CAR_Public/190312.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, March 12, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 51

                            Headlines

ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Offers Refund to Guitar Hero Live Gamers
AK STEEL: Illinois Consolidated Antitrust Class Suit Concluded
ALL STAR 2000: Perera Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
ALLAN COMPANY: Guzman Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Benefits
ALLERGAN PLC: Bid to Dismiss Generic Drug Pricing Suit Underway

ALLERGAN PLC: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in Celexa Suit Upheld
ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery Ongoing in Restasis-Related Class Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Dismissal of ERISA-Related Suit under Appeal
ALLERGAN PLC: Summary Judgment in Testosterone Suit Still Pending
ALLIANCEONE MANAGEMENT: Settles FCRA Class Action for $2.2MM

ALLSTATE FIRE: Settlement in Konecky Suit Has Final Approval
AMHERST-PELHAM RSD: Claims in Contaminated Water Suit Narrowed
ANSCHULTZ ENTERTAINMENT: Fischler Files ADA Suit in New York
AQUA-ASTON HOSPITALITY: Faces Rouse Suit in Hawaii
ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE: Bell Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

ASTEC INDUSTRIES: April 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
BLUE CROSS: Wun-Ling Sues over Medical Reimbursement Practice
BMW: March 27 X5 Comfort Access Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
BUDWEISER BREW: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages
BULLY HILL: Website not Blind-accessible, Says Traynor

CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN: Faces William Guy Labor Suit in Ventura County
CARBON38 INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Greenspoon Marder Defeats Class Certification
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Judge Dismisses Orijen Dog Food Class Action
CHARLES SCHWAB: Judge Dismisses Most Claims in Dorman Class Action

CHICAGO, IL: Class Action Over Distracted Driving Tickets OK'd
CONTAINER STORE: Court Denies Bid for Entry of Judgment in NFB Suit
DENVER, CO: Faces Class Action Over Disabled Teachers Strike
DEUTSCHE BANK: Settles Antitrust Suit for CAD5.5MM
DTE ENERGY: Peeples Files TCPA Suit in Michigan

ED MITCHELL INC: Faces Traynor ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
EMMIS OPERATING: Fischler Files ADA Class Action
ENDURANCE INT'L: Sep. 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
EVERGREEN HOSPITAL: Wash App. Affirms Arbitration Denial in Lee

EVERLANE INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
EXCLUSIVE PREPAID: Rios Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
EZ FESTIVALS: Fischler Files Suit Asserting ADA Breach
FAMILY & COMMUNITY: McGraw Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

FOUNDERS ENTERTAINMENT: Violates ADA, Fischler Suit Asserts
GLOBAL RADAR: June 7 Filing Due of Sanders Class Certification Bid
GOOGLE INC: Supreme Court Set to Weigh in on Frank v. Gaos
GSG PROTECTIVE: Underpays Security Guards, Barnes Suit Claims
HARRIS CUISINE: Ex-Lilette Server Files FLSA Class Action

HARRISBURG, PA: Inmates' Class Claims Junked Without Prejudice
HERSHEY COMPANY: Clark Files Fraud Class Suit in California
HUNTSMAN CORP: Faces Class Action in Texas State Court
IQVIA HOLDINGS: Thomas Sues over Unsolicited Fax Advertisements
KTH PARTS: Baughman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime

LAPIN SEPTIC: Reynolds Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Removes Hicks Suit to Middle District of Florida
MACHOL & JOHANNES: A. Blanks FCRA Suit Settlement Has Prelim OK
MAGARET O'LEARY: A. Nathan Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action

MARRIOTT: Pierce Bainbridge Files Data Breach Class Action
MDL 2492: Keo v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Kershaw v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: McCann v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Shamsid-Deen v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Shoenfelt v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidate
MDL 2492: Simons v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Smith v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Stinyard v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Thomas v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Thompson v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Thornton v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Walls v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Wertz v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Williams v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated

MDL 2492: Willis v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Wilson v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2734: Brooks Suit Transferred to Northern District of Florida
MDL 2801: Cisco Sues to Get Bigger Settlement Share
MIDLAND CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debts, Reitz Suit Claims

MISSISSIPPI: Court Certifies Class in Harness Voting Rights Suit
MONSANTO COMPANY: Matlock Sues over Sale of Roundup Products
NETWORK RECOVERY: Brown Files FDCPA Suit in New York
NEW BALANCE: "Made in USA" Class Action Settlement Okayed
NEW LASER: Metro Cardiovascular Sues Over Unsolicited Advertisement

NEXTGEAR CAPITAL: Decertification Order in Red Barn Suit Vacated
ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Seeks to Reargue Bid to Dismiss Galestan Suit
OWENS CORNING: Court Denies Counsel Fees Bid in Gonzalez Suit
PAPA MURPHY'S: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Cottle Suit Alleges
PHILIP MORRIS: Union Named Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit

