals v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Ray Ezell Seals, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00305 (Filed Jan. 25,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Feb. 19, 2019. The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-00982 to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of student-athletes.

The Seals case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

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

MDL 2642: MSP Recovery Suit Transferred to District of Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FLUOROQUINOLONE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION,
MDL No. 2642, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the
action styled, MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, ET AL. v. BAYER
HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:18-24625, from
the Southern District of Florida to the District of Minnesota and,
with the consent of that court, assigned the action to the
Honorable John R. Tunheim for inclusion in the coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Defendants move under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407(c) for transfer of the
MSP Recovery action to the District of Minnesota for inclusion in
MDL No. 2642.  Plaintiffs do not respond to the motion and,
therefore, are deemed to acquiesce in the relief sought.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds that
MSP Recovery involves common questions of fact with the actions
transferred to MDL No. 2642, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.  No party
disputes that, like many of the already-centralized actions, MSP
Recovery involves factual questions arising out of allegations that
"fluoroquinolone antibiotics cause or substantially contribute to
the development of irreversible peripheral neuropathy and that the
warnings provided by defendants concerning that risk were
inadequate."

Plaintiffs in MSP Recovery seek a pure bill of discovery against
defendants, in support of a planned future action to recoup the
costs incurred by Medicare payors in the treatment of peripheral
neuropathy and related injuries allegedly resulting from
defendants' fluoroquinolone drugs.  The discovery they seek
includes adverse event data submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration, and any and all other communications with FDA
concerning the drugs at issue in the MDL.  The requested discovery
thus likely overlaps with the common discovery in MDL No.2642.If
the transferee judge determines that MSP Recovery is best excluded
from centralized proceedings, procedures are available to
accomplish this with a minimum of delay.

Judge Vance therefore transferred the MSP Recovery action from the
Southern District of Florida to the District of Minnesota and, with
the consent of that court, assigned the action to the Honorable
John R. Tunheim for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's February 6, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2tDWY9Y


MDL 2738: Benford Suit Transferred to District of New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2738, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring the
action styled, BENFORD, ET AL. v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A.
No. 4:18-01903, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey and, with the consent of that court, assigned the action
to the Honorable Freda L. Wolfson for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs in the Benford action move under Panel Rule 7.1 to
vacate the Panel's order that conditionally transferred Benford to
the District of New Jersey for inclusion in MDL No. 2738.
Defendants Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.,
Imerys Talc America, Inc., PTI Union, LLC, and PTI Royston, LLC,
oppose the motion.

In support of their motion to vacate, plaintiffs argue that federal
subject matter jurisdiction over Benford is lacking, and that
plaintiffs' motion for remand to state court is pending. The Panel
has held that such jurisdictional issues generally do not present
an impediment to transfer. Plaintiffs can present their remand
arguments to the transferee judge.

Therefore, after considering the argument of counsel, the Panel
finds that the action involves common questions of fact with the
actions transferred to MDL No. 2738, and that transfer under 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. In its order centralizing this litigation, the Panel
held that the District of New Jersey was an appropriate Section
1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising from
allegations that plaintiffs or their decedents developed ovarian or
other gynecological cancer following perineal application of
Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products (namely, Johnson's Baby
Powder and Shower to Shower body powder). Benford shares multiple
factual issues with the actions already in the MDL.

A full-text copy of the Court's February 7, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2T0GW94


MDL 2740: Court Vacates Transfer Order for Hood v. Sanofi, et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: TAXOTERE (DOCETAXEL) PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2740, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has entered an order vacating its December 10, 2018
Order, which conditionally transferred the action styled, Hood v.
Sanofi S.A., et al., S.D. Mississippi, C.A. No. 3:18-00842.

A conditional transfer order was filed in the Hood action on
December 10, 2018.  Prior to expiration of that order's 7-day stay
of transmittal, plaintiff in Hood filed a notice of opposition to
the proposed transfer.  Plaintiff later filed a motion and brief to
vacate the conditional transfer order.  The Panel has now been
advised that Hood was remanded to the Chancery Court of Hinds
County, Mississippi, by the Honorable Carlton W. Reeves in an order
filed on February 20, 2019.

The Panel therefore vacates its conditional transfer order
designated as "CTO-49" filed on December 10, 2018.

The Panel also vacated the March 28, 2019 Hearing Session Order as
it relates to the Hood action.

A full-text copy of the Court's February 22, 2019 Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2UcWP9j


MDL 2740: Jones Suit Transferred to Eastern District of Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: TAXOTERE (DOCETAXEL) PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2740, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring
the action styled JONES, ET AL. v. SANOFI US SERVICES INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:18-08268 from the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana and, with the consent of that court, assigned
the action to the Honorable Jane Triche Milazzo for inclusion in
the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs in the action move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the
Panel's order that conditionally transferred the action to the
Eastern District of Louisiana for inclusion in MDL No. 2740.
Defendants Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. and sanofi-aventis U.S. LLC
oppose the motion to vacate.

After considering the argument of counsel, Judge Vance finds that
Jones involves common questions of fact with the actions
transferred to MDL No. 2740, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.  No party
disputes that, like many of the already-centralized actions, Jones
involves factual questions arising out of allegations that Taxotere
(docetaxel), a chemotherapy drug, causes permanent hair loss, that
defendants were aware of this possible side effect and failed to
warn patients, and that defendants marketed Taxotere as more
effective than other chemotherapy drugs when other drugs were
equally effective without causing permanent hair loss.

In support of their motion to vacate, plaintiffs argue that federal
subject matter jurisdiction over their action is lacking, and that
plaintiffs' pending motion for remand to state court should be
decided by the transferor court.  The Panel has held that such
jurisdictional issues generally do not present an impediment to
transfer.  Plaintiffs can present their remand arguments to the
transferee judge.

A full-text copy of the Court's February 6, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2U6EiLN


MDL 2875: Jones Suit v. Zhejiang over Valsartan Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
A case, JAMES JONES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ZHEJIANG HUAHAI
PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., a Chinese corporation; PRINSTON
PHARMACEUTICAL INC., a Delaware corporation; SOLCO HEALTHCARE U.S.
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; HUAHAI U.S. INC., a New
Jersey corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01525 (Filed
Oct. 18, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey on Feb. 19, 2019. The New Jersey
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-06147 to the
proceeding. The suit demands $5,000,000 and alleges product
liability for personal injury caused by the use of generic
valsartan.

The Jones case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2875, Re:
VALSARTAN N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE (NDMA) CONTAMINATION PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Feb. 14, 2019.
This litigation arises out of an investigation by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration into impurities found in generic drug products
containing valsartan, a medication indicated for the treatment of
high blood pressure and other conditions. During the course of the
FDA investigation, a number of voluntary recalls of generic
valsartan medications were issued. Purchasers of recalled lots of
generic valsartan subsequently filed actions alleging economic
losses. The initial wave of consumer class actions was followed by
actions alleging personal injuries from the ingestion of affected
valsartan medications, as well as other related litigation.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that these actions
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions involve
common factual questions arising out of allegations that plaintiffs
purchased or used generic formulations of valsartan medications
containing the nitrosamine impurities NDMA and/or NDEA; that these
5 impurities present a risk of cancer and liver damage; and that
defendants knew, or should have known, of the impurities as early
as 2012. All actions stem from the same FDA investigation and
voluntary recall announced in July 2018, and the voluntary recalls
are ongoing. Although the investigation, and the earliest-filed
actions, focused on ZHP as the source of the alleged impurities,
the FDA investigation and the actions before the Panel now
encompass alleged industry-wide issues concerning the production of
the valsartan active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) which will be
common to all actions. The common questions of fact include: (1)
whether the generic valsartan 6 sold by defendants contained NDMA
or NDEA; (2) the cause of the alleged impurities, including alleged
defects in the manufacturing and sampling process; (3) when
defendants knew or should have known of the impurities; (4) how
long the NDMA- and NDEA- containing valsartan medications were in
circulation; and (5) whether the amounts of NDMA and NDEA in the
medications presented a risk of cancer or other injuries. All of
the valsartan actions will raise these issues, regardless of
whetherthe alleged supplier of the valsartan APIwas ZHP, Mylan,
Hetero Labs Limited, or some other entity. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings, including with respect to class certification and Daubert
motions; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel,
and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Robert
B. Kugler. The lead case is Case No.1:19-md-02875-RBK-JS.

Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. provides formulations,
active pharmaceutical ingredients, and intermediates in China and
internationally.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Lanny H. Darr, Esq.
          DARR FIRM
          307 Henry St., Suite 406
          Alton, IL 62002
          Telephone: (618) 208-6828
          Facsimile: (618) 433-8519

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Kevin F Hormuth, Esq.
          GREENSFELDER & HEMKER
          Equitable Building
          10 South Broadway, Suite 2000
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 241-9090

MDL 2877: Court Denies Bid to Centralize 13 Mexico Air Crash Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: AIR CRASH AT DURANGO, MEXICO, ON JULY 31, 2018,
MDL No. 2877, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has denied Aerovias de Mexico S.A. de
C.V., Inc.'s motion for centralization of 13 actions.

Common defendant Aerovias de Mexico S.A. de C.V., Inc. (Aeromexico)
moves under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings
in this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois.  The
litigation consists of 13 actions, 11 in the Northern District of
Illinois, one in the District of Oregon, and one in the Southern
District of Texas.  The Panel has been notified of 23 additional
federal actions, all in the Northern District of Illinois, which
involve related issues.

Plaintiffs' positions on centralization vary.  Plaintiffs in 29 of
the Northern District of Illinois actions (eight constituent
actions and 21 tag-alongs) support centralization.  Plaintiffs in
the District of Oregon and Southern District of Texas actions
oppose centralization.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,
Judge Vance concludes that centralization is not necessary for the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation.  All actions are personal
injury cases arising from the July 31, 2018, crash of Aeromexico
Flight AM2431 shortly after it took off from Durango, Mexico.  But,
the parties' briefing indicates that the litigation will involve
little or no discovery involving liability or other common issues.
For example, there is no indication that Aeromexico intends to
implead Embraer, the aircraft's manufacturer, or any other third
party.  Rather, discovery and other pretrial matters appear likely
to focus on plaintiff-specific matters -- in particular,
plaintiffs' alleged damages.

The limited number of involved districts also lessens the need, if
any, for centralization.  Aside from the one action in the District
of Oregon and the one action in the Southern District of Texas, all
actions are pending in the Northern District of Illinois.  Given
that the crash took place a number of months ago, and, reportedly,
approximately half of the 103 individuals aboard the plane walked
away from the crash and did not require hospitalization, the Panel
is skeptical of Aeromexico's prediction that "numerous" actions --
beyond the 36 already pending -- are yet to be filed.  And, even if
they are filed, they likely will involve the same individualized
issues.

A full-text copy of the Court's February 7, 2019 Order is available
at https://bit.ly/2Spec4X


MEADOWMERE CONCRETE: Denied Garcia Overtime Pay, Accurate Pay Slips
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerardo A. Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Meadowmere Concrete Corp. and
Glen A. Anderson, individually and in his official capacity,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-00563 (E.D. N.Y., January 29, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime, minimum and spread-of-hours wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York labor laws,
including redress for failure to provide accurate wage statements
and wage notices upon hiring and upon each change of pay.

Meadowmere is a construction company with a principal place of
business at 30 Frowein Road, Center Moriches, NY 11934. Garcia
worked for Meadowmere from 2010-2017 as hourly construction worker.
Defendants failed to pay Garcia overtime compensation at a rate of
one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrea Batres, Esq.
      BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
      100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 208
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 280-3008
      Fax: (212) 656-1845
      Email: ab@belllg.com


MEKRUTH INC: Faces Thomas FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mekruth Inc. The case
is captioned as Qwame Thomas individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Mekruth Inc.,
Mitchell Mekles, David Mekles, and Does 1-50, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01566 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2019). The suit alleges Fair
Labor Standards Act violation.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Benjamin D. Weisenberg, Esq.
          THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
          401 Park Avenue South, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 571-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0505
          E-mail: benjamin@ottingerlaw.com

MERIDIAN BIOSCIENCE: Bid to Drop Forman Class Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meridian Bioscience Inc.said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the motion to
dismiss the class action suit initiated by Barbara Forman has been
fully briefed and remains pending before the court.

On November 15, 2017, Barbara Forman filed a class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio naming Meridian, its Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer (in their capacities as such) as defendants.

An amended complaint was filed on April 16, 2018 and the Company
believes the essential elements of the amended complaint are the
same. The complaint and the amended complaint are hereafter
referred to as the "Complaint". The Complaint seeks compensatory
damages and attorneys’ fees.

Meridian has filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, to which the
plaintiff responded on August 14, 2018. The motion has been fully
briefed and remains pending before the court.

Meridian Bioscience said, "We are unable to determine or predict
the ultimate outcome or estimate the range of possible losses, if
any. Accordingly, no provision for litigation losses has been
included within either of the accompanying Condensed Consolidated
Statements of Operations for the three months ended December 31,
2018 or December 31, 2017."

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

Meridian Bioscience Inc., an integrated life science company,
manufactures, develops, sells, and distributes diagnostic test
kits. These are used primarily for respiratory, gastrointestinal,
viral, and parasitic infectious diseases. Meridian, founded in
1976, is based in Cincinnati.


MOLSON COORS: Segalis Sues over Restatement of Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
GENE SEGALIS, INDIVIDUALLY and ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiff, vs. MOLSON COORS BREWING COMPANY, A
DELAWARE CORPORATION MARK R. HUNTER, AND TRACEY I. JOUBERT, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00455 (D. Colo. Mar. 15, 2019),
asserts that the Defendants repeatedly and materially misstated
Molson's financial condition in filings with the Securities
Exchange Commission, while falsely representing that Molson's
financial statements complied with generally accepted accounting
principles (GAAP) and that its internal controls were effective, in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Class Period begins on February 14,
2017, when Molson filed on Form 10-K with the SEC its annual report
for the period ended December 31, 2016. On February 14, 2018,
Molson filed on Form 10-K with the SEC its annual report for the
period ended December 31, 2017. Hunter signed certifications for
both of the 10-Ks. Joubert signed certifications for both of the
10-Ks. Each of statements identified were materially false and
misleading when issued as (1) the Company's financial statements
did not fairly present its results; and (2) the Sarbanes-Oxley
certifications were false. Molson and the Individual Defendants
acted with scienter in that they knew that the public documents and
statements issued or disseminated in the name of the Company were
materially false and misleading; knew that such statements or
documents would be issued or disseminated to the investing public;
and knowingly and substantially participated or acquiesced in the
issuance or dissemination of such statements or documents as
primary violations of the federal securities laws.

The truth was finally revealed on February 12, 2019. On that date,
Molson announced in a Form 8-K filing with the SEC that after
discussions between its audit committee and its independent
accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the financial
statements for the years ended December 2016 and December 2017
should no longer be relied on and should be restated.  Molson's
stock price fell sharply in the aftermath of these revelations.
After closing at $65.36 on February 11, 2019, the Company's stock
price dropped to $59.19 per share on February 12, 2019 -- more than
a 9% drop.