PIONEER PRODUCTION: Young Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
PROFESSIONAL COLLECTION: Gonzales Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Certification Sought in Behfarin Case
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Consolidated Rosen & Muir Suit Now Closed
SABRE CORP: Air Fare Prices Suit Proceeds on Individual Basis

SAMSUNG: Settles Class Action Over Exploding Washing Machines
SAXE MANAGEMENT: Court Dismisses NDTPA Claim in Bauman Suit
SEQUIUM ASSET: Accused by Redfield Class Suit of Violating FDCPA
SMITH & NEPHEW: McManus Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio
SPARKS BLACK: Can Compel Arbitration in Sheehan Suit

SUNSET FOOD: Railey Sues Over Improper Biometric Data Retention
SWAY NIGHTCLUB: Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Rodriguez Says
SYKES ENTERPRISES: Court OKs $500K FLSA Settlement
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Still Defends Cambell, Neal & Mott TCPA Suits
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Union Local 338 Retirement Fund Suit Ongoing

SYNERGY PHARMACEUTICALS: April 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline
TESCO PLC: Ordered to Disclose SFO Documents in FSMA Class Action
TRISTAR PRODUCTS: DOJ Opposes "Coupon" Class Action Settlement
UBER TECH: Arbitration Bid Hearing in TCPA Suit Moved
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Dickinson Wright Attorneys Discuss Ruling

ULTA SALON: Discovery in Wise Stayed Pending Settlement Approval
UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Morgan Suit Without Prejudice
UNITED STATES: Honduran, Nepali Immigrants File Class Action
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Settles Tyndall Class Action
US BANK: Guiette Consumer Credit Suit Settlement Has Prelim Okay

US STEEL: Consolidated Shareholder Action Ongoing in Pennsylvania
VERSUM MATERIALS: B. Price Files Securities Fraud Suit in Delaware
VIZIO: Customers Set to Get TV Spying Settlement Payouts
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Stony Landfill Class Members Receive Payouts
WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Proskauer Rose Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling

WIRECARD AG: Faces Securities Class Action
YALE UNIVERSITY: Sanford Heisler Sharp Files Class Action
[*] New Zealand's Dormant Class Action Needs Reform
[*] Pierce Atwood Attorney Discusses Amendments to Rule 23
[] Companies Hit with Mass Arbitration Filings Face Challenges


                            *********

ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Offers Refund to Guitar Hero Live Gamers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Newcomb, writing for Fortune, reports that as Activision
Blizzard reportedly prepares to announce hundreds of layoffs on
Feb. 12, the company is also reaching into its pockets to
compensate frustrated gamers who bought Guitar Hero Live and aren't
happy after they lost access to a majority of songs.

Guitar Hero Live, which was released in 2015, came with 42 base
songs. Gamers were able to access hundreds more streaming tracks
through a supplemental service called Guitar Hero TV, an always-on
music video streaming service that let wannabe rockstars find
challengers around the world.

Activision announced last June that it planned to wind down Guitar
Hero TV by the end of the year. The music library was supported by
Activision, and the decision to cut it off coincided as
Activision's licensing agreements were up, according to Polygon.
That news prompted a class action lawsuit, which was voluntarily
dismissed in January, according to Ars Technica.

It turns out, refunding a bunch of customers might be cheaper than
letting the game rock on. Activision launched its refund offer in
February for gamers who purchased Guitar Hero Live between December
1, 2017 and January 1, 2019. The company set a deadline of May 1
for people to submit a refund request form, along with a receipt or
credit card statement that can be used to verify their purchase of
Guitar Hero Live.

The refund offer is just the latest in a challenging few months for
the video game company. Chief Financial Officer Spencer Neumann was
terminated "for cause" in December, according to a regulatory
filing. Neumann was named the new CFO of Netflix in January.
Activision is also dealing with stagnant sales from some of its
flagship titles, including Overwatch and Hearthstone.

Activision Blizzard stock closed the trading day down 7.6% on Feb.
11, ahead of the reported layoffs on Feb. 12. [GN]


AK STEEL: Illinois Consolidated Antitrust Class Suit Concluded
--------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the
consolidated Illinois antitrust class action suit is now closed.

On September and October 2008 and again in July 2010, several
companies filed purported class actions in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against nine
steel manufacturers, including the company.

The case numbers for these actions are 08CV5214, 08CV5371,
08CV5468, 08CV5633, 08CV5700, 08CV5942, 08CV6197 and 10CV04236. On
December 28, 2010, another action, case number 32,321, was filed in
state court in the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee.

The defendants removed the Tennessee case to federal court and in
March 2012 it was transferred to the Northern District of Illinois.
The plaintiffs in the various pending actions are companies that
purport to have purchased steel products, directly or indirectly,
from one or more of the defendants and they claim to file the
actions on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased steel
products for delivery or pickup in the United States from any of
the named defendants at any time from at least as early as January
2005.

The complaints allege that the defendant steel producers have
conspired in violation of antitrust laws to restrict output and to
fix, raise, stabilize and maintain artificially high prices for
steel products in the United States.