Molson Coors Brewing Company is a multinational brewing
company.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 400
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          E-mail: jake@blockesq.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Campau & Meng Sue over  Roundup Product Sales
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES C. CAMPAU and YUMEI MENG, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00243 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 19, 2019),
alleges unlawful promotion, marketing, and sale of various Roundup
Products, manufactured and marketed by Defendant Monsanto Company
and distributed by Scotts Miracle-Gro Products, Inc., in violation
of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the New York General
Business Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the False
Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

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

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, and
Roundup Original 2k herbicide.

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Castleberrys Sue over Sale of Roundup Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
MALCOLM C. CASTLEBERRY and KATHERYN R. CASTLEBERRY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00244 (E.D. Mo.,
Feb. 19, 2019), alleges unlawful promotion, marketing, and sale of
various Roundup Products, manufactured and marketed by Defendant
Monsanto Company and distributed by Scotts Miracle-Gro Products,
Inc., in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the
New York General Business Law, the California's Unfair Competition
Law, the False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

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

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, and
Roundup Original 2k herbicide.

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Clarks Sue over Sale of Roundup Products
----------------------------------------------------------
MELONEASE CLARK and JAMES CLARK, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00245 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 19, 2019),
alleges unlawful promotion, marketing, and sale of various Roundup
Products, manufactured and marketed by Defendant Monsanto Company
and distributed by Scotts Miracle-Gro Products, Inc., in violation
of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the New York General
Business Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the False
Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

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

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, and
Roundup Original 2k herbicide.

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Corbett Sues over Sale of Roundup Products
------------------------------------------------------------
JACKIE L. CORBETT, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00247 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 19, 2019),
alleges unlawful promotion, marketing, and sale of various Roundup
Products, manufactured and marketed by Defendant Monsanto Company
and distributed by Scotts Miracle-Gro Products, Inc., in violation
of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the New York General
Business Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the False
Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

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

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, and
Roundup Original 2k herbicide.

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Dotys Sue over Sale of Roundup Products
---------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE D. DOTY and WENDY DOTY, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case 4:19-cv-00248 (E.D. Mo., Feb. 19, 2019),
alleges unlawful promotion, marketing, and sale of various Roundup
Products, manufactured and marketed by Defendant Monsanto Company
and distributed by Scotts Miracle-Gro Products, Inc., in violation
of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the New York General
Business Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the False
Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

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

Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant Roundup products,
including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and
Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak
herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide,
Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass
Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, and
Roundup Original 2k herbicide.

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

MOO INC: Website not Accessible to Blind People, Dawson Says
------------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN DAWSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MOO INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01391-AT (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 13, 2019), alleges that Defendant
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website at
www.moo.com to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, a
violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA").

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

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

               - and -

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

MOTORCYCLE MALL: Bishop Asserts Disabilities Act Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Motorcycle Mall, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
Cedric Bishop and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Motorcycle Mall, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01602 (S.D. N.Y., February 20, 2019).

Motorcycle Mall is the tri-state area's premier motorcycle and
powersports dealership. Located in Belleville, New Jersey,
Motorcycle Mall is just minutes from New York City and only a short
distance from South Jersey, Jersey Shore, Pennsylvania, and New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Graham Disputes "All Natural" Claim
------------------------------------------------------
Adenike Graham and Kimberly Mcnulty, an individual and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Beverage Corp.,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00873, (S.D. N.Y., January 29, 2019)
brings claims for fraud, unjust enrichment and for breach of
express warranty pursuant to the New York Deceptive Sales Practices
Act.

National Beverage Corporation produces and markets a diverse
portfolio of flavored beverage products that are sold throughout
the United States, including LaCroix sparkling water. LaCroix
Products are marketed as all-natural sparkling water products, and
are sold at retail stores such as Amazon, Walmart, Target,
Walgreens and local grocery stores among others. Plaintiffs dispute
its "all-natural" claim saying that it contains processed essence
oils extracted from the named fruit used to flavor the water. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
      SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
      112 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016-7416
      Telephone: (212) 784-6400
      Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
      Email: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com

             - and -

      Nick Suciu III, Esq.
      BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
      1644 Bracken Rd.
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
      Tel: (313) 303-3472
      Email: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

             - and -

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Rachel Soffin, Esq.
      Lisa A. White, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Telephone: (865) 247-0080
      Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
      Email: lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
             greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
             rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com

             - and -

      Lauren Brusca, Esq.
      BRUSCA LAW, PLLC
      221 NE Ivanhoe Blvd., Suite 200
      Orlando, FL 32804
      Telephone: (407) 501-6564
      Email: lauren@brusca-law.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Curry Sues Over Student-Athletes' Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE CURRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, and HAMPTON
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:19-cv-707 (S.D. Ind., February 18, 2019),
seeks to obtain redress for alleged injuries sustained as a result
of the Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of Hampton student-athletes.

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, Mr. Curry alleges.  He adds
that for decades, the Defendants 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.

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 Hampton.  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.

Hampton University is a private university located at 100 East
Queen Street, in Hampton, Virginia.[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


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Escoffery Seeks Redress for Athletes' Injuries
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN ESCOFFERY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, and
ITHACA COLLEGE, Case No. 1:19-cv-708 (S.D. Ind., February 18,
2019), wants to obtain redress for injuries sustained as a result
of Defendants' alleged reckless disregard for the health and safety
of generations of IC student-athletes.

As a direct result of the Defendants' acts and omissions, the
Plaintiff and countless former IC football players suffered and
continue to suffer brain and other neurocognitive injuries, Mr.
Escoffery alleges.  As such, he brings this Class Action Complaint
in order to vindicate those players' rights and hold the NCAA and
IC accountable.

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 IC.  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.

Ithaca College is a private university located at 953 Danby Road,
in Ithaca, New York.[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


NATIONAL TIRE: Failed to Register Customer's Tires, Says Exum Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Exum, Jr. and Emilie Palmer, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Tire and
Battery and TBC Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-80121 (S.D.
Fla., January 29, 2019), seeks monetary damages, restitution,
injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendants' failure to
register or otherwise provide federally required tire-registration
forms in violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

National Tire and Battery and TBC Corporation are independent tire
dealers/distributors. If the tire manufacturer does not have the
consumer's name and address, the tire manufacturer cannot reach the
consumer to notify him or her in case of a recall, which exposes
consumers to injury or death, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq.
     CHAIKIN LAW FIRM PLLC
     12800 University Drive, Suite 600
     Fort Myers, FL 33907
     Tel: (239) 470-8338
     Fax: (239) 204-2425
     Email: jordan@chaikinlawfirm.com

            - and -

     Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
     Brendan S. Thompson, Esq.
     Yifei Li, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     507 C Street, N.E.
     Washington, DC 20002
     Telephone: (202) 789-3960
     Email: charles@cuneolaw.com
            brendant@cuneolaw.com
            evelyn@cuneolaw.com

            - and -

     Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
     Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
     Eric N. Linsk, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
     100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Telephone: (612) 339-6900
     Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
     Email: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
            rapeterson@locklaw.com
            rnlinsk@locklaw.com

            - and -

     Chris C. Kessler, Esq.
     THE KESSLER LAW FIRM PLLC
     Greenville, NC 27835
     Tel: (252) 321-2535
     Email: cck@kesslerlawfirmpllc.com

            - and -

     J. Olin McDougall, II, Esq,
     MCDOUGALL LAWFIRM, LLC
     115 Lady's Island Commons
     Beaufort, South Carolina 29901-1336
     Tel: (843) 379-7000
     Fax: (843) 379-7007
     Email: lin@mlf.law

            - and -

     Dina E. Micheletti, Esq.
     FAZIO | MICHELETTI LLP
     2410 Camino Ramon, Suite 315
     San Ramon, CA 94583
     Tel: (925) 543-2555
     Fax: (925) 369-0344
     Email: dem@fazmiclaw.com


NCI BUILDING: Continues to Defend Voigt Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
NCI Building Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-QT Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2019, for
the transition period from October 29, 2018 to December 31, 2018,
that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit
filed by Gary D. Voigt.

On November 14, 2018, an individual stockholder, Gary D. Voigt,
filed a putative class action complaint in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against CD&R, CD&R Fund VIII, and certain directors of the
Company.

Voigt purports to assert claims on behalf of himself, on behalf of
a class of other similarly situated stockholders of the Company,
and derivatively on behalf of the Company, the nominal defendant.

The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and
unjust enrichment against CD&R Fund VIII and CD&R, and for breach
of fiduciary duty against the director defendants in connection
with the Merger. Voigt seeks damages in an amount to be determined
at trial.

NCI Building said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend the
litigation."

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

NCI Building Systems, Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures, and
markets metal products for the nonresidential construction industry
in North America. It operates in four segments: Engineered Building
Systems, Metal Components, Insulated Metal Panels, and Metal Coil
Coating. NCI Building Systems, Inc. was founded in 1984 and is
headquartered in Houston, Texas.


NEW CONNECT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Han et al. Allege
---------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT HAN; MEE YEON KANG; and MINHO HAN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NEW CONNECT
LOGISTICS, INC.; GD TRANS, INC.; NEW CONNECT TRANSPORTATION, INC.;
NEW CONNECT FREIGHT, INC.; MAN YOUN; SEO KYOUNG CHOI; and DOE 1
through 10, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV02681 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Jan. 30, 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 Han was employed by the Defendants as logistics
coordinator. The Plaintiff Kang as logistics accountant, and the
Plaintiff Han as logistics customer service lead.

New Connect Logistics Inc. is a licensed and bonded freight
shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from
Compton, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Ricasa, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN RICASA
          15760 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 700
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 650-8077
          Facsimile: (818) 301-5151
          E-mail: jricasa@ricasalaw.com


NO COMPETITION: Faces Decker Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Derick Decker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. No Competition Marketing, LLC, An Ohio
Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-20670-FAM
(S.D. Fla., February 21, 2019) is an action against Defendant to
secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA").

To gain an advantage over its competitors and increase its revenue,
the Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing, with no regard
for consumers' privacy rights, asserts the complaint. This case
arises from the Defendant's transmission of prerecorded messages to
the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and others, promoting
Defendant's services and goods.

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

Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

Defendant is an Ohio limited liability company who directs,
markets, and provides its business activities throughout the State
of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Fuel Surcharge-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend itself against a consolidated lawsuit over fuel
surcharges.

In 2007, various antitrust class actions filed against the company
and other Class I railroads in various Federal district courts
regarding fuel surcharges were consolidated in the District of
Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In
2012, the court certified the case as a class action.

The defendant railroads appealed this certification, and the Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the District
Court’s decision and remanded the case for further consideration.
On October 10, 2017, the District Court denied class certification;
the findings are subject to appeal.

Norfolk Southern said, "We believe the allegations in the
complaints are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the
cases. We do not believe the outcome of these proceedings will have
a material effect on our financial position, results of operations,
or liquidity."

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

Norfolk Southern Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
engages in the rail transportation of raw materials, intermediate
products, and finished goods. Norfolk Southern Corporation was
founded in 1883 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia.


NORTH CAROLINA: McClendon Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
MARIETTA MCCLENDON, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.: 3:17-cv-404 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Plaintiff moves the Court for an order:

   1. certifying the case as a class action;

   2. appointing the law firms of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
      Bernstein, LLP, and Montgomery Ponder as Class Counsel; and

   3. appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed Class:

          Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
          Annika K. Martin, Esq.
          Avery S. Halfon, Esq.
          LIEFF , CABRASER , HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          222 Second Avenue South, Suite 1640
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 313-9000
          Facsimile: (615) 355-9592
          E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com
                  akmartin@lchb.com
                  ahalfon@lchb.com

               - and -

          J. Bradley Ponder, Esq.
          Luke Montgomery, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY PONDER, LLC
          2421 2nd Avenue North, Suite 1
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 201-0303
          Facsimile: (205) 208-9443
          E-mail: brad@montgomeryponder.com
                  luke@montgomeryponder.com

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Maria Q. Campbell, Esq.
          Stephen J. Zralek, Esq.
          Emily Harper Mack, Esq.
          Raquel L. Bellamy, Esq.
          BONE, MCALLESTER & NORTON, PLLC
          511 Union Street, Suite 1600
          Nashville, TN 37219

O'HARA MARINE: Thorne Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------
O'Hara Marine, Inc. d/b/a Candlewood East Marina is facing a class
action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities
Act. The case is styled Braulio Thorne and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. O'Hara Marine, Inc. d/b/a
Candlewood East Marina, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01572 (S.D.
N.Y., February 20, 2019).

O'Hara Marine, Inc. d/b/a Candlewood East Marina is a full service
marina with a private waterfront located on Candlewood Lake in
Brookfield, CT..[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OAKDALE YACHT: Bishop Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------
Oakdale Yacht & Boat Sales Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled Cedric Bishop and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Oakdale Yacht & Boat Sales Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01604 (S.D. N.Y., February 20, 2019).

Oakdale Yacht & Boat Sales is a privately held company in Oakdale,
NY and is a Single Location business.

Categorized under Marinas, records show the Defendant was
established in 1985 and is incorporated in NY. Current estimates
show this company has an annual revenue of 829525 and employs a
staff of approximately 5.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OCEAN SPRAY: Must Notify Consumers About Labeling Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Ocean Spray
Cranberries Inc. must notify consumers that a class action was
certified over deceptive labeling claims on its website, a federal
court said Feb. 5.

But the company isn't required to post about the class on its
social media accounts. Social media is unlikely to reach the bulk
of class members, who are over 55, Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel wrote
for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California. [GN]


OFF SHORE MARINE: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Off Shore Marine, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
Cedric Bishop and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Off Shore Marine, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01605 (S.D. N.Y., February 20, 2019).

Off Shore Marine, Inc. is a Boat dealer in Frankford Township, New
Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OFF THE HOOK: Bishop Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------
Off The Hook Yacht Sales, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled Cedric Bishop and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Off The Hook Yacht Sales, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01606 (S.D. N.Y., February 20, 2019).

Off The Hook Yacht Sales, LLC is a Yacht broker in Wilmington,
North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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




OHR PHARMA: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Strike Khanna Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
OHR Pharmaceutical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that a decision on
the motion to strike exhibits in the class action initiated by
Jeevesh Khanna is pending.

On February 14, 2018, plaintiff, Jeevesh Khanna, commenced an
action in the Southern District of New York, against the Company
and several current and former officers, alleging that they
violated federal securities laws between June 24, 2014 and January
4, 2018.

On August 7, 2018, the lead plaintiffs, now George Lehman and
Insured Benefit Plans, Inc. filed an amended complaint, stating the
class period to be April 8, 2014 through January 4, 2018. The
plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their complaint
but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek to
maintain the action as a class action and to recover damages on
behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired our stock during the putative class period and purportedly
suffered financial harm as a result.

The Company and the individuals dispute these claims and intend to
defend the matter vigorously. On September 17, 2018, the company
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On November 13, 2018,
plaintiffs filed a motion to strike exhibits appended to the motion
to dismiss.

A decision on the motion to strike is pending, and the motion to
dismiss will then be fully briefed based on a schedule to be
determined by the court.

OHR Pharmaceutical said, "This litigation could result in
substantial costs and a diversion of management's resources and
attention, which could harm the Company's business and the value of
the Company's common stock."

OHR Pharmaceutical, Inc. operates as a development stage
pharmaceutical company. The company intends to merge with NeuBase
Therapeutics, Inc. that focuses on advancing NeuBase's
peptide-nucleic acid antisense oligonucleotide technology platform
for the development of therapies to address severe and currently
untreatable diseases caused by genetic mutations. OHR
Pharmaceutical, Inc. is headquartered in New York, New York.


ONTARIO: Court of Appeal Rejects Unilateral Addition to Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Iarusso, Esq. -- aiarusso@mccarthy.ca -- of McCarthy
Trtrault LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that can a judge
unilaterally "rewrite" an executed settlement agreement that
approves class counsel fees by lowering the amount payable and
putting conditions on those fees, when neither party agrees to the
changes? In Welsh v. Ontario, the Court of Appeal held that the
answer is "no"; however, the Court based its decision on a
procedural error rather than the substance of the motion judge's
concerns that led him to put conditions on class counsel's fees in
the first place.

This class action, commenced in 2015, was certified on consent in
2016. About 4,500 former students of three provincial schools for
the Deaf claimed that the Province was negligent in its management
and operation of these schools, and breached its fiduciary duties
stemming from "very serious allegations of physical, sexual and
emotional abuse".

The parties arrived at a settlement through mediation in late 2017,
and entered into a mutually agreed upon settlement agreement. As
part of that settlement agreement, class counsel, Koskie Minsky,
would receive $3.75 million -- 25% of the $15 million settlement
fund. There was also a reversion provision: if any amounts remained
after payment of the fees, damages, and costs and the claims period
had ended, the remaining funds were to revert to the Province.

In finalizing the matter, there were two separate motions at play:
one to approve the settlement agreement and one to approve class
counsel fees. At the motion to approve the settlement, Perell J.
expressed serious concerns about the merits of the settlement, but
nonetheless approved it because it fell "within the range of
reasonableness".

With respect to class counsel fees, Perell J. found that the fees
were unfair and unreasonable because only about 10% of the class
would benefit from the settlement and the settlement was
"disappointing". As such, he approved class counsel's fees on the
condition that class counsel donate $1.5 million of its fees to a
charity for the Deaf (the "Donation Condition") approved by the
judge, and the balance of those fees, $2.25 million, would be
subject to a proportionate reduction depending on the reversion of
settlement funds to the Province that have not been taken up by
class members (the "Reversion Condition"). Perell J. did not allow
parties to make submissions on the matter. Class counsel appealed
the fee order.

On appeal, the fee order was set aside, and the matter was remitted
for rehearing before a different judge. Class counsel's submissions
related both to the substantive and procedural errors of the
decision. The Province took no position on the quantum of class
counsel fees, but agreed that the motion judge erred in imposing
the two conditions and in not allowing the parties to make further
submissions. The Crown also submitted that the Reversion Condition,
in effect, directed public funds to a third party that might have
reverted to the Crown. An intervenor (a class member) argued that
Perell J.'s order was fair and reasonable.

Writing for the Court of Appeal, Sharpe, Juriansz, and Roberts
JJ.A. held that the motion judge erred by failing to give the
parties an opportunity to make submissions to address his concerns
related to the class counsel fees. The Court stated that the
Donation Condition had the effect of adding material conditions to
an executed settlement agreement without the parties' consent,
which was a legal error. "[T]he appropriate course of action would
have been for him to allow the parties an opportunity to make
submissions and, if they desired to do so, agree to change the
terms of the settlement in order to address those concerns and
obtain approval of class counsel's fees."

Perhaps significantly, the Court of Appeal focused only on the
technical error of not allowing submissions from the parties. It
did not undertake an analysis of the reasonableness of the class
counsel fees or comment on whether the motion judge was right or
wrong to criticize the size of class counsel fees relative to the
benefits to the class.

The Court of Appeal also did not comment on the Reversion
Condition. The decision does not state that the motion judge erred
by adding a Reversion Condition, which would have had the effect of
reducing the funds payable to the Crown at the conclusion of the
claims period. The Court only states that imposing the Donation
Condition materially altered the settlement agreement.

This narrow decision was perhaps a missed opportunity for the Court
of Appeal to clarify that adding any material condition onto the
payment of class counsel fees that has the effect of altering an
executed settlement agreement -- without submissions or consent
from the parties -- would be a legal error. Can motion judges
unilaterally add proportionate reductions to class counsel fees
based on class member take-up in settlements that incorporate a
reversion provision, like Perell J. did in this case? Does such a
provision constitute a "material condition"? Can a motion judge add
a donation condition where it would not impact any reversion to the
Crown? These questions are left unanswered. [GN]


ORKIN SERVICES: Underpays Pest Control Technicians, Sanchez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERT SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ORKIN SERVICES OF CALIFORNIA, INC; and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV03175 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Jan. 30, 2019) is an action against the Defendants
for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for
missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Sanchez was employed by the Defendants as pest control
technician.

Orkin Services Of California, Inc. is a corporation organized under
the laws of California. The Company is engaged in pest control &
termite treatment. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jasmine Duel, Esq.
          Kousha Berokim, Esq.
          BEROKIM & DUEL, P.C.
          270 North Canon Drive, Third Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 846-8553
          Facsimile: (310) 300-1233
          E-mail: jasmine@berokimduel.com
                  berokim@berokimduel.com

               - and -

          Louis Benowitz, Esq.
          SMITH & BENOWITZ, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          15303 Ventura Boulevard, 9th Floor
          Sherman Oaks, CA91403
          Telephone: (818)839-7800
          Facsimile: (818)839-9700
          E-mail: louis@smithbenowitz.com


PANDA TECHNICAL: Does not Pay Workers' Overtime Wages, Says Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFF HOLLEY, on behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated v.
PANDA TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-00397-L (N.D. Tex.,
February 15, 2019), alleges that PTS violates the Fair Labor
Standards Act by not paying overtime to the hourly, bluecollar
workers it employs as "ETechs."

PTS provides Mechanics, E-Techs, Pump Technicians and Equipment
Operators to the frac industry.

PTS employed the Plaintiff and the Class Members to repair
electrical and mechanical equipment in the oilfield for PTS'
clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com


PETROFAC: Faces GBP400MM Legal Action Over Bribery Scandal
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bow, writing for Evening Standard, reports that a legal
fund backed by one of the world's biggest activist investors, Paul
Singer, was on Feb. 11 preparing to pull the trigger on a £400
million legal claim over the bribery scandal engulfing oil engineer
Petrofac.

The oil services group, headquartered in London, is in the firing
line of litigation funding arm Innsworth -- which is owned by
Singer's Elliott Management. It previously mounted legal action
against Volkswagen and Tesco.

Innsworth is gearing up to file a group claim on behalf of
institutional investors such as large US and UK pension funds,
claiming they suffered "substantial losses" on their Petrofac
investments from 2010 onwards.

The legal funding firm, which backs class action lawsuits in return
for getting a cut of any payout, says Petrofac misled investors
about corporate compliance governance and business performance,
which led to "substantial losses" for shareholders.

Petrofac declined to comment.

Innsworth, formerly known as Bentham Europe, first said it was
considering a legal claim against Petrofac in 2017 when a Serious
Fraud Office probe emerged before ramping up plans this year.

The claim, which has yet to be filed, is expected to be worth £400
million. Lawyers from London-listed Keystone Law are working on the
case.

Petrofac shares have fallen more than 40% since the SFO confirmed
an investigation over suspected bribery, corruption and money
laundering in May 2017.

The case has been given added impetus after Petrofac's former
global sales head, David Lufkin, pleaded guilty to 11 counts of
bribery. The guilty plea was linked to corrupt payments made in
Saudi Arabia and Iraq to win billions of pounds of contracts.

However, Petrofac confirmed that no charges have been brought
against any of its companies or any other officers or employees.

"Although not charged, a number of Petrofac individuals and
entities are alleged to have acted together with the individual
concerned. No current board member of Petrofac is alleged to have
been involved," it added.

Elliott is one of the world's best-known hedge funds and waged a
14-year legal battle with Argentina's government over debt
defaults.

Aside from its legal funding arm, it takes activist positions and
pushed for company overhauls. Most recently it shook up Whitbread
by forcing the sale of Costa Coffee to Coca-Cola. [GN]


PRIMO MANAGEMENT: Anderson Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
Mark Anderson, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Primo Management Group, Inc. Israel
Sanchez, Jr. and Sean Chesser, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00184
(M.D. Fla., January 29, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, minimum wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Primo is a company engaged in the timeshare cancellation industry
with a call center at 7200 Lake Ellenor Drive, Orlando, FL,  where
Anderson worked as a call center agent. Anderson claims to be
incorrectly classified as an independent contractor and despite
working more than forty hours in numerous workweeks, he never
received time-and-a-half for each overtime hour worked. Primo also
failed to maintain and keep accurate time records, asserts the
complaint.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott C. Adams, Esq.
      N. Ryan Labar, Esq.
      LABAR AND ADAMS, P.A.
      2300 E. Concord St.
      Orlando, FL 32803
      Tel: (407) 835-8968
      Fax: (407) 835-8969
      Email: sadams@labaradams.com
             rlabar@labaradams.com


PROSHARES TRUST II: David Ford Hits Fund Devaluation
----------------------------------------------------
David A. Ford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Proshares Trust II, Proshare Capital
Management LLC, Todd B. Johnson, Edward Karpowicz, Michael L.
Sapir, Louis M. Mayberg, ABN AMRO Clearing Chicago LLC, Banca IMI
Securities Corp., Barclays Capital INC., BNP Paribas Securities
Corp., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities
Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., HRT Financial LLC, Jefferies LLC, J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC, Knight Execution & Clearing Services, LLC,
Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp., Mizuho Securities USA
LLC, Newedge USA LLC, Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC
Capital Markets, LLC, SG Americas Securities, LLC, Timber Hill,
LLC, UBS Securities LLC, Virtu Financial BD LLC and Wedbush
Securities, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00886 (S.D. Ind.,
January 29, 2019), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities
Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Ford purchased shares of ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures
exchange traded funds (ETF). ETF shares trade on stock exchanges
and holds assets such as stocks, commodities, or bonds. It is
benchmarked to the S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures Index, a
benchmark index created by CBOE Exchange, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of CBOE Global Markets, Inc. It purports to measure the
implied volatility of large cap U.S. stocks, over 30 days in the
future.

The complaint asserts that the Trust's May 2017 Registration
Statement failed to disclose that the Fund was susceptible to
losses when faced with significant market turbulence as a result of
the low-volatility environment and acute liquidity risks. On
February 5, 2018, the Fund lost essentially its entire returns over
the preceding six-and-a-half years. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173
      Email: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Tel: (619) 231-1058
      Fax: (619) 231-7423
      Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com


PROVIDENCE, RI: Collected $3.2MM in Speed Camera Fines in 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McGowan and Susan Campbell, writing for WPRI, report that
Providence collected $3.2 million in fines during the first year of
its controversial school-zone speed camera program, despite a
botched rollout that resulted in thousands of tickets being
dismissed, a massive class-action lawsuit and changes to state
law.

Even after the city pays the private company that operates the
portable cameras $1.3 million and finishes shelling out close to
$500,000 in legal fees and refunds related to the lawsuit,
Providence will have netted just under $1.5 million in revenue from
violations issued between January and December of last year,
according to a Target 12 review of city records.

The city's profit is more than the Elorza administration projected
in each of its last two budgets, but the program has not been the
cash cow some predicted following an initial burst of violations
that saw more than 12,000 tickets issued -- at $95 a pop -- from
five cameras in the first 33 days of use. In December, 15 cameras
generated 8,890 tickets, which came with fines of $50 each.

In order to offer a complete overview of Providence's speed camera
program in its first year, Target 12 submitted multiple public
records requests to several city departments, including asking for
a month-by-month breakdown of fines issued between January and
December by camera location.

Target 12 also requested the amount speeding drivers paid in 2018
as well as the amount invoiced by Conduent State & Local Solutions
Inc., the company that oversees the program. We then reviewed
federal court records and city expenditures to determine how much
the lawsuit cost the city.

Our findings show:

   * Providence generated 63,267 violations between January and
December.
   * The city brought in $3.2 million in fines, a collection rate
of above 60%.
   * Conduent State & Local Solutions invoiced the city for $1.3
million.
   * The city is in the process of issuing just under 15,000
refunds -- $20 each -- to drivers who were part of a class-action
lawsuit challenging multiple facets of the speed camera program.
   * The city paid attorneys for the plaintiffs in the class-action
lawsuit $75,000. It also paid its own outside legal counsel,
Greenberg Traurig, LLP, nearly $100,000 to negotiate a settlement
on the lawsuit.
   * Providence Municipal Court dismissed 4,062 tickets, the
majority of which came as a result of printing errors on the first
batch of violations.
   * Cars passed by the 15 camera locations nearly 4 million times
between September and January. During the same period, 40,000
violations or warnings were issued.  

Last January, Providence became the first municipality in
Rhode Island to take advantage of the Automated
School-Zone-Speed-Enforcement System Act, a state law enacted in
2016 that allows cities and towns to install traffic cameras within
a quarter-mile of any type of school and fine all drivers caught
traveling at least 11 miles per hour over the posted speed limit.
To run the program, the city selected Maryland-based Conduent, the
same company that has long managed Providence's red-light camera
system. (The company is a subsidiary of a New Jersey-based
corporation that was formerly a division of Xerox.)

The Elorza administration faced widespread criticism following the
first month of the program, with residents claiming they weren't
properly informed about the cameras and state lawmakers accusing
the city of preying on drivers. But the mayor stood by the program,
predicting other communities would soon follow Providence.

"I do anticipate this is going to be a statewide thing, so I think
it behooves us to get this right as this begins to expand
throughout the state," Elorza said last March.

Public Safety Commissioner Steven Pare eventually acknowledged the
city made mistakes during the first phase of the program, but he
urged the General Assembly to fix the law, not repeal it.

"Don't throw out a good program that is going to protect our kids,"
Mr. Pare told the House Judiciary Committee last April, noting that
violations at one camera location were already down 75% from
January.

In the end, lawmakers allowed the city to keep the cameras,
lowering the fine to $50 and requiring that tickets only be issued
on days school is in session. They also forced communities to
implement longer warning periods and post more signage in
neighborhoods near the devices. Pawtucket officials have announced
they will install similar cameras this year.

The Elorza administration was also forced to settle a class-action
lawsuit that claimed the city didn't include the state's actual
speeding law on tickets and wrongly asserted that violations would
not affect insurance rates.

Under the terms of the settlement, individuals who had already paid
a $95 fine were eligible to receive a $20 refund from the city,
while those who hadn't yet paid their fine were eligible to pay
$75. All members of the class had the option of requesting a new
hearing before a Municipal Court judge, giving them the opportunity
to wipe out their fines altogether or receive a full refund. The
city is expected to complete issuing refunds early this year.

Providence has also agreed to slight changes to its contract with
Conduent. In September, Mr. Pare told the City Council the city now
pays $3,573 per month for each of the 15 active speed cameras, up
from $2,978 a month under a deal approved in 2017. Conduent also
gets $7.90 per violation -- even if the ticket is tossed out or the
driver doesn't pay -- a 40-cent increase from the ordinal deal.

Mr. Pare said Providence would still receive about 75% of all
revenue generated from the speed camera program, but he told the
committee the revised contract better fits the company's "model in
recouping their expenses for the investment on the camera system."
For 2018, it was closer to a 60-40 split for the city.

The changes drew criticism from the Council Finance Committee
Chairman John Igliozzi, who argued the city should not have agreed
to more favorable terms for a private company.