In March 2014, the company reached an agreement with the direct
purchaser plaintiffs to tentatively settle the claims asserted
against the company, subject to certain court approvals. According
to that settlement, the company agreed to pay $5.8 to the plaintiff
class of direct purchasers in exchange for the members of that
class to completely release all claims.

The company continues to believe that the claims made against it
lacks any merit, but the company elected to enter the settlement to
avoid the ongoing expense of defending ourselves in this protracted
and expensive antitrust litigation. The company provided notice of
the proposed settlement to members of the settlement class. After
several class members received the notice, they elected to opt out
of the class settlement.

Following a fairness hearing, on October 21, 2014 the Court entered
an order and judgment approving the settlement and dismissing all
of the direct plaintiffs' claims against the company with prejudice
as to the settlement class. On March 3, 2017, the Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the indirect plaintiffs' amended
complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked antitrust
standing. On April 4, 2017, the indirect plaintiffs filed a motion
for reconsideration and the defendants filed an opposition to that
motion.

On July 13, 2017, the Court denied the indirect plaintiffs’
motion for reconsideration. On September 15, 2017 the indirect
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals. On September 6, 2018, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the
judgment of the District Court.

The time period for the indirect plaintiffs to petition for a writ
of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court has expired and
the matter is now closed.

AK Steel Holding Corporation, through its subsidiary, AK Steel
Corporation, produces flat-rolled carbon, and stainless and
electrical steel products in the United States and internationally.
AK Steel Holding Corporation was founded in 1993 and is
headquartered in West Chester, Ohio.


ALL STAR 2000: Perera Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mayrion Perera, individually and in behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. All Star 2000, Inc. d/b/a All
Star Cafe and Moataz-Bella Mahmoud, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01229 (E.D. N.Y., March 1, 2019) pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), alleges that the Defendants violated the
FLSA and the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff and Party
Plaintiffs for unpaid or underpaid (1) minimum wages, (2) overtime
compensation, and such other relief available by law.

The Plaintiff and party plaintiffs worked more than forty hours
each workweek, yet the Defendants failed to pay the plaintiff and
party plaintiffs overtime compensation of one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants on approximately from
March 2012 until February 2016 as a delivery man.

The Defendants' business is a full-service restaurant doing
business as All Star Cafe and located at 694 Arthur Kill Rd, Staten
Island, NY 10308.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
     Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
     277 Broadway, Suite 408
     New York, NY 10007-2036
     Phone: (212) 229-2249
     Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
     Email: bsherr@zellerlegal.com
            jazeller@zellerlegal.com


ALLAN COMPANY: Guzman Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Guzman, an individual, Reynald Pierre, an individual, Blanca
Petrona Jaimes, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Allan Company, Inc., a
California Corporation; Source One Staffing, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company; Invo Peo, Inc. III, a Tennessee
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2019-00011626-CU-0E-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., March
1, 2019) brought this class action against the Defendants for
unpaid wages and benefits, penalties, interest, declaratory and
injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees resulting from
Defendants' unlawful conduct and unfair business practices.

Plaintiffs, collectively, bring their claims on behalf of a class
which consists of all current, former, and future employees of the
Defendants, who worked for the Defendants in waste management, and
who are due wages and/or benefits under the San Diego Living Wage
Ordinance, and who have not received all of said wages and benefits
during the relevant statutory period and who are/were California
residents during the Class Period.

Members of the putative class were not provided wages and benefits
due them under the San Diego Living Wage Ordinance, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as recycling sorters.

Defendant Allan is a California Corporation, conducting substantial
business in the County of San Diego.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Helen I. Zeldes, Esq.
     Ben Travis, Esq.
     COAST LAW GROUP LLP
     1140 S. Coast Highway 101
     Encinitas, CA 92024
     Phone: (760) 942-8505
     Facsimile: (760) 942-8515
     Email: helen@coastlaw.com
            ben@coastlaw.com

          - and -

     Justin Hewgill, Esq.
     Efaon Cobb, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF HEWGILL & COBB
     2169 First Avenue
     San Diego, CA 92101-3542
     Phone: (619) 786-7459
     Facsimile: (619) 377-6026


ALLERGAN PLC: Bid to Dismiss Generic Drug Pricing Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company's motion to
dismiss the Generic Drug Pricing Securities litigation is still
pending.

Putative classes of  shareholders and two individual opt-out
plaintiffs filed class action lawsuits against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers alleging that defendants
made materially false and misleading statements between February
2014 and November 2016 regarding the Company's internal controls
over its financial reporting and that it failed to disclose that
its former Actavis generics unit had engaged in illegal,
anticompetitive price-fixing with its generic industry peers.  

These lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey. The complaints seek unspecified
monetary damages.  

The Company's motion to dismiss the complaint is still pending.  

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The company operates
in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and
is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in Celexa Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that an appellate  court has
affirmed the denial of class certification motions but reversed the
lower court's decision granting the defendants' summary judgment
motions in Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Class Actions.

Certain subsidiaries of the Company were named in federal court
actions relating to the promotion of Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R)
all of which were consolidated in an MDL proceeding in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Most of these
claims were resolved through a settlement in September 2014.  

However, two lawsuits remain which assert claims under the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act. The
court has entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants in
both actions and denied plaintiffs' class certification motions.

Plaintiffs in both cases appealed the dismissal of their claims and
denial of class certification to the United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit and the appeals court issued a decision in
January 2019 affirming the denial of the class certification
motions but reversing the lower court's decision granting the
defendants' summary judgment motions.

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The company operates
in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and
is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery Ongoing in Restasis-Related Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the parties in the
consolidated Restasis(R) Class Action Litigation are engaged in
discovery.

Several class actions were filed on behalf of putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers of Restasis(R) alleging that
subsidiaries of the company harmed competition by engaging in
conduct to delay the market entry of generic versions of
Restasis(R) in violation of the federal antitrust laws as well as
state antitrust and consumer-protection laws and unjust enrichment.


The cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey. All plaintiffs seek damages, declaratory
relief, and injunctive relief.   

The parties are currently engaged in discovery.

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The company operates
in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and
is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Dismissal of ERISA-Related Suit under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the plaintiffs in a
consolidated class action over alleged violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 have appealed the decision
of the court in granting the company's motion to dismiss to the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Class action complaints have been filed premised on the same
alleged underlying conduct that is at issue in the Generic Drug
Pricing Securities litigation but that assert claims under ERISA.
These complaints have been consolidated in the district court in
New Jersey.  

The court granted the Company's motion to dismiss this complaint.
The ERISA plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals.

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The company operates
in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and
is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLERGAN PLC: Summary Judgment in Testosterone Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the defendants' motion
for summary judgment in the litigation over sales of Testosterone
Replacement Therapy products is still pending.  

Subsidiaries of the Company were named in a class action complaint
filed on behalf a putative class of third party payers in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The suit
alleges that the Company's subsidiaries violated various laws
including the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act statute and state consumer protection laws in
connection with the sale and marketing of Androderm(R).  

The class plaintiffs seek to obtain certain equitable relief,
including injunctive relief and an order requiring restitution
and/or disgorgement, and to recover damages and multiple damages in
an unspecified amount.

While the lawsuit is ongoing, the court has denied plaintiff's
class certification motion. Defendants' motion for summary judgment
is still pending.  

Allergan plc, a pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes branded pharmaceutical, device, biologic, surgical,
and regenerative medicine products worldwide. The company operates
in three segments: US Specialized Therapeutics, US General
Medicine, and International. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and
is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


ALLIANCEONE MANAGEMENT: Settles FCRA Class Action for $2.2MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Grzechnik Neill, writing for insideARM, reports that
AllianceOne Management Receivables, Inc. (AllianceOne) agreed to
settle a class action Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) lawsuit. The
lawsuit, filed against AllianceOne and Experian back in 2015,
alleges that AllianceOne pulled plaintiff's credit report in order
to collect on plaintiff's past due parking tickets, which, the
complaint argues, is an impermissible purpose. The complaint also
alleged that Experian failed to properly investigate plaintiff's
disputes and furnished plaintiff's credit report to AllianceOne
without a permissible purpose. According to PACER, Experian was
dismissed from the case back in October 2016. In entering into the
class settlement, AllianceOne denies any wrongdoing or that any
violation of the FCRA occurred.

On February 7, an unopposed motion to certify the class and grant
preliminary approval of the class settlement agreement was filed
and is set to be heard on February 22, 2019. The settlement
agreement, listed as Exhibit 2 to the unopposed motion, calls for
AllianceOne to pay $5,000 to the class representative plaintiff and
$2.2 million for the class settlement. The agreement also limits
the class counsel's fee request, not allowing it to exceed
$733,333.33.

The history of this litigation includes an two orders (one on a
motion to dismiss, one on a motion for summary judgment) where the
court disagreed with the interpretation that pulling credit reports
for fully adjudicated debts is a permissible purpose. [GN]


ALLSTATE FIRE: Settlement in Konecky Suit Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SETH KONECKY and JENNIFER KONECKY, husband and wife,
FLATHEAD VALLEY DIST., INC., a Montana Corporation, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
ALLSTATE FIRE & CAS. INS. CO., ALLSTATE INDEM. CO., ALLSTATE PROP.
& CAS. INS. CO., ALLSTATE INS. CO., and ENCOMPASS INDEM. CO.,
Defendants, Case No. CV 17-10-M-DWM (D. Mont.), Judge Donald W.
Molloy of the U.S. District Court for the Montana, Missoula
Division, granted the parties' motion for final approval of the
Stipulation for Settlement.