"What they did is said they had a problem and you guys worried
about solving their problem,"
Mr. Igliozzi said.

All the while, Elorza has remained a steadfast supporter of the
program. At a debate held shortly before he was easily re-elected
in November, the mayor made it clear he believes there will come a
time when the city may end up paying more than it takes. He said
that will be worth it.

"It's an investment we're making in kids' safety throughout the
city," Elorza said. "And I've said this before and I'll say it
again: for those folks that are particularly troubled by these
cameras, slow down." [GN]


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Both Sides Claim Class Action Victory
---------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for The Recorder, reports that it's not
uncommon for winners and losers to spin the results of a jury
verdict, but rarely will two sides offer flatly contradictory takes
on what went down.

What is this, soccer for 7-year-olds, where everyone gets a trophy?
How can both sides unequivocally claim that they won?

To be clear, each firm has a top-notch public relations arm. It's
not that the people writing the press releases got it wrong.

Rather, declaring victory in this case has more to do with what you
want to emphasize: the moral high ground or cold, hard cash.

Based solely on the docket entry, the outcome looks like a definite
win for Robbins Geller. "Verdict reached. Jury FINDS: in favor of
plaintiff(s). Polling waived."

The 200-lawyer firm sued Puma Biotech in U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California in 2015 on behalf of lead
plaintiff the Norfolk Pension Fund.

They alleged that the company and its executives made four false or
misleading statements about the results of a clinical trial for
Puma's breast cancer drug neratinib, which treats a particularly
aggressive subset of the disease, HER2-positive breast cancer.
According to the plaintiffs, these misstatements caused two
significant drops in Puma stock.

"This was a case about integrity," said Robbins Geller partner
Jason Forge -- jforge@rgrdlaw.com -- who litigated the case along
with partners Patrick Coughlin, Tor Gronborg, Trig Smith and
Susannah Conn and associates Marco Janoski, Debashish Bakshi, Ting
Liu and Grace Cho.

Securities fraud class actions almost never go to trial. Since the
passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
only 15 cases have been tried to verdict, according to Robbins
Geller.

The Latham team sees an even smaller universe, noting that only two
matters of equivalent size have been decided by juries—Vivendi SA
and Household International.

Robbins Geller was counsel in Household, scoring the all-time
largest securities class recovery following a trial: $1.575
billion.

According to defense counsel from Latham, the Robbins Geller team
had similar hopes for Puma, claiming $1.1 billion in investor
losses before trial.

Given Puma's market cap of about $1 billion, "This was literally a
bet-the-company case," said Latham partner Andrew Clubok, who led
the defense trial team along with partner Michele Johnson. The
Latham team also included partners Colleen Smith and Sarah
Tomkowiak and associates Kristin Murphy, Meryn Grant, Amanda
Betsch, Jordan Cook, Clayton LaForge, Wes Horton, Allie O'Hara,
Andrew Dane and Remy Lamons.

Mr. Clubok said they stressed four key themes: The drug was safe
and effective, Puma told the truth, Puma executives had no motive
to commit fraud, and the stock drops were caused by other factors.

The result? A mixed bag.

After a two-week trial before U.S. District Judge Andrew Guilford
and four days of deliberations, the jury found that the defendants
knowingly made false or misleading statements regarding the
disease-free survival rates of people who took neratinib. However,
the jurors found that the three other statements at issue were not
misleading.

The jurors also found the misleading statement "played a
substantial part" in causing Puma's stock to drop on one of the two
alleged occasions.

The Robbins Geller team claims vindication. "We're very thankful
and grateful the jury saw this for what it was: Securities fraud,"
Mr. Forge said.

But here's the thing. The jurors awarded $4.50 in damages per
share. According to Latham, that's a mere 4.77 percent of the
damages that were claimed.

Moreover, it's not an automatic payout. Absent class members must
submit claims and prove they're entitled to a recovery. And in
other mega-securities class actions, Latham said only 20 to 40
percent of investors did so.

Mr. Forge disputes those figures, adding that most of Puma's shares
are held by institutional investors. Nowadays, he said such
investors can easily submit their claims electronically and are
likely to respond in greater numbers.

Nor will everyone automatically get $4.50 a share. For example,
lead plaintiff Norfolk Pension Fund claimed it lost $1.35 million
as a result of the fraud. At $4.50 a share, that works out to
$64,000, according to Latham. But during the class period the
pension fund also made $65,000 on other Puma stock transactions,
which could potentially be offset against the losses, Latham said.
Which may mean the fund's damages are zero.

Still, Robbins Geller in its press release says class members could
wind up being awarded "up to $100 million."

Latham predicts it will be far less—$9 million to $18 million.
"Minuscule," is how the firm described the anticipated damages in
its press release.

Conventional wisdom holds that certified securities class actions
that survive a motion to dismiss typically settle for 10 to 20
percent of the claimed losses. If so, the plaintiffs might have
walked away before trial with a nine-figure check from Puma.

But Mr. Forge doesn't see it that way.

That Puma and its CEO "would declare a finding that they committed
securities fraud a victory may be more damning than the finding
itself," he said. "Everybody talks about corporate culture. What
more do you need to know?… That cheating people is OK if it
doesn't cost us much?"

Mr. Clubok responded, "What the company and its CEO are relieved
about is that they can get back to the work they're doing
developing a treatment for the worst kind of breast cancer," he
said. "We think the jury got even the small award wrong, but the
important thing is that the life-saving medicine the company is
developing will still get to patients." [GN]


QUADRIGACX: Class Action Being Coordinated After Sudden Closure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Chong, writing for News BTC, reports that in a matter of
weeks, the demise of QuadrigaCX, once Canada's largest Bitcoin
exchange, has reached the front pages of mainstream media outlets
worldwide. Bloomberg, Reuters, and Fox Business are among the mass
of notable outlets that have covered this debacle.

While their coverage of this situation has brought things to light
that should be known, relatively little attention has been given to
those affected, a purported 115,000. Some lost close-to-zero in
funds, while others lost their life savings. Bloomberg recently sat
down with one Canadian client of the platform, who lives in the
same city that the exchange purportedly has headquarters in. His
story wasn't pretty. Please heed his story.

Unfortunately, the QuadrigaCX case hasn't been without its victims.
In the aforementioned interview, victim Tong Zou explained his
story. Mr. Zou, a thirty-something Canadian software engineer who
held a variety of developing stints (BitTorrent, Spiget, Walmart,
etc.) in Silicon Valley, moved to Vancouver just months ago in
search of something new. As expected, Mr. Zou sought to move his
savings, then situated in accounts of American financial
institutions, which were valued at over $400,000.

While such a move is mandated, especially for so-called "repats"
looking to start anew in their own home nation, Mr. Zou chose a
peculiar route. This was, of course, to purchase Bitcoin on
American exchanges, before moving said cryptocurrency holdings over
to Canadian exchanges for subsequent liquidation.

Like many newcomers to the Canadian crypto economy, Mr. Zou was
drawn in by QuadrigaCX, determining that the Vancouver-based
exchange was the right platform for him to use. Maybe, he thought
that he could visit the exchange's 'offices' if things went south.
Anyhow, he deposited his Bitcoin, effectively a majority of his
liquid assets, and liquidated the cryptocurrency for $560,000
Canadian dollars.

As Mr. Zou needed the money for a deposit on a Vancouver property,
he issued a withdrawal request. Yet, Quadriga failed to pay its
dues, and left Mr. Zou hanging for months on end. He remarked:

"I wasn't using it for trading -- I just wanted to move my money
over to my Canadian bank account . . .  What I didn't know was that
my withdrawal would be pending or incomplete and it never got
deposited in my bank account. I've been waiting four months so
far."

While online hearsay indicates that users receive their withdrawals
. . . eventually, Quadriga's sudden closure likely put a nail in
the coffin for Mr. Zou, so to speak.

Mr. Zou, who believes that it isn't curtains closed for the
$422,000 that he is owed, is currently coordinating class-action
efforts with his fellow victims, who have purportedly turned to
Bennet Jones LLP and McInnes Cooper.

This recent harrowing story comes as Elementus, a blockchain
research unit, divulged that there's a chance that QuadrigaCX never
held 430,000 Ethereum (ETH) in its supposed "cold storage" wallets.
Rumor has it that the company never held $100 million worth of
Bitcoin either. [GN]


RADIANT LOGISTICS: Barahona Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Radiant Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a purported class action suit entitled, Ingrid
Barahona v. Accountabilities, Inc. d/b/a/ Accountabilities
Staffing, Inc., Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. and DBA Distribution
Services, Inc.

On October 25, 2013, plaintiff Ingrid Barahona filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of
California against RGL, DBA Distribution Services, Inc. ("DBA", a
wholly-owned subsidiary), and two third-party staffing companies
(collectively, the "Staffing Defendants") with whom Radiant and DBA
contracted for temporary employees.

In the lawsuit, Ms. Barahona, on behalf of herself and the putative
class, seeks damages and penalties under California law, plus
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, along with equitable
remedies, alleging that she and the putative class were the subject
of unfair and unlawful business practices, including certain wage
and hour violations relating to, among others, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, failure to pay minimum wages and overtime,
and failure to reimburse employees for work-related expenses. Ms.
Barahona alleges that she was jointly employed by the staffing
companies and Radiant and DBA.

Radiant and DBA deny Ms. Barahona's allegations in their entirety,
deny that they are liable to Ms. Barahona or the putative class
members in any way, and are vigorously defending against these
allegations based upon a preliminary evaluation of applicable
records and legal standards. However, if Ms. Barahona were to
prevail on her allegations on all claims against the Company, the
Company could be liable for uninsured damages in an amount that,
while not significant when evaluated against either the Company's
assets or current and expected level of annual earnings, could be
material when judged against the Company's earnings in the
particular quarter in which any such damages arose, if at all.

The case remains involved in various procedural matters, including
motions, discovery requests, status conferences, and mediations
that to date have not led to settlement or resolution of the
claims.

Radiant Logistics said, "At this time, the Company is unable to
express an opinion as to the likely outcome of the matter."

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

Radiant Logistics, Inc. operates as a third-party logistics and
multi-modal transportation services company primarily in the United
States and Canada. The company offers domestic and international
air and ocean freight forwarding services; and freight brokerage
services, including truckload, less than truckload, and intermodal
services. Radiant Logistics, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is
headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.


RAYMOND JAMES: Continues to Defend Brink Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Raymond James Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Jyll
Brink.

On February 17, 2015, Brink filed a putative class action complaint
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(the "District Court") under the caption Jyll Brink v. Raymond
James & Associates, Inc. (the "Brink Complaint"). The Brink
Complaint alleges that Brink, a former customer of RJ&A, was
charged a fee in her Passport Investment Account, and that the fee
included an unauthorized and undisclosed profit to RJ&A in
violation of its customer agreement and applicable industry
standards.

The Passport Investment Account is a fee-based account in which
clients pay asset-based advisory fees and certain processing fees
for ongoing investment advice and monitoring of securities
holdings. The Brink Complaint seeks, among other relief, damages in
the amount of the difference between the actual cost of processing
a trade, as alleged by Brink, and the fee charged by RJ&A.

On May 9, 2016, RJ&A filed a motion to dismiss the Brink Complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Securities
Litigation Uniform Standards Act ("SLUSA"). On June 6, 2016, the
District Court entered an order granting the motion and dismissing
the Brink Complaint on SLUSA preclusion grounds. On June 24, 2016,
Brink filed a notice of appeal of the order of dismissal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the
"Appellate Court").

On June 8, 2018, the Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing
the order of dismissal and remanding the case to the District Court
for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. On October 19,
2018, the District Court certified a class of former and current
customers of RJ&A who executed a Passport Agreement and were
charged such fees during the period between February 17, 2010 and
February 17, 2015. On January 18, 2019, the Appellate Court entered
an order granting permission to RJ&A to appeal the District Court's
class certification order. On January 25, 2019, the District Court
issued an order staying trial, calendar call and all remaining
pretrial deadlines pending resolution of the appeal.

RJ&A's initial appellate brief is due February 27, 2019. RJ&A
believes the claims in the Brink Complaint are without merit and is
vigorously defending the action.

Raymond James Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages in
the underwriting, distribution, trading, and brokerage of equity
and debt securities, and the sale of mutual funds and other
investment products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and
internationally. It operates in five segments: Private Client Group
(PCG), Capital Markets, Asset Management, RJ Bank, and Other. The
company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in St. Petersburg,
Florida.


RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Class Certification Sought in Kaur Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kuldeep Kaur moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit titled KULDEEP KAUR, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00251-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), and
further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief
from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and
requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

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,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff avers.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, 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


REXALL SUNDOWN: Clement Sues Over False Product Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Clement, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rexall Sundown, Inc. and The
Nature's Bounty Company, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01051
(E.D. N.Y., February 21, 2019) seeks relief on behalf of plaintiff
and a class of all purchasers of "Triple Strength" Osteo Bi-Flex
for common law fraud, breach of an express warranty, breach of New
York General Business Law, and for recovery of unjust enrichment.

While Rexall and NBTY have repeatedly been accused by private
Plaintiffs of selling products that simply do not work as
advertised to relive pain or improve health, they do market one
product that contains an ingredient clinically demonstrated to ease
the pain and discomfort of swollen, stiff joints. This product is
known as "Osteo Bi-Flex" with "Joint Shield".

According to the complaint, the Defendants have knowingly and
systematically underdosed consumers seeking relief from Osteo
Bi-Flex, while falsely claiming that such products contain a
"triple strength dose". By doing so, the Defendants unlawfully save
on the cost of ingredients, while shortchanging the consumers who
are in the greatest physical discomfort. In short, the Defendants
sell a single strength dose while foisting it off as triple
strength dose, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Daniel Clement purchased Osteo Bi-Flex Jint Health Triple
Strength with Vitamin D in late 20018 and in the beginning of
2019.

Rexall Sundown, Inc. and its corporate parent, Nature's Bounty
Company, Inc. ("NBTY"), are producers of nutritional supplements
which are sold at retail outlets throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
     ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES
     420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2440
     New York, NY 10170
     Phone: 212-867-1156
     Fax: 212-504-8343
     Email: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com

          - and -

     Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq.
     PASKOWITZ LAW FIRM P.C.
     208 East 51st Street, Suite 380
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: 212-685-0969
     Fax: 212-685-2306
     Email: lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com


RHODE ISLAND: ACLU Files Class Actions Over Jail Conditions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Lackey, writing for The Washington Post, reports that a
brutal arctic cold wave, which saw temperatures plummet to as low
as -56 degrees Fahrenheit and caused at least 23 deaths, has passed
for most Americans. But many of the men and women incarcerated in
the United States continue to suffer from the weather in shockingly
deplorable conditions. Their recent plight is only the most recent
manifestation of a much larger problem.

Nelson Mandela, who himself spent 27 years behind bars in South
Africa, famously said, "No one truly knows a nation until one has
been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it
treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones." By Mandela's
standard, the United States is not faring well.

During the cold snap,1,200 prisoners were left sick and frantic in
freezing cells in Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center, a
federal prison. Despite the frigid conditions, they were reportedly
denied access to extra clothing and blankets. The inmates were left
to bang pots and pans on their cell windows to signal their
distress.