The Court preliminarily approved the class settlement in the case
on Sept. 28, 2018.  Since that time, the parties have completed the
notice process and now seek final approval of the Stipulation for
Settlement.  Through a motion for final approval of class
settlement and a motion for assessment of fees and costs, they
seek, among other things, that the Court (1) grants final
certification of the settlement class; (2) approves the Stipulation
of Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) rules that the
notice process was reasonable and the best practicable under the
circumstances; and (4) assesses against the class recovery
attorneys' fees, costs, and a class representative incentive fee.
A hearing was held on the motions on Feb. 13, 2019.

On Feb. 13, 2019, the matter of the Court's final approval of the
Stipulation of Settlement submitted on May 29, 2018, by the Motion
for Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, Approving Notice to
Class Members, and Setting Date for Settlement Fairness Hearing,
came before the Court for consideration.  The Parties have executed
and filed a Stipulation of Settlement with the Court on Feb. 1,
2019.

The Court, on Sept. 28, 2018, entered the Order Re: Preliminary
Approval of Settlement and Approval of Notice of Pendency of the
Settlement of Class Action to Class Members, preliminarily
approving the Proposed Settlement and conditionally certifying the
Action, for settlement purposes only, as a class action.  Seth and
Jennifer Konecky, and Flathead Valley Dist., Inc. were approved in
the Preliminary Approval Order as the Class Representatives.

As part of its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court directed that
a plan for disseminating notice of the Settlement be implemented,
and scheduled a hearing to be held on Feb. 13, 2019, to determine
whether the Proposed Settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable and adequate.  

Judge Molloy, having read and considered all submissions made in
connection with the Proposed Settlement, and having reviewed and
considered the files and records, granted final approval of the
Settlement.

As part of the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court certified the
Settlement Class, for settlement purposes only, defined as all
Persons (and their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and
assigns), as of Sept. 28, 2018, (a) who were insured under an auto
insurance policy issued by Allstate in Montana; (b) with respect to
whom Allstate recovered subrogation on a Montana automobile
insurance claim after Oct. 21, 2008, i.e., 8 years before the
filing of the Action.  The Judge affirmed this definition of the
Settlement Class for purposes of the Final Judgment.  He certified
the Settlement Class in the Action, for settlement purposes only,
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3).

The Judge finds that the Notice Plan and the Class Notice
constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances,
and constituted valid, due and sufficient notice to members of the
Settlement Class.  He finds that approval of the Agreement and the
Settlement embodied therein will result in substantial savings of
time and money to the Court and the litigants and will further the
interests of justice.  He also finds that the Proposed Settlement
is the result of good faith arm's-length negotiations by the
Parties thereto, and is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Therefore, he directed the Parties to consummate the Settlement in
accordance with its terms.  The Claim Form sets forth six
categories of damages for which class members may be eligible to
recover under the terms of the Agreement.   The Judge ordered that
recovery under these categories is for settlement purposes only,
and nothing in the Agreement or the Claim Form imposes any
obligation on Allstate to compensate past or future claimants for
these categories of damage outside of the Agreement, or is
otherwise an admission by Allstate that these categories are either
compensable under Allstate insurance policies or properly part of
any made whole analysis.

He also directed that any unclaimed amounts of the Net Settlement
Fund remaining after a period of six months following the
completion of the procedures for distribution, resulting from
returned checks, uncashed checks, or otherwise, will be disbursed
to the non-profit named "Montana Justice Foundation."

The Class Claims in the Action are dismissed in their entirety, on
the merits, with prejudice and without leave to amend.  It is
determined that the Notice Plan and the Class Notice constituted
the best notice practicable under the circumstances to all members
of the Settlement Class, and is therefore finally approved as
reasonable.  

Within 90 days after the Effective Date, the Class Counsel and/or
other attorneys for the Named Plaintiffs in the Action, or any
Settlement Class Member or their counsel, will destroy all
Proprietary Information provided by Allstate to the Class Counsel
or anyone they employed or retained in the Action, either in
discovery or in connection with the Agreement.  The Class Counsel
will deliver a letter to Allstate's counsel certifying their
compliance.  

Also in furtherance of the confidentiality provision, the Class
Counsel and the Named Plaintiffs, and any Settlement Class Member
or their counsel, will not make any statements to the media, orally
or in writing, about the Action, or the Settlement, other than
statements that are fully consistent with the Agreement and the
Class Notice, except in a bona fide court proceeding relating to
the subject matter of the Action.

The Judge has considered the request for a Class Representative
award, and approved and awarded the Named Plaintiffs Seth Konecky
and Jennifer Konecky in the amount of $5,000 each to be paid out of
the Settlement Fund amount by the Class Counsel.

He has considered the Class Counsel's request for an Attorneys'
Fees award for the prosecution of the action, and made an
Attorneys' Fees award in the amount of $668,375 representing 25% of
the $2,673,500 Settlement Fund and, additionally, an award for
costs of litigation in the amount of $8,545.  The class
representative fees and all costs and expenses of the Settlement,
including the administrative costs, will be paid out of the
Settlement Fund.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal and
close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/V5jWTy from Leagle.com.

Seth Konecky, husband, Jennifer Konecky, wife & Flathead Valley
Dist., Inc., a Montana Corporation, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Alan J.
Lerner -- lerner@lernerlawmt.com -- LERNER LAW FIRM, Allan M.
McGarvey -- contact@mcgarveylaw.com -- McGARVEY HEBERLING SULLIVAN
& McGARVEY, Brian Joos -- joos@bigskyattorneys.com -- VISCOMI &
GERSH, PLLP & Judah M. Gersh -- gersh@bigskyattorneys.com --
VISCOMI & GERSH, PLLP.

Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity
Company, Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company &
Allstate Insurance Company, Defendants, represented by Mark L.
Hanover -- mark.hanover@dentons.com -- DENTONS US LLP, pro hac vice
& Peter F. Habein -- phabein@crowleyfleck.com -- CROWLEY FLECK
PLLP.


AMHERST-PELHAM RSD: Claims in Contaminated Water Suit Narrowed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned MICHAEL
HOOTSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. AMHERST-PELHAM REGIONAL SCHOOL COMMITTEE,
Defendant. Civil Action No. 17-30146-MGM. (D. Mass.).

Plaintiff Michael Hootstein is a custodial grandparent of a student
at Amherst Regional High School (ARHS) and of a young child who
will attend Amherst schools. The complaint alleges two causes of
action: first, a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 that the
Defendant's response to lead-contaminated drinking water violated
the Plaintiff's, his grandson's, and others' Fourteenth Amendment
due process rights (Count I) and second, the same conduct violated
Article 97 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution
(Count II).

The Defendant moved to dismiss both counts, arguing the Section
1983 claim is preempted by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the
Defendant is not subject to the SDWA, and Art. 97 does not confer a
private right of action.

Section 1983 Claim

Preemption by the Safe Drinking Water Act

In Count I, the Plaintiff brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983 that the Defendant's response to lead-contaminated drinking
water violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The
Defendant contends that, based on the First Circuit's holding in
Mattoon v. City of Pittsfield, 908 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1992), the SDWA
preempts the Section 1983 claim. The Plaintiff points out there is
a circuit split on the issue and asks this court to follow Boler v.
Earley, 865 F.3d 391 (6th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S.Ct. 1281
(2018), 138 S.Ct. 1285 (2018), 138 S.Ct. 1294 (2018), rather than
First Circuit precedent. In Boler, which involves two consolidated
cases about water contamination in Flint, Michigan, the Sixth
Circuit rejected the First Circuit's analysis in Mattoon and held
that the SDWA does not preempt Section 1983 claims. Beyond the
First and Sixth Circuits, no other court of appeals appears to have
weighed in on the issue.  

Preemption of Section 1983 Claims Generally

Section 1983 establishes a mechanism for plaintiffs to seek redress
for constitutional violations. It provides: "Every person who,
under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,
subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United
States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for
redress."

This court is persuaded by the Sixth Circuit's reasoning in Boler
and concludes this case is sufficiently distinguishable from
Mattoon such that a different outcome is warranted here.

The Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim is based entirely on an alleged
violation of his due process rights. He does not claim the
Defendant violated the SDWA, a point he reiterated in his motion to
dismiss opposition. Mattoon, in contrast, involved a Section 1983
claim based on violations of the SDWA and an unrecognized
constitutional right to clean water. As explained in Boler, the
rights and protections afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment and the
SDWA do not perfectly overlap, meaning conduct that might violate
the Constitution does not necessarily violate the SDWA and vice
versa.

Thus, the court concludes that the SDWA does not preempt
Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim.

Plaintiff Sufficiently Alleged a Claim for a Due Process
Violation.

Section 1983 provides the mechanism through which plaintiffs can
seek redress for violations of federal constitutional rights. Here,
the Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim alleges Defendant violated his
Fourteenth Amendment due process rights under the state-created
danger doctrine and by violating his rights to bodily integrity and
to care for and protect his grandson.

Plaintiff also raised a procedural due process claim.

The Defendant misconstrues the Plaintiff's federal constitutional
claim by inferring he raised a Fourteenth Amendment claim separate
from his Section 1983 claim. The Defendant contends the Plaintiff
seeks redress for a Fourteenth Amendment right to clean water,
which does not exist. And, even if it did exist, the Defendant
argues the SDWA precludes that claim. In its reply brief, the
Defendant argues for the first time that the complaint fails to
allege sufficient facts to support a substantive due process claim,
but only with respect to the "state-created danger" doctrine and
only in a perfunctory manner.

Substantive Due Process Analysis

The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause provides: "No State
shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law. The right to substantive due process is narrow.
Courts are reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due
process because guideposts for responsible decision-making in this
unchartered area are scarce and open-ended."