Unfortunately, these appalling conditions are not uncommon.

The American Civil Liberties Union recently filed a class-action
lawsuit accusing the Rhode Island Department of Corrections of
housing prisoners in cells with no heat, even as temperatures
dropped to 1 degree.

At least 23 people have died behind bars in Texas since 1998 due to
extreme temperatures; a recent lawsuit alleges that the Texas
Department of Corrections continues to deny Dallas prisoners
protection from dangerous weather conditions.

And a federal lawsuit in Louisiana last year revealed that prison
staff punish suicidal and mentally ill inmates by exposing them to
extreme cold while being chained to wooden chairs.

Extreme weather conditions are only one tool the American
criminal-justice system uses to send the message that inmates are
less than human.

More than 60,000 Americans are in solitary confinement, spending 22
to 24 hours in their cells per day. Prisoners who are isolated for
this number of hours, sometimes for decades at a time, are often
driven to the brink of insanity. They experience delusions, engage
in desperate acts of self-mutilation and attempt suicide at
alarming rates.

Mental-health issues more generally are often ignored behind bars.
About 2 million people with mental illness are incarcerated each
year; at least 83 percent lack access to necessary treatment.

And nearly 25,000 prisoners report being subject to sexual
harassment or assault while incarcerated in the United States,
according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Transgender
prisoners are particularly vulnerable to sexual violence.

The question we should ask here is how this dehumanization has been
hidden from our sight -- and why.

Prisons often occupy the"geography of nowhere." They are found in
unpopulated areas, far away from cities, so that both the
facilities and the people they hold are invisible to most of the
general public. We often hear talk of "removing" criminals from
society; the location of prisons makes that rhetoric a reality.

Voter disenfranchisement is widespread in prisons in the United
States. Only two states, Maine and Vermont, allow prisoners to vote
while they're incarcerated. Inmates quite literally are denied a
voice in the democratic process. Elected officials can ignore them
and their concerns, while the U.S. Census Bureau still counts
incarcerated persons as "residents" of the location of the prisons
rather than their home communities, shifting representation in
Congress away from towns and cities with urgent needs.

Elections aren't the only part of public discourse that excludes
prisoners. They typically don't have smart phones or internet
access, cutting them off from the use of email, social media and
any other form of electronic communication. They can't post
photographs on Instagram that reveal the conditions of their cells
or write Facebook posts about their treatment by correctional
officers.

Brittany Foote, who was incarcerated in North Dakota for burglary,
captured this feeling of isolation when she said: "It just feels
like you get lost, you feel like they forget about you. You start
to feel invisible, kind of like a ghost walking around here."

If we don't count the incarcerated as citizens because they are
erased from our collective consciousness, we don't have to account
for our treatment of them when weighing our greatness as a nation.

The first step toward ending this moral blight is a willingness to
lift the veil of ignorance on the conditions of our incarcerated
community members. We can see this in the recent actions taken by
city and state officials in New York. In response to the protests
and media attention regarding the conditions at the Brooklyn
detention center, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) sent a truck
with blankets, hand warmers and generators to the facility. And New
York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) called for an investigation, tweeting,
"Prisoners are human beings. Let's treat them that way."

Recognizing that those in prison are our fellow humans and citizens
reminds us of what we should have known all along: Criminal
convictions should not lead to the denial of basic rights and human
dignity. [GN]


SCHMITT INC: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Electricians, Marquez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS MARQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCHMITT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
8:19-cv-00236 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 30, 2019) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Marquez was employed by the Defendant as
electrician.

Schmitt, Inc. provides mechanical contracting services. The Company
offers heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system
installation, as well as renders maintenance, repair, and
replacement services. Schmitt serves customers in the State of
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew K. Fenton, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: mfenton@wfclaw.com


SIMPLE HABIT: Wellness App Firm Faces Class Action in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simple Habit, Inc.
The case is styled as Brianna Rivera, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Simple Habit, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation and Does 1 - 10, Inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-01259 (C.D. Cal., February 20, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as other
contract.

Simple Habit, Inc. provides a mobile application for meditation.
The company makes mental wellness accessible and practical for busy
people. Its application is available on App Store and Google Play.
The company was incorporated in 2016 and is based in San Francisco,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Scott J Ferrell, Esq.
   Pacific Trial Attorneys APC
   4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
   Newport Beach, CA 92660
   Tel: (949) 706-6464
   Fax: (949) 706-6469
   Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com


SMILEY DENTAL: Class Certification Sought in Rodriguez Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the case, JANIE RODRIGUEZ ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, vs. SMILEY DENTAL
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC; SD-BRAUN, P.C.; SD-POTRANCO, P.C.;
SD-DEZAVALA, P.C.; SD-ROOSEVELT, P.C.; SD-933SCHERTZ, P.C.;
SD-4315FREDERICK, P.C.; LYNH PHAM; AND THANG "KIDO" PHAM, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-01047-DAE (W.D. Tex.), asks the Court
for an order certifying a class of:

   "all current and former hourly employees employed by Defendants
   in the State of Texas from [three years prior to the date the
   notice is issued] to the present who worked at more than one of

   Defendants’ various locations in any workweek and whose hours

   worked at each of those locations were not aggregated for
   purposes of calculating overtime pay due."

The Class consists of only those persons whose aggregated hours, at
Defendants' various locations, in a workweek equal more than 40
hours in that workweek.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Melissa Morales Fletcher, Esq.
          Allison S. Hartry, Esq.
          THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
          6243 IH-1O West, Suite 132
          San Antonio, TX 78201
          Telephone: 210 225 0811
          Facsimile: 210 225 0821
          E-mail: Melissa@themoralesfirm.com
                  ahartry@themoralesfirm.com

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Ruth Ann Daniels, Esq.
          Amanda M. Inabnett, Esq.
          GRAY REED & MCGRAW LLP
          1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 954-4135
          Facsimile: (214) 953-1332
          E-mail: rdaniels@grayreed.com
                  ainabnett@grayreed.com

SPECTRA ENERGY: Faces Morris Suit in Delaware
---------------------------------------------
Spectra Energy Partners is defending the class action lawsuit, PAUL
MORRIS, on behalf of all similarly situated former unitholders of
SPECTRA ENERGY PARTNERS, LP, the Plaintiff, vs. SPECTRA ENERGY
PARTNERS (DE) GP, LP, the Defendant, Case No. 2019-0097 (D. Del.,
Feb. 8, 2018).

Spectra Energy Partners, LP operates as an investment arm of
Spectra Energy Corp. Spectra Energy Partners, LP, through its
subsidiaries, engages in the transportation of natural gas through
interstate pipeline systems, and the storage of natural gas in
underground facilities in the United States.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff:

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

SUNSET MESA: Faces Class Action Over Sale of Dead Body Parts
------------------------------------------------------------
Erin McIntyre, writing for Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, reports
that a class-action lawsuit alleges a Montrose funeral home and its
owner worked with a network of conspirators who helped provide a
ready supply of bodies to broker their dismembered parts, selling
them to companies eager to get a discount on heads, legs, arms and
other body parts.

Sixty plaintiffs involved in the suit, filed by attorneys with
Denver-based Burg Simpson law firm, have accused Sunset Mesa
Funeral Directors owner Megan Hess; her parents, Shirley and Alan
Koch; Montrose County Coroner Thomas Canfield; and a wide array of
other individuals, businesses and health care providers of being
part of a scheme that promised cremation and burial of bodies but
instead profited from selling the bodies in parts or whole here in
the U.S. and internationally. In all but seven of the cases
involved in the lawsuit, FBI agents contacted the plaintiffs to
inform them that their investigation showed their loved ones' body
parts had been sold by Hess. In the remainder of the cases, the
families had cremains tested and received results indicating they
were not human.

The 66-page complaint, which asks for a jury trial, accuses Hess
and her network of alleged providers of predatory behavior in
taking advantage of families during the worst times in their lives
-- after the death of loved ones. The defendants named are accused
of helping to traffic illegally obtained bodies, procuring them for
profit or turning a blind eye to the dark dealings.

Some of the families didn't hire Sunset Mesa to handle final
arrangements, yet the funeral home still acquired their bodies.

"The bereaved are preyed upon, the deceased are desecrated, and
grieving families are left shocked, outraged, betrayed and without
peace or knowledge of what has become of their loved ones," the
complaint said.

The suit alleges in several cases that families were defrauded when
they declined to donate body parts and were later informed by FBI
investigators that Hess had sold specific body parts to various
companies instead of cremating the remains. She allegedly did so
through a nonprofit corporation she operated under the same roof
called Donor Services.

"Instead, Hess took their cadavers to a back room at the funeral
parlor where her mother Shirley Koch would dismember their corpses
using a power saw, stack the pieces in coolers and, when there
wasn't enough room, in the back of a flower refrigerator," the
lawsuit said. "After this crude dissection, the deceased's head,
legs, arms, pelvis, torso or whole-body would then be prepared for
sale by Hess' father, Alan Koch, and shipped for profit to
companies including M.D. Global, LLC, Southwest Institute of
Bio-Advancement, Innoved Institute, LLC, Axogen Corporation, The
American Plastination Company, Robarts Research Institute and
currently unknown (other defendants)."

The lawsuit claims these companies, which preserve body parts for
specimens or use them for research purposes, should have known they
couldn't have been legally obtained because the body parts didn't
come with proper documentation and were a fraction of the cost of
the going market rate.

"Donor Services' price list offered torsos for $1,000, a pelvis
(with upper legs) for $1,200, heads for $500, $250 for a knee and
$125 for a foot," the lawsuit said. "These prices advertised by
Hess and Donor Services were arrestingly below market prices."

By comparison, attorneys cited prices charged by a Biological
Resource Center, an Arizona company where 10 tons of body parts
were found when it was raided by the FBI in 2014. The company
reportedly charged three times as much for a torso as Sunset Mesa's
price list -- $3,191.

Even with selling the parts at discounted rates, Hess reportedly
made a tidy profit. The lawsuit alleges she bragged to others that
she was making $40,000 a month selling body parts. Shirley Koch,
meanwhile, claimed the family paid for a trip to Disneyland by
selling gold teeth from cadavers, according to the suit.

The body parts buyers named in the suit were identified by the FBI,
according to the complaint. It seems some family members perused
their online catalogues after receiving the news and found a grisly
surprise.

"In some cases, plaintiffs have been able to go online and find
pictures of their loved ones' plastinated cadavers being offered
for rent or sale," the lawsuit said.

Other individuals, organizations or businesses named in the suit
include:

   -- HopeWest hospice or its employees, which some families said
arranged for Sunset Mesa to pick up family members' bodies without
consultation. In one case, a woman said Hess arrived to pick up her
mother's body at HopeWest in Montrose within minutes of her
mother's death, which she hadn't arranged. The woman was later
notified by the FBI that her mother was never cremated, what they
scattered in Ireland wasn't her, and that Sunset had sold her
mother's body to a company in Saudi Arabia.

   -- Montrose County Coroner Thomas Canfield, who is accused of
arranging for Hess to transport bodies, thus ensuring she had an
advantage by contacting families first and also arranging for
bodies to be transported to Sunset Mesa without consent. The
lawsuit claims Canfield gave Sunset Mesa increased business over
the years and somehow profited from this arrangement.

   -- Retriever Freight Services, a Grand Junction company which
provided international transport of whole bodies on at least one
occasion.

"Retriever knew or should have known that the bodies and body parts
being shipped by Sunset Mesa were being trafficked without legally
required Willed Body Donation forms," the lawsuit said.

In a previous interview, a representative of Retriever said a body
was transported for Sunset Mesa to Turkey via transportation it
arranged with Lufthansa airlines. Alan Koch is also accused of
transporting bodies through his own transportation business.

   -- Mesa Funeral Services, a Grand Junction funeral home that
contracted with Sunset Mesa for cremation. In one case, the FBI
informed two daughters that their parents bodies weren't cremated
-- that their father's heart and eyes were sold to American
Plastination for rent. Their mother's body was sold to an unknown
buyer.

  -- David Haisman and his business, Four Corners Cremation &
Burial Society. Haisman operated a funeral business in Cortez which
used Sunset Mesa for cremation, transporting the bodies more than
150 miles away over Red Mountain Pass. One family said Haisman
conducted a suspicious business deal in which he insisted they pay
cash for the cremains, which he delivered to them in the Sunset
Mesa parking lot. The family later had the cremains tested and
found they were not human. They were informed by the FBI that their
father was dismembered and had his body parts sold to Innoved,
Robarts Research Institute and Axogen.

Mr. Haisman previously operated a funeral home in New Mexico and
had his license revoked in 2012 by a state board that ruled he
acted with fraud in attempting to procure a license, gross
negligence or incompetence and unprofessional or dishonorable
conduct, according to state records. Mr. Haisman obtained his
license to operate in Colorado using Sunset Mesa's address in
Montrose in 2010, according to state records.

The class-action suit is the fourth lawsuit brought against the
funeral home and Hess, though it is the first to name others
accused of being part of the body-brokering scheme. The FBI
investigation continues and no criminal charges have been filed at
this time. [GN]


SWISSPORT USA: Faces Class Action Over Employee Fingerprint Scans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for Cook County Record, reports that an
ex-employee has filed a class action lawsuit against aviation
company Swissport USA, accusing the company of violating her rights
and those of other workers' under an Illinois biometrics privacy
law, when requiring workers to scan their fingeprints when using a
biometric punch clock.

Rashidah Williams, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a complaint on Jan. 24 in Cook County
Circuit Court against Swissport International Ltd. and Swissport
USA Inc. for allegedly violating the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, between March and November 2017, Ms.
Williams was employed by Swissport, where she and other employees
were required to scan their fingers to "clock in" and "clock out"
of work each day. Plaintiff claims defendants used a biometric
timekeeping device that captures, collects, stores and uses the
workers' fingerprints, which they alleged can expose plaintiff and
other members of the class to serious and irreversible privacy
risks.

Ms. Williams claims workers were never informed in writing that
defendants were capturing, collecting, storing or using their
biometric information.

The plaintiff alleges Swissport failed to provide the required
disclosures to inform workers that they were collecting their
biometric identifiers and information and failed to inform workers
of how long they intended to keep the information.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment for all
damages, preliminary and permanent injunction, award all costs, and
such further and other relief the court deems just and appropriate.
She is represented by Frank Castiglione and Kasif Khowaja of The
Khowaja Law Firm in Chicago.

Cook County Circuit Court Case No. 19-CH-00973. [GN]


TAXING AUTHORITY: Smith Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Taxing Authority
Consulting Services, P.C. The case is styled as Bennie Smith,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Taxing Authority Consulting Services, P.C., Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00009-JLK (W.D. Va., February 20, 2019).

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

Taxing Authority Consulting Services, P.C. (TACS) is a Virginia law
firm concentrating its practice on providing tax collection, tax
assessment and bankruptcy representation and other services and
consulting to state and local governments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Aryeh E. Stein, Esq.
   Meridan Law, LLC
   600 Reisterstown Road, Suite 700
   Baltimore, MD 21208
   Tel: (443) 326-6011
   Fax: (410) 653-9061
   Email: astein@meridianlawfirm.com


TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES: Fiduciaries Sued Over Stock Acquisition
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nelson Gamache and Edward Nofi, individually and on behalf of a
class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. John F.
Hogue, Jr. and Graham Thompson, the Administrative Committee of the
Technical Associates of Georgia, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership
Plan, and John Does 1-20, Defendants, and Technical Associates of
Georgia, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Nominal Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-00021 (M.D. Ga., January 29, 2019), seeks to recover
damages caused by violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.