State-Created Danger

Generally, a State's failure to protect an individual against
private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due
Process Clause.

To make out a colorable claim under the state-created danger
doctrine, the state must play a role in the creation or enhancement
of danger and the state actions must shock the conscience of the
court. The First Circuit has cautioned that, in a state creation of
risk situation, where the ultimate harm is caused by a third party,
courts must be careful to distinguish between conventional torts
and constitutional violations, as well as between state inaction
and action.

Accordingly, the state-created danger theory applies only when the
underlying premise—harm caused in some way by private actors is
present.

Therefore, to the extent the Plaintiff seeks to invoke the
state-created danger exception, his allegations present a mismatch
with this theory.  

Bodily Integrity

Bodily integrity claims are based on the common law right of every
individual to the possession and control of his own person, free
from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and
unquestionable authority of law.

As the Sixth Circuit recently explained, in the context of the
Flint Water Crisis, the central tenet of the Supreme Court's vast
bodily integrity jurisprudence is balancing an individual's common
law right to informed consent with tenable state interests,
regardless of the manner in which the government intrudes upon an
individual's body. For example, involuntarily subjecting
nonconsenting individuals to foreign substances with no known
therapeutic value often under false pretenses and with deceptive
practices hiding the nature of the interference is a classic
example of invading the core of the bodily integrity protection.

In addition to demonstrating a deprivation of a constitutionally
protected interest in this case, a liberty interest in bodily
integrity a plaintiff asserting a substantive due process claim
also must ultimately show that the defendant's acts were so
egregious as to shock the conscience.

Here, for present purposes, the Plaintiff plausibly stated a
substantive due process bodily integrity claim. He alleged the
Defendant not only provides lead-contaminated water to students and
parents knowing the extreme danger this entails -- but that it
falsely certifies this water is safe to drink. These allegations,
which the court must accept as true at this stage of the
litigation, are similar to those described by the Sixth Circuit in
Guertin regarding the Flint Water Crisis. Guertin, 912 F.3d at
925-26.

The Plaintiff alleges he has been directly harmed through his
exposure to the lead-contaminated water. Reading these allegations
in the most favorable light, the court infers that because
Plaintiff is the custodian of a student attending ARHS, he had
reason to be in the school and drank contaminated water while
there. Granted, Plaintiff has not included a direct allegation that
he drank lead-contaminated water or when he did so. Nevertheless,
given Plaintiff's pro se status and that Defendant has not actually
argued for dismissal on this basis, the court will not dismiss the
claim on the ground that the complaint's allegations regarding
personal harm are lacking. Rather, this issue and other potential
theories of harm may be confronted during discovery and developed
by the parties as appropriate.

Article 97 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution

In Count II, the Plaintiff alleged Defendant violated Art. 97 of
the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, which provides
that the people shall have the right to clean air and water, and
the protection of the people in their right to the conservation,
development and utilization of agricultural, mineral, forest,
water, air and other natural resources is hereby declared to be a
public purpose.

The Defendant argues Art. 97 does not confer a private right of
action. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant's argument about his
Art. 97 claim.

While there is at least one case in which private citizens enforced
Art. 97's takings and easements provisions, that case does not
support finding a private right of action to enforce the right to
clean water. In Smith v. City of Westfield, 478 Mass. 49 (2017),
residents sued to halt construction of a school on land that was a
public playground. The residents sought a writ of mandamus for a
court order requiring the city to comply with Art. 97 by receiving
legislative approval to convert the playground. The SJC held that
land dedicated by municipalities as public parks is protected by
Art. 97, meaning it cannot be sold or devoted to another public use
without plain and explicit legislative authority. Because the
playground had been so dedicated and the legislature had not
authorized its conversion into a school, the SJC remanded the case
for the trial court to issue a permanent injunction halting the
school's construction. Smith demonstrates that, at least in some
contexts, private citizens may enforce Art. 97's conservation
protections.

But Smith does not relate to Art. 97's general reference to the
right to clean water and does not stand for the proposition that
there is a private right of action to enforce that right. Instead,
Smith is about the exclusive power of the legislature to repurpose
lands designated as being protected by Art. 97.

Because the Plaintiff did not respond to the Defendant's Art. 97
arguments, he has not provided any cases supporting the proposition
that he can sue to enforce the right to clean water. The court's
own research has not located any such case, and, furthermore, the
SJC has never held that there is a right of action to enforce the
Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

Accordingly, the court will not read a private right of action into
Art. 97. Count II is therefore dismissed with prejudice.

The Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in
part as follows:

As to Count I.

The Plaintiff may pursue his Section 1983 claim based on a bodily
integrity theory. The Plaintiff may litigate that claim based only
on his alleged exposure to lead contaminated water in Amherst
schools.

The Plaintiff's claims based on a purported right to care for and
protect his grandson and a procedural due process violation are
both dismissed without prejudice. He may move for leave to amend
his complaint to allege facts supporting either or both of those
theories.