Plaintiffs are former employees of Technical Associates of Georgia,
Inc. and current participants in the Employee Stock Ownership Plan
whose accounts had significant investments in Technical Associates
stock.

Hogue and Thompson allegedly tried to hide the fact that they had
received Technical Associates stock and that the receipt of this
stock would dilute the value of the stock held by the plan.
Thompson and Hogue collectively held a 40% interest in the company.
This is in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
where a fiduciary with respect to a plan is not allowed to deal
with the assets of the plan in his own interest or for his own
account and shall not receive any consideration for his own
personal account from any party dealing with such plan in
connection with a transaction involving the assets of the plan,
asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by.

      William S. Stone
      STONE LAW GROUP - TRIAL LAWYERS, LLC
      P.O. Drawer 70
      Blakely, GA 39823
      Tel: (229) 723-3045
      Email: billstone@stonelaw.com

             - and -

      R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
      Colin M. Downes, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      1735 20th St., N.W.
      Washington, DC 20009
      Tel: (202) 734-7046
      Email: jbarton@blockesq.com
             colin@blockesq.com

             - and -

      Daniel Feinberg, Esq.
      Nina Wasow, esq.
      FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP
      2030 Addison St., Ste. 500
      Berkeley, CA 94704
      Tel: (510) 269-7998
      Email: dan@feinbergjackson.com
             nina@feinbergjackson.com


TIM HORTONS: Franchisees' Class Actions Near Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that Tim Hortons and an association
representing some of its frustrated franchisees are close to
reaching a settlement in two class-action lawsuits the group filed
against the coffee-and-doughnut chain.

Tim Hortons and the Great White North Franchisee Association
submitted a term sheet signed by their respective legal counsel to
justice Edward Morgan at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
Feb. 6.

"I think both parties, we've worked really hard to reach this point
and I think that it's going to be positive for the Tim Hortons
brand moving forward and for our guests and for Tim Horton
franchisees," said Mark Walker, the GWNFA's president.

The three-page document, which comes after weeks of negotiations
between the two parties, is non-binding, but outlines the key
points to a future settlement in the two cases.

The first lawsuit, filed in June 2017, alleged Restaurant Brands
International, the parent company of Tim Hortons, improperly used
funds from a national advertising fund. It sought $500 million in
damages. RBI denied the allegations and they have not been proven
in court.

The second lawsuit, filed in Oct. 2017, alleged RBI subverted the
franchisees' right to associate by denying future store
opportunities to franchisees "not aligned" with the chain's
interest, for example, or setting aside a $2-billion fund to buy
out the GWNFA's current and future members. RBI also denied these
allegations and they were also not proven in court.

The key terms of a future settlement address some of these
concerns, said Walker and a source familiar with the case.

The parties agree that the coffee chain's elected advisory board
remains the only organization that represents the franchisees'
interest. Though, that does not mean the dissolution of the GWNFA,
which Walker said will continue to serve its membership and help
franchisees in whichever way it can.

The term paper states Tim Hortons has not interfered with any
franchisee who joins or participates in an association, and will
not do so in the future.

Tim Hortons will shorten members' terms from four years to three
and will shift to electronic voting. Previously, only franchisees
who attended the chain's convention could cast a ballot.

Additionally, four members of the advisory board will review
substantial details of the advertising fund spending at least four
times a year in an apparent effort to increase transparency of the
disputed monies.

Mr. Walker also reviewed a summary of the fund's spending from
2015-17 and said he received satisfactory answers to questions he
had.

Tim Hortons will also pay $5 million a year for two years to boost
local and regional marketing budgets. Local regions will determine
how to use those funds.

The chain will also pay $2 million to the GWNFA's law firm,
Toronto-based Himelfarb Proszanski.

The move came as the GWNFA had a hearing in court for the judge to
rule on whether a third party company could help fund their suit.

The judge was likely to rule on the funding request on Feb. 7, the
source said, and booked two additional court dates after the term
paper was submitted.

The two parties will continue negotiating details and aim to bring
an agreement to the judge on March 21, said the source.

That agreement would then be sent to every Canadian franchisee, who
will have four weeks to accept or reject the terms.

The judge will hold another hearing on April 26 when any dissenting
franchisees will have their voices heard and make a final ruling on
the settlement.

The company has spent the last year working closely with its
restaurant owners, said Alex Macedo, the chain's president, in a
statement.

"These lawsuits and previous public disagreements with some
restaurant owners don't reflect how positive our relationship is
today and all the progress we have made together to focus on
building the business," he said.

"It became obvious to all of us that we need to put these lawsuits
behind us and focus on what Canadians care about -- great coffee,
great food and great support for our communities across Canada."
[GN]


TRIDENT ASSET: Cupo Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections
-----------------------------------------------------
JOHN CUPO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRIDENT ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC; and JOHN DOES
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02034-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., Jan. 30,
2019) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means
to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Chief Judge Jose L.
Linares and referred to Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson

Trident Asset Management, LLC is a collection and servicing company
for non-performing consumer receivables. [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


TRINITY INTEGRITY: Forlenza Sues for Retaliation Over Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Forlenza, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Trinity Integrity Group, Inc. and
Lisa Tagliabue, individually and in her official capacity,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00567, (E.D. N.Y., January 29, 2019)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime, minimum and spread-of-hours wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York labor laws,
including redress for failure to provide accurate wage statements
and wage notices upon hiring and upon each change of pay.

Trinity is a company that provides training to students interested
in learning hairdressing and cosmetology. Forlenza worked for
Trinity from September 11, 2017 to August 23, 2018 as a
receptionist. Defendants failed to pay Forleza overtime
compensation at a rate of one and one-half times her regular rate
of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Trinity
terminated Forleza in retaliation for her complaint about their
wage violations, relates the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian A. Bodansky, Esq.
      BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
      100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 208
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 280-3008
      Fax: (212) 656-1845
      Email: bb@belllg.com


TRISTAR: 6th Cir. Urged to Reverse Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that the Justice
Department wasn't kidding last year when it said it was going to
start exercising its power under the Class Action Fairness Act to
police class action settlements. On Feb. 4, lawyers from the Civil
Division filed an amicus brief urging the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals to reverse the final approval of a settlement granting
owners of allegedly defective Tristar pressure cookers a coupon to
buy new products from the same company. To the best of my
knowledge, this brief marks the first time that the government has
cited the CAFA requirement that it be notified of prospective class
action settlements to urge an appeals court to reject an approved
deal.

The Justice Department, which previously protested the proposed
settlement before it was approved last year by U.S. District Judge
James Gwin of Cleveland, argued in the appellate amicus brief that
the pressure cooker deal is precisely the sort of settlement
Congress wanted to stamp out when it enacted CAFA. Class members
are entitled only to $72.50 coupons for new pressure cookers. The
coupons are nontransferable and have no cash value. They're also
only good for certain Tristar products, all of which cost way more
than $72.50. So, according to DOJ, class members who go to the
trouble of filing a claim to receive a coupon will have to pay
Tristar nearly $120 to use the coupon to buy a replacement pressure
cooker – even though many of the allegedly defective pressure
cookers at issue in the case cost less than $100.

And that's not the worst of it, in the Justice Department's view.
Judge Gwin awarded class counsel from Greg Coleman Law more than
$1.9 million, with another $900,000 dedicated to administrative
costs. That's $3 million in cash from Tristar that, according to
DOJ, could have gone to class members instead of plaintiffs'
lawyers and settlement administrators. It's little wonder, DOJ
argued, that so few class members -- about 13,000 of more than 3
million class members -- signed up to receive a coupon.

"The unfairness of the Tristar settlement is obvious when the
dubious discounts provided to class members are compared to the
multi-million-dollar cash award it provides to their counsel," the
DOJ brief said. (I should point out that Judge Gwin heard the same
arguments from DOJ at an approval hearing last July and
nevertheless blessed the settlement as a fair and reasonable
outcome to a complex case so hard-fought that trial had actually
begun before Tristar, represented by Tucker Ellis, agreed to a
deal.)

DOJ's position on the merits of the Tristar settlement is hardly a
surprise, given that it made virtually the same arguments before
Judge Gwin. The brief may be more notable, in fact, for what it
doesn't say than for what it does.

That's because it's not clear that the 6th Circuit has jurisdiction
over the merits of the Tristar class action settlement. Not a
single class member objected to the deal. The Justice Department
and 18 state attorneys general turned up after time ran for
objectors to express their qualms about the proposed agreement.
After Judge Gwin signaled that he would grant final approval,
Arizona and its attorney general moved to intervene in the case to
appeal his ruling, arguing that Arizona has an interest in
safeguarding the rights of its citizens who are class members.
Judge Gwin denied the motion.

Arizona appealed both the denial of its motion to intervene and the
decision approving the settlement to the 6th Circuit, which agreed
to consolidate the two cases. So a threshold matter, as Arizona
pointed out in the appellate brief it filed at the 6th Circuit, is
whether the state even has a right to challenge Judge Gwin's
approval of the Tristar settlement because it is not a party in the
case.

Arizona argues that the active engagement of state AGs in policing
class action settlements serves the interests of absent class
members. "Intervention and appeal here is not only warranted based
on the harm the settlement does to consumer class members, it is
consistent with the active role the Arizona Attorney General is
playing in the class action settlement approval process across the
country, helping ensure compliance with CAFA's requirements and
drive increased value to consumers," the AG's brief said. "In many
ways this is precisely the type of class action settlement
proceeding in which intervention is warranted because, absent
intervention and appeal, there will be no appellate review and
correction of the patent settlement approval errors."

This is a really important issue with scant precedent directly on
point, at least based on Arizona's brief. Arizona cites lots of
cases affirming states' standing to bring parens patriae claims on
behalf of residents and many examples of states filing amicus
briefs to highlight problems in proposed class settlements -- but
offers no case law on states' rights to intervene and become
parties in class actions on behalf of their citizens. Arizona
argues that Judge Gwin erroneously held it doesn't have a
protectable interest in protecting Arizona consumers from a bad
settlement. It contends that under CAFA, the federal rule for class
action procedure and its parens patria power, it has a protectable
interest – and that it cemented its right to appeal by
participating in the proceedings before Judge Gwin.

The Justice Department did not take a stand on Arizona's right to
intervene to appeal Judge Gwin's approval of the settlement. Its
brief at the 6th Circuit focused entirely on the merits of the deal
and said just that it "supports the state of Arizona in asking this
court to reverse the district court's decision," but not
specifically that it backs Arizona's right to intervene in the case
to bring the appeal.

Class counsel Adam Edwards of the Coleman firm and Tristar counsel
John Lewis of Tucker Ellis declined to comment on the Justice
Department amicus brief. Class members have already signaled, in a
brief opposing Arizona's motion to consolidate its appeals, that
they don't think the 6th Circuit has jurisdiction to hear the
state's challenge to the merits of the settlement: "Arizona was not
a party to the underlying action," the brief said. "It did not
successfully intervene in the underlying action. It was not a class
member in the underlying action. It was not an objector to the
settlement of the underlying action. It did not and cannot show
that it has suffered any injury-in-fact. As a result, Arizona has
no constitutional standing to pursue an appeal of anything other
than the district court's denial of its motion to intervene."

Ms. Frankel said "I expect we will hear another version of that
argument when class counsel and Tristar filed their responses to
Arizona's opening brief." [GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court May Render Arbitration Clause Invalid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marlena McMurtry, Esq. -- mmcmurtry@mross.com -- of McLennan Ross
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that Canadian Courts have
consistently held that arbitration clauses are to be given a large
and liberal interpretation. Underpinning this interpretive approach
is the policy of encouraging arbitration and minimizing judicial
interference in the arbitration process. This policy is embodied in
Alberta's Arbitration Act, which directs the Court to not intervene
in the arbitration process and establishes a presumptive stay of
Court proceedings in favour of arbitration.

Despite the strong policy in favour of arbitration, Courts may
still set aside an arbitration clause in the interests of fairness
and justice via the doctrine of unconscionability, as illustrated
in the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Heller v Uber
Technologies Inc. There, the Court held that a universal
arbitration clause that imposed significant barriers on the weaker
contracting party was unconscionable and therefore invalid.

The Heller case arose in the context of a proposed class action
brought by the appellant UberEATS driver (the "Appellant") on
behalf of individuals who had provided food delivery services
and/or personal transportation services through the Uber Apps (the
"Drivers"). In his proposed class action, the Appellant sought a
declaration that the Drivers were employees of Uber and were
therefore entitled to the minimum benefits and protections provided
for under the Employment Standards Act (the "ESA"). The Appellant
further sought declarations that Uber violated provisions of the
ESA and that the arbitration provisions in the service agreements
entered into between Uber and the Drivers were void and
unenforceable. Finally, the Appellant sought damages of $400
million.

The Appellant entered into a Driver services agreement and an
UberEATS services agreement with Uber (the "Agreements"). The
Agreements contained an identical arbitration clause which provided
that arbitration must be held in Amsterdam, under the law of the
Netherlands and must be conducted in accordance with International
Chamber of Commerce rules (the "Arbitration Clause").

Uber brought an application to stay the Appellant's action in
favour of arbitration. In granting Uber's stay application, the
motion Judge held that Courts must enforce arbitration agreements
freely entered into, even in standard form contracts. There were
two issues on appeal: (1) whether the Arbitration Clause amounted
to an illegal contracting out of the ESA, and (2) whether the
Arbitration Clause was unconscionable and thus invalid on that
separate basis.

The Court first reviewed section 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, which
provides that if a party to an arbitration agreement commences a
proceeding in respect of a matter subject to arbitration under an
agreement, the Court shall stay the proceeding, unless one of the
exceptions in s. 7(2) applies, including where the arbitration
agreement is invalid. On the first issue, the Appellant argued that
the Arbitration Clause was invalid as it amounted to a contracting
out of the ESA, which is prohibited under the ESA.

To determine whether one of the exceptions in s. 7(2) of the
Arbitration Act applied, the Court found that, like other
preliminary challenges to the Court's jurisdiction, it had to start
with the presumption that the Appellant could prove what he had
pleaded, namely that he was an employee of Uber. The Court
concluded that the Arbitration Clause was invalid because, based on
the presumption that the Drivers are employees, the Arbitration
Clause was a contracting out of the provisions of the ESA. One
reason was that the Arbitration Clause eliminated the ability to
make a complaint to the Ministry of Labour, thereby depriving the
Drivers of the right to have an Employment Standards Officer
investigate their complaints.

Turning to the second issue, the Court said that regardless of its
first conclusion, it found the Arbitration Clause to be invalid on
the basis of unconscionability, which also brought the Arbitration
Clause within the invalidity exception in s. 7(2) of the
Arbitration Act.

The evidence before the Court was that the cost for a Driver to
participate in the mediation-arbitration process in the Netherlands
pursuant to the Arbitration Clause was $14,5000 US, which did not
include the costs of travel, accommodation and counsel to
participate in the arbitration. The Court juxtaposed those costs
with the Appellant's approximate earnings of $400-$600 per week
based on 40 to 50 hours of work delivering food for UberEATS and
his claim for minimum wage, overtime and vacation pay.

The Court took issue with the motion Judge's finding that disputes
between the Drivers and Uber could be dealt with by dispute
resolution mechanisms available in Ontario and that only a
substantial dispute would require arbitration in the Netherlands.
The Court found that there was no dispute resolution mechanism in
Ontario. The only other avenues available to the Drivers were in
the Philippines or in Chicago, were completely controlled by Uber
and could not be characterized as independent grievance procedures.
The reason only a substantial dispute would go to arbitration was a
direct consequence of the financial barriers that discouraged the
Drivers from engaging in arbitration.

The Court observed that what made the Arbitration Clause clearly
unreasonable was that a Driver with a claim of no more than a few
hundred dollars would have to undertake arbitration in Amsterdam, a
place unconnected to where the Drivers lived and performed their
duties.

The Court addressed the proper test to be applied in determining
whether a contractual provision is unconscionable, and said that
the Ontario approach is to apply the following four-part test:

   1. a grossly unfair and improvident transaction;
   2. a victim's lack of independent legal advice or other suitable
advice;
   3. an overwhelming imbalance in bargaining power caused by the
victim's ignorance of business, illiteracy, ignorance of the
language of the bargain, blindness, deafness, illness, senility, or
similar disability; and
   4. the other party's knowingly taking advantage of this
vulnerability.

The Court then contrasted the Ontario approach with the test for
unconscionability recently applied by Justice Abella in her
concurring reasons in Douez v Facebook, Inc8 that requires only 2
elements: inequality of bargaining power and unfairness. In that
case, the Supreme Court of Canada found that Facebook's forum
selection clause in a standard form contract was unenforceable due
to the gross inequality of bargaining power between Facebook and
its users. The majority did not address the proper elements of the
test for unconscionability, however.

In Heller, the Court found that it was not necessary to decide the
proper elements to be applied in determining unconscionability in
Ontario because, under either statement of the test, the
Arbitration Clause was unconscionable. In arriving at this
conclusion, the Court weighed the following factors:

The Arbitration Clause represented a substantially improvident or
unfair bargain. It required an individual with a small claim to
incur significant up-front costs. Uber was better positioned to
incur the costs associated with the arbitration procedure that it
unilaterally chose and imposed on the Drivers.

There was no evidence that the Drivers had any legal or other
advice prior to entering into the Agreements or had the ability to
negotiate any terms. In that sense, the Drivers were like consumers
such as the users of Facebook in Douez, since they were at the
mercy of terms, conditions and rates set by Uber.

The Arbitration Clause required that the rights of the Drivers be
determined in accordance with the laws of the Netherlands, but the
Drivers were not provided with any information as to what those
laws were.

There was a significant inequality of bargaining power between the
Appellant and Uber.

Uber chose the Arbitration Clause to favour itself and thus take
advantage of its drivers, who were clearly vulnerable to the market
strength of Uber.

The Arbitration Clause operated to defeat the very claims it
purported to resolve.

Application to Alberta

In line with the Ontario approach, the Alberta Courts favour the
four-part test for unconscionability.9 The Heller case provides
useful guidance on the factors that a Court might consider in
deciding whether an arbitration clause should be rendered
unconscionable. [GN]


UNION PACIFIC: Class Action Over Fitness for Duty Evaluation OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Porter Wells, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a group of
Union Pacific Railway Co. workers who say the company fired them
after an allegedly unlawful "fitness for duty" evaluation have won
class certification for their disability discrimination lawsuit.

The class could reach 7,000 members, according to the Feb. 5
opinion from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

Union Pacific's implemented its company-wide fitness for duty
evaluation policy in 2014, the court said. The company allegedly
required workers to disclose health conditions. [GN]


URGENT CARE: Bates Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------
Megan Bates, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Urgent Care of the Palm Beaches, P.A. and
Sharif O. Salehi, individually,, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-80117
(S.D. Fla., January 29, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' and paralegal fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Urgent Care is a walk-in clinic where Bates was employed as a
physician assistant. Urgent Care never paid Bates overtime, at the
rate of one and one half of her correct hourly rate despite working
in excess of 40 hours per week, the complaint alleges. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven L. Schwarzberg, Esq.
     SCHWARZBERG & ASSOCIATES
     625 North Flagler Drive, Suite 600
     West Palm Beach, FL 33401
     Telephone: (561) 659-3300
     Facsimile: (561) 693-4540
     Email: mail@schwarzberglaw.com
            steve@schwarzberglaw.com


USA TECH: Bid to Transfer Consolidated Suit to Pennsylvania Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
USA Technologies, Inc. said in its Form NT 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 11, 2019, for
the period ended December 31, 2018, that the court has not yet
ruled on the motion to transfer the consolidated class action by
Stephane Gouet, David Gray and Anthony E. Phillips.

On September 11, 2018, a purported shareholder, Stephane Gouet,
filed a purported class action complaint against the Company, its
chief executive officer and its then chief financial officer in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
alleged class members are those who purchased securities of the
Company from November 9, 2017 through September 11, 2018.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
disseminated false statements and failed to disclose material facts
during the class period.

On September 13, 2018, another purported shareholder, David Gray,
and on October 3, 2018, another purported shareholder, Anthony E.
Phillips, each filed a purported class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

These complaints contain substantially the same factual allegations
and legal claims and are against the same defendants as the
original complaint.

On December 19, 2018, the court consolidated the three actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff.

On January 22, 2019, the court approved a stipulation agreed to by
the parties for the filing of an amended complaint which has not
been filed as of the date hereof.

On January 22, 2019, the Company and its chief executive officer
filed a motion to transfer the consolidated actions to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On
February 5, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed its opposition to the
motion to transfer. The court has not yet ruled on the motion to
transfer.

USA Technologies said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend
these actions."

USA Technologies, Inc. provides wireless networking, cashless
transactions, asset monitoring, and other value-added services in
the United States and internationally.  USA Technologies, Inc. was
founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania.


UXIN LIMITED: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 11
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Uxin Limited (NASDAQ: UXIN)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with Uxin's initial public offering
("IPO") held on or around June 27, 2018. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Uxin investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Uxin class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1481.html or call
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653
or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or zhalper@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement was false
and/or misleading and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Uxin was
likely to stop providing complementary services such as inspections
to its customers; (2) instead, Uxin would connect consumers to
dealers who would provide such complementary services; (3) as a
result, Uxin's 2B business would be materially impacted; and (4)
consequently, defendants' statements in the Registration Statement
concerning Uxin's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and/or misleading. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 12,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1481.html or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Zachary Halper, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
zhalper@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. [GN]


VENDING PLUS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Drivers, Gonzalez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VENDING PLUS, INC.; NICK NIKKA;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV03113
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 30, 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.

Mr. Gonzalez was employed by the Defendants as driver.

Vending Plus, Inc. provides stock vending machines for corporate
clients. The company's products include snack, cold beverages, hot
beverages, fresh food, office coffee, bottled water machines.
Vending Plus, Inc. was founded 1992 and is based in Linthicum,
Maryland. As per the transaction announced on May 10, 2012, Vending
Plus, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Black Tie Services, Inc.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas M. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LAW OFFICES, APLC
          3435 Wilshire Blvd Suite 2410
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 251-5533
          Facsimile: (213) 251-5534
          E-mail: thomas@thomasmlee.com

               - and -

          Barry G. Florence, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BARRY G. FLORENCE
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 232-4969
          Facsimile: (213) 232-4890
          E-mail: bgf@bgflawoffices.com


WAILUKU ELEMENTARY: Parents Hold Protest Over Bullying Amid Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kehaulani Cerizo, writing for Maui News, reports that five parents
launched what they say will be a weekly march around Wailuku
Elementary School to pray and protest against bullying.

The group is rallying around their friend Danielle Saffery of Happy
Valley, whose son said he's been verbally and physically abused by
Wailuku Elementary schoolmates for the last two years. They invite
others to join them at 11 a.m. Tuesdays.

"We are standing in the gap for all kids in school," said Brooksie
Kenolio of Happy Valley. "People want to help but they don't know
how. They can come walk or pray with us.

"The problem gets swept under the rug," she added. "The result is
in our prison system -- you see the bullies and the bullied."

Ms. Saffery's son, a 4th-grader, first told his mom about pushing
and name-calling in unsupervised bathrooms and hallways when he was
in 2nd grade. She didn't intervene then, but once the boy's grades
started to drop, Saffery talked to his teacher. That did not stop
the incidents.

"School should be a safe place for all kids to be who they are,"
Ms. Saffery said.

Ms. Saffery and the others said that they were unaware that a
former Wailuku Elementary family had joined a class-action lawsuit
alleging bullying in Hawaii public schools, filed last year by
Oahu-based attorney Eric Seitz. The suit alleges that the
Department of Education isn't doing enough to prevent bullying.

"I don't think schools in Hawaii are safe right now," Mr. Seitz
said.

Since the lawsuit was filed in August, he said his office has
received 30 to 50 other bullying complaints, and they continue to
come in weekly.

Mr. Seitz is working on adding other cases to the lawsuit,
including a recent incident involving the bullying of a disabled
student.

Maui resident a plaintiff in lawsuit

Three Hawaii families are plaintiffs in the lawsuit, including Maui
resident Anna Grove, whose daughter T.G. was sexually harassed and
bullied during the 2017-18 school year, the lawsuit said. After
several reports to Wailuku Elementary officials, the school failed
to investigate or take action to protect T.G., which led to
escalating harassment, including threats to "kill her and choke her
in the bathroom," the lawsuit said.

T.G. suffered medical complications due to the stress and later
changed schools, the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit alleges that the DOE was negligent in its handling of
bullying and harassment complaints, and that its failure to act to
protect students should be considered child abuse. It also alleges
misuse of federal funds and intentional infliction of emotional
distress, among other claims.

Parents claim their children experienced physical harm, sexual
harassment, racial slurs, name-calling, cyberbullying and other
forms of abuse in recent years.

DOE spokeswoman Lindsay Chambers said that the department is unable
to comment or to provide information on pending litigation.

She pointed to state anti-bullying resources, including a joint
survey released in 2018 by the DOE, the Department of Health and
the University of Hawaii that showed students are reporting fewer
incidents of bullying and cyberbullying. Christina Kishimoto, DOE
superintendent, called the numbers gathered over a two-year period
"a positive trend that we want to see continue."

Chambers also sent information on a new anti-bullying smartphone
app designed to improve responsiveness through confidential
reporting. The "Speak Now" app had a soft launch for middle schools
in January and was set to have a formal launch in February. High
schools will follow in September, and elementary schools are slated
to be added in September 2020.

"I want to emphasize that this is just another tool that students
can use to report incidents of bullying," Chambers said. "They are
still encouraged to talk to a trusted adult, teacher,
administrator, etc."

Bullying taking on new forms

Emilio Macalalad, a Molokai High School teacher and island
representative for the Hawaii State Teachers Association's Human
Civil Rights Committee, said he doesn't think bullying has gotten
worse, it just has taken on new forms.

"I don't see it going away," he said. "I see the bullying taking
shape in a different way. Now you see things like cyberbullying,
which lingers in students' minds. They feel like they can't
escape."

Mr. Macalalad said administrators, teachers and families share
responsibility when it comes to combatting bullying, which can lead
to suicide if not addressed. He emphasized education and keeping
the lines of communication open among all parties --bullying
victims and perpetrators.

"It will be an ongoing effort," he said. "But I do believe there is
hope."

Different trains of thought

Corey Rosenlee, president of HSTA, the union that represents 13,700
public school teachers, said there are two trains of thought on
bullying.

One is to kick the bully out of school. Mr. Rosenlee doesn't
believe this option solves the problem because bullying is often a
learned behavior. Student bullies still may deal with emotional and
physical abuse at home.

The other line of thought calls for deploying a variety of
approaches for a multifaceted problem.

"I have a child who goes to public school," he said. "And if my
child was bullied, I would want it to end. The question is how are
we going to do this?"

One piece of the solution could be to increase the ratio of
counselors to students, he said. Currently, one counselor may be
responsible for 600 students.

"When the offense occurs, it's hard to deal with both victim and
bully," Mr. Rosenlee said. "If people really want to solve the
problem, we should have a lot more counselors in schools. We don't
hear that cry often enough."

Mr. Seitz, whose two adult children are schoolteachers in the
public school system, said "the system is mired in all types of
bureaucracy."

"More parent activism is needed for change, he said, calling the
Wailuku parents' march "wonderful."

"I think parents need to be active," Mr. Seitz said. "The more
activism and involvement by parents to demand what students
minimally need -- being safe . . . the better."

"Lots of kids are going through distress," he said. "That's a fact
of life. But the question is are you in a position to respond to
what is happening to these kids and intervene before it's too
serious.

"There's a condescending or self-righteous attitude among school
administrators that it's not their job and they don't have to do
that. They don't provide students, teachers or parents with a
supportive, safe environment."

Ms. Saffery said the weekly march is not to place blame but rather
to pray and to call attention to the problem. She added that "it's
not a religious thing."

"We pray for the teachers; it's stressful for them," said
Ms. Saffery, who attends Living Way Church Maui in Happy Valley.
"I'm a parent of five, I can't imagine them with 20-plus
students."

Ms. Saffery said she grew up being bullied, and instead of dealing
with the issue, her mom moved her to another school, which didn't
allow her to confront the problem.

Ms. Saffery said she wants to let her son know that she is standing
up for him.

"We need solutions," she said. "We hope we can have more awareness.
. . . You feel so powerless at times." [GN]


WELLS FARGO: Mortgage Officers' Suit Granted Class Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Smith, writing for Mortgage Professional, reports that a
federal judge has granted class-action status to a lawsuit that
claims that Wells Fargo is in violation of numerous California laws
with respect to how it pays its mortgage officers.

The lawsuit was filed by James C. Kang, who worked for the bank as
a home mortgage consultant (HMC) between 2000 and 2015. Kang
asserted in his lawsuit that all Wells Fargo HMCs work under a
compensation plan under which hourly wages are "clawed back" from
sales commissions. Mr. Kang also alleged that Wells Fargo loan
officers are not paid "for tasks unrelated to sales which Wells
Fargo requires them to do," according to a ruling by US District
Judge Beth Labson Freeman.

Mr. Kang, who worked in Wells Fargo's Palo Alto, Calif., branch
from October 2000 to May 2015, filed the lawsuit in October 2017.
According to Mr. Kang, the bank compensates its HMCs through
commissions on sales. HMCs are paid advances on those commissions
at a rate of $12 per hour -- but those advances are clawed back
from commissions earned. Mr. Kang also said that Wells Fargo does
not pay its HMCs for required non-sales work like attending
meetings, training, customer service and loan processing.

"Moreover, although it purports to provide vacation pay, Wells
Fargo claws back vacation pay from commissions with the result that
HMCs do not actually receive their accrued vacation," according to
the complaint. Mr. Kang also alleged that Wells Fargo did not pay
overtime wages to HMCs as required by law.

Based on those allegations, Mr. Kang's lawsuit asserted claims on
behalf of himself and other California Wells Fargo loan officers
for failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, failure
to pay vacation time, failure to pay all wages owed every pay
period, failure to pay all wages due at separation, and violation
of California's Unfair Competition Act, according to Judge
Freeman's ruling.

Mr. Kang asserted that the class eligible to participate in the
lawsuit contained about 4,500 members. Judge Freeman's ruling
limited that class somewhat by excluding those hired or re-hired by
Wells Fargo after December 2015.

"However, even with that exclusion, the class in the present case
clearly will include thousands of members," Judge Freeman wrote.
[GN]


WESTERN GAS: Faces Lennes and Sabatini Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------
Western Gas Partners, LP said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on February 14, 2019, that
the company has been named as a defendant in two class action suits
related to the merger entitled, Lennes v. Western Gas Partners, LP,
et al. and Sabatini v. Western Gas Partners, LP, et al.

On January 28, 2019, the company filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a definitive proxy
statement/prospectus (the "Proxy Statement") with respect to the
special meeting of unitholders of Western Gas Partners, LP ("WES")
to be held on February 27, 2019 at 8:00 a.m., local time, at which
the company's unitholders will be asked to, among other things,
vote on a proposal (i) to approve the Contribution Agreement and
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November 7, 2018 (as it
may be amended from time to time, the "Merger Agreement"), by and
among Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Anadarko E&P Onshore LLC,
Western Gas Equity Partners, LP ("WGP"), Western Gas Equity
Holdings, LLC, the general partner of WGP, WES, Western Gas
Holdings LLC, our general partner, Clarity Merger Sub, LLC ("Merger
Sub"), WGR Asset Holding Company LLC ("WGRAH"), WGR Operating, LP,
Kerr-McGee Gathering LLC, Kerr-McGee Worldwide Corporation, APC
Midstream Holdings, LLC, and Delaware Basin Midstream, LLC, a copy
of which is included as Annex A to the Proxy Statement, and the
transactions contemplated thereby, including the merger of Merger
Sub with and into WES, with WES continuing as the surviving entity
and a subsidiary of WGP (the "Merger"), and (ii) to approve the
adjournment of the special meeting, if necessary, to solicit
additional proxies if there are not sufficient votes to approve the
Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby,
including the Merger, at the time of the special meeting.

On January 28, 2019, a lawsuit captioned Lennes v. Western Gas
Partners, LP, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00832 was commenced in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(the "Lennes Lawsuit").

On February 7, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Sabatini v. Western Gas Partners, LP, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00263 was commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware (together with the Lennes Lawsuit, the
"Lawsuits").

The Lawsuits claim that the Proxy Statement fails to disclose
certain material information related to the Merger, and seek to
enjoin the unitholder vote until such time as additional
disclosures are made.

Western Gas said, "We believe that all allegations in the Lawsuits
are without merit. However, we wish to make certain supplemental
disclosures relating to the Merger solely for the purpose of
mooting the allegations contained in the Lawsuits and avoiding the
expense and burden of litigation."

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://goo.gl/TF4kp3.

Western Gas Partners, LP acquires, develops, owns, and operates
midstream energy assets in the Rocky Mountains, North-central
Pennsylvania, and Texas. The company was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas. As a result of acquisition
of Western Gas Partners LP by Western Gas Equity Partners LP,
Western Gas Partners LP’s name was changed to Western Midstream
Operating, LP. As of February 28, 2019, Western Midstream
Operating, LP operates as a subsidiary of Western Midstream
Partners, LP.


[*] Mass. State Senator Introduces Consumer Data Privacy Bill
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Quist, Esq. -- mquist@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith LLP, in
an article for Lexology, reports that Massachusetts state Senator
Cynthia Creem has introduced a consumer data privacy bill, SD 341,
that would give Massachusetts consumers the right to sue in the
event their personal information or biometric data is improperly
collected or distributed or for any other potential violation of
the new law. Under SD 341, and similar to Illinois's Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA), consumers may not be required to
demonstrate or have suffered monetary or property losses in order
to seek damages for an alleged violation. Any violation of the
proposed new law could be grounds for a valid private action.

The proposed bill is the latest signal that state legislatures are
going to be increasingly active in regulating data protection
issues. California's new California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is
considered an expansion of privacy-related regulation beyond any
existing federal or state law. Although the CCPA will not go into
effect until January 2020, businesses are busy implementing
compliance policies and procedures, including making plans now to
ensure they can adequately and accurately respond to consumers'
requests regarding the type and nature of personal information they
may possess on California residents. The Massachusetts bill appears
to have many of the same characteristics as the CCPA, but its
private right of action provision would be a boon for the
plaintiff's bar. Like Illinois' BIPA and the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), which have spawned scores of class action
lawsuits, SD 341 does not require proof of actual damages. It
states that "a violation of this chapter shall constitute an injury
in fact to the consumer who has suffered the violation, and the
consumer need not suffer a loss of money or property as a result of
the violation in order to bring an action for a violation of this
chapter." A prevailing plaintiff can receive the greater of $750
"per consumer incident" or actual damages and can also receive
attorneys' fees.

In addition to creating a plaintiff-friendly private right of
action, SD 341 would impose new compliance obligations on all
businesses that collect Massachusetts consumers' personal
information and that meet one of two revenue-related thresholds.
Like the CCPA, SD 341 would grant Massachusetts consumers certain
rights with respect to their personal data, including:

   -- A right to notice "at or before the point of collection" of
the personal information that will be collected and disclosed and
the purpose of such collection or disclosure;
   -- A right to request a copy of collected personal information;
and
   -- A right to request deletion of collected personal
information.

Additionally, consumers would have the right to demand that covered
businesses not disclose their information to third parties -- in
other words, with limited exceptions, consumers would be able to
opt out of any transfers of their personal information by a
business to other businesses that are not service providers.
Covered businesses also would be required to implement mechanisms
to collect and respond to consumer rights requests and would be
prohibited from denying goods or services, charging different
prices or rates, or otherwise discriminating against consumers who
exercise these rights.

Implications

If SD 341 is enacted, it would not take effect until January 2023
after related rule-making is conducted by the Massachusetts
attorney general. This timeline would give businesses an
opportunity to create and implement compliance strategies and
prepare for the onslaught of private litigation that would likely
ensue. Whether or not SD 341 is adopted in Massachusetts, this bill
is consistent with the recent trend toward states' adoption of
broad generally applicable data protection regimes. Until a
generally applicable federal law is enacted, there is likely to be
considerable state-level action in this direction. Rather than
responding piecemeal to each new law that is passed state by state,
businesses should consider developing robust privacy programs that
cover current and likely future state, federal and even
international requirements in order to limit costs and mitigate
future risk. [GN]


[*] Morrison & Foerster Attorney Discusses PAGA Issues
------------------------------------------------------
Karen J. Kubin, Esq. -- kkubin@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that whatever good
intentions its proponents may claim, the Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) created perverse incentives
for plaintiff's lawyers to file representative actions seeking
civil penalties for violations of the California Labor Code on
behalf of all "aggrieved employees" of the named plaintiff's
employer. The named plaintiff often does not know she is being used
for purposes of bringing a PAGA action. The alleged violations are
often hyper-technical or trivial, if a violation at all -- "gotcha"
claims, as plaintiff's lawyers like to call them. The "aggrieved
employees" -- who can number in the tens of thousands if the target
is a large employer -- most often have suffered no injury. The
employer, facing potentially business-destroying liability, too
often settles for an amount of money bearing no relationship to the
violations allegedly committed. And the plaintiff's lawyers pocket
30-35 percent of the settlement for themselves.

This article addresses some of the pressing issues around PAGA, in
three parts. First, it provides an overview of salient aspects of
PAGA and the case law interpreting it. Next, it discusses a
recently-filed lawsuit that seeks to have PAGA declared
unconstitutional. Finally, it offers suggestions for warding off a
PAGA action or winning the action if brought.

The takeaway: In today's climate, virtually every California
employer is vulnerable to a PAGA attack and taking steps to avoid
or defeat PAGA liability should be given high priority.

PAGA: An Overview
PAGA deputizes an "aggrieved employee" -- any person employed "by
the alleged violator and against whom one or more of the alleged
violations was committed" -- to file suit as proxy for the State of
California to recover civil penalties on behalf of himself and
other "aggrieved employees" for alleged violations of the Labor
Code. Seventy-five percent of any penalties recovered in the
action, whether by settlement or judgment, go to the State, and the
remaining 25 percent go to the alleged aggrieved employees. While a
single penalty for a single violation suffered by a single
individual may be trifling, when aggregated across an entire
workforce for multiple alleged violations, the amount of these
penalties can be staggering. And, attorneys' fees are awardable to
the plaintiff employee who prevails in the action, but not to the
prevailing employer.

Starting in 2009, a number of court decisions eliminated several
defenses theretofore available to employers defending PAGA actions.
Notably among them, in Arias v. Superior Court, the California
Supreme Court held that PAGA actions are not subject to state-law
requirements for a case to be certified as a class action. In
Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, the Supreme Court
held that an arbitration agreement waiving representative PAGA
claims is unenforceable as a matter of California public policy. In
light of Arias and Iskanian, plaintiff's lawyers increasingly join
class action claims with PAGA claims or solely allege PAGA claims
in their complaints. In the past year, two additional court of
appeal decisions addressing the scope of PAGA have emboldened
plaintiffs' lawyers to interpret it even more broadly, resulting in
increasingly expansive -- and expensive -- PAGA suits.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE
Apparently deciding enough is enough, a recently-organized
association holding itself out as representing California-based
employers filed suit against the State of California on
November 28, 2018, seeking to have PAGA declared unconstitutional
on separation of powers, procedural and substantive due process,
excessive fines and unusual punishment, and equal protection
grounds.7 The association's complaint is well-researched, thorough,
and thoughtful. The opening paragraphs sum up its position:

"Are California business owners who inadvertently make a payroll
error equivalent to the worst perpetrators of hate crimes? That's
the twisted logic that, more than a decade ago, led the state
legislature to pass a harmful law called the Private Attorneys
General Act (PAGA).

"PAGA was conceived as a means to help employees right workplace
wrongs without further burdening the state bureaucracy. Trial
attorneys quickly discovered that they could use the law for their
own benefit; today, thousands of PAGA complaints are filed annually
against large and small businesses, nonprofit charities, and even
labor unions.

"PAGA, as written and practiced, is unconstitutional. With this
complaint, we're asking the state to enforce its own laws -- rather
than transferring the state's power to private attorneys who
operate for their own personal gain."

This author wishes the association success in overturning PAGA. But
best case, it will take years to achieve that result. What does an
employer do in the meanwhile? That question is addressed next.

AVOIDING OR DEFEATING A PAGA ACTION
There are many things an employer can do to minimize the risk of
getting sued in a PAGA action, and many ways to successfully defend
itself if sued; surveying all of them is beyond the scope of this
article. Rather, we focus on two important issues.

An Ounce of Prevention
Given the ever increasing number of new PAGA filings, it is
critical that employers have policies and practices that comply
with the Labor Code and the IWC Wage Order applicable to the
employer's business. Periodically conducted audits to ensure that
these policies and practices remain legally compliant are advised.
Human resource professionals must stay current on legal
developments to address any needed updates. PAGA makes unique the
challenges a California employer faces, and these challenges should
not be underestimated. While perhaps trite, it is no less true: an
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Defeating a PAGA Action as Unmanageable
PAGA empowers an "aggrieved employee" only to sue on behalf of
other employees who are "aggrieved," i.e., employees "against whom
one or more alleged violations was committed." California trial
courts are increasingly striking PAGA claims where the experience
of every allegedly aggrieved employee would be required to show
that they were, in fact, aggrieved, rendering the claim
unmanageable because countless mini-trials would be necessary
before the aggrieved employees were known and the claim could
proceed. So too are federal district courts striking PAGA claims
when they cannot be manageably tried. Consistent with this emerging
body of law, the California Supreme Court recently recognized the
common-sense fact that PAGA actions must be "manageable."

Unmanageability has thus emerged as a powerful weapon in
defendants' arsenal. It is the plaintiff's burden to show how her
PAGA action can be manageably tried, and if she fails to meet her
burden, the action cannot go forward. While unmanageability may not
apply in a particular case, it should at least be considered in
every case, in the course of devising a winning strategy. [GN]


[*] Victoria Endorses Class Action Against Fossil-Fuel Industry
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trevor Hancock, writing for Times Colonist, reports that
considerable derision has been heaped on Victoria city council for
endorsing a class-action lawsuit against the fossil-fuel industry,
seeking financial compensation for the added costs the city will
incur as a result of climate change.

But far from complaining, we should be praising them and other
local municipal councils that are also preparing to sue. Not only
are they being prudent managers of the public purse, seeking to
protect taxpayers from added costs, they are also being leaders in
addressing climate change.

The city's latest action follows its November 2017 letter to 20 of
the world's largest oil and coal companies in which the city asked
them to "pay your fair share of the costs of climate change that
face our community." The city took the view that: "You cannot make
billions of dollars selling your product, knowing that it is
causing significant financial harm to communities around the world,
and not expect to pay for at least some of that harm."

The costs are significant. A 2012 report from the B.C. government
on the cost to adapt flood protection to meet the rise in sea level
predicted by 2100 found the cost for Metro Vancouver would be $9.5
billion. Note this is only the cost associated with sea-level rise;
it does not include costs from other aspects of climate change such
as forest fires and air pollution, severe weather events and so on.
Nor does it include the health costs of climate change.

Victoria was not even the first in B.C. to act -- that honour goes
to the District of Highlands, which sent a letter in July 2017.
Since then, letters have gone from Saanich, Colwood and View Royal,
Sooke has voted to send one, and in September 2018 the Association
of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities sent a letter on behalf
of its 53 local-government members. All of this is supported by a
West Coast Environmental Law campaign to hold the fossil-fuel
industry to account, known as Climate Law in Our Hands.

Filing a lawsuit can have several beneficial effects. First, it can
force open the files of the fossil-fuel industry, so we can see
just how much they knew about global warming and its relationship
to their products, when they knew it, what they might have done to
hide this evidence, what they might have done to create doubt in
the minds of the public and what their lobbying efforts with
governments might have been.

For those of us who are veterans of the "tobacco wars," this all
sounds familiar. The tobacco industry was also sued because it was
making money by selling a product it knew to be harmful, and then
concealing that harm and casting doubt on the evidence in the minds
of its users. In fact, the Centre for International Environmental
Law, in its research into the Tobacco Industry Archives (one of the
fruits of the legal action against the tobacco industry) found
close ties between the oil and tobacco industries, noting "the oil
companies have benefited from the tobacco playbook in their fight
against climate science."

Second, when a company is sued, this has to be reported to
investors, so it becomes an investment risk. Third, there is a
degree of public exposure and awareness, which helps to change the
social and political conversation and might lead to a loss of
market appeal. Fourth, the prospect of facing lawsuits and negative
public opinion might encourage the companies to shift away from
fossil fuels.

Finally, if the companies are found liable, any costs awarded would
not only help reimburse taxpayers, but would raise the price of
fossil fuels. This would be helpful -- if unwelcome in some
quarters in the short term -- because we should pay the full cost
of the fossil fuels we use. If we did, we would make very different
choices.

Far from deriding local governments for being irresponsible,
critics should be chiding the provincial and federal governments
for failing to take action themselves. It would be a lot more
effective if the B.C. government took on the case on behalf of
local governments to recover their costs, adding the provincial
costs, as well.

Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the
University of Victoria's School of Public Health and Social Policy.
[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 ***