The Plaintiff may not pursue his Section 1983 claim based on a
state-created danger theory, and that theory is dismissed with
prejudice.

Count II is dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 11, 2019
Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/yxnlmq9c
from Leagle.com.

Michael Hootstein, Plaintiff, pro se.

Amherst-Pelham Regional School Committee, Defendant, represented by
David K. McCay -- dmccay@mirickoconnell.com -- Mirick, O'Connell,
DeMallie & Louggee, LLP & Catherine G. Curley --
ccurley@mirickoconnell.com -- Mirick, O'Connell, DeMallie & Lougee,
LLP.


ANSCHULTZ ENTERTAINMENT: Fischler Files ADA Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anschultz
Entertainment Group, Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler
Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Anschultz Entertainment Group, Inc. doing business as:
Firefly Festival, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01242 (E.D. N.Y.,
Mar. 1, 2019).

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

The Anschutz Entertainment Group is an American worldwide sporting
and music entertainment presenter and a subsidiary of The Anschutz
Corporation. It is the world's largest owner of sports teams and
sports events.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     Fifth Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


AQUA-ASTON HOSPITALITY: Faces Rouse Suit in Hawaii
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aqua-Aston
Hospitality LLC. The case is captioned as KEVIN ROUSE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EXPEDIA INC.;
and AQUA-ASTON HOSPITALITY LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1CC191000170
(D. Haw., Jan. 31, 2019).

Aqua-Aston Hospitality, LLC owns and operates a chain of
full-service resorts, boutique hotels, condominium resorts, and
affordable lodging properties in Hawaii, the United States
mainland, and Guam. Aqua-Aston Hospitality, LLC is based in
Honolulu, Hawaii. Aqua-Aston Hospitality, LLC operates as a
subsidiary of ILG, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Adam Brackett, Esq.
          515 Ward Ave. Suite B
          Honolulu, HI 96814-4168


ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE: Bell Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Bell, Aron Coates, Shawn Crowley, Christian Johnson,
Jennifer Kinsey, Matthew Pham, Chance L. Pichon, Christopher
Robinson, and Dominick Taylor, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc.,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00131 (E.D. La., January 8, 2019), seeks to
recover unpaid  minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant implemented and adhered to
record-keeping and compensation policies and practices that
intentionally required employees to work hours in excess of 40
hours in a workweek but prohibited employees from properly
recording all hours worked so that Defendant could avoid paying
overtime compensation to its employees.

The Plaintiffs worked for AWG as laborers in AWG's warehouse.

The Defendant AWG is the nation's largest cooperative food
wholesaler to independently owned supermarkets, serving over 3,800
locations in more than half of the states in the country. One of
AWG's distribution centers is located in Pearl River, Louisiana.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Chad A. Danenhower, Esq.
      DANENHOWER LAW FIRM, LLC
      212 Park Place
      Covington, LA 70433
      Tel: (985) 590-5026
      Fax: (985) 605-0525
      E-mail: chad.danenhower@danenhowerlaw.com


ASTEC INDUSTRIES: April 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 12
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Astec Industries, Inc. (NASDAQ:
ASTE) from July 26, 2016 through October 22, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Astec
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Astec class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1498.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, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Astec's wood pellet plants suffered from significant and
costly problems that prevented the plants from running at their
promised production capacity; (2) this posed a threat to Astec's
pellet plant business, overall financial performance, and financial
outlook; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements regarding
Astec's outlook and expected financial performance were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. 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 2,
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-1498.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]


BLUE CROSS: Wun-Ling Sues over Medical Reimbursement Practice
-------------------------------------------------------------
WUN-LING CHANG, M.D., INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA
d/b/a ANTHEM BLUE CROSS; ANTHEM BLUE CROSS LIFE AND HEALTH
INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 19STCV02777 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 31, 2019)
is a class action against the Defendants for failure to reimburse
the Plaintiff and the class reasonable compensation for emergency
services rendered to the Defendants' health plan's enrollees.

According to the complaint, California laws require that health
plans such as the Defendants' health care service plans and health
insurers, to pay reasonable compensation to non-contracted
providers who provide emergency services to a health plan's
enrollees, up to the time when care results in stabilization of the
patient. California laws also require that health plans make prompt
payment to all providers. Anthem has systematically violated the
emergency services reimbursement laws and the prompt payment laws
by paying unreasonably low rates for providers rendering emergency
services while patients are in the hospital.

The Defendants have also violated their obligation to make payment
to the non-contracted providers pursuant to the aforementioned laws
and the assignments of benefits obtained by the providers from the
enrollees and instead have made their lesser payments directly to
the enrollees, thereby depriving the non-contracted providers of
any reimbursement.

Blue Cross of California, Inc., doing business as Anthem Blue
Cross, provides health, Medicare, dental and vision, and small
business insurance plans in the United States. The company offers
individual and family health plans, and utilization management or
case management services. It offers its products and services
through agents/brokers. The company was founded in 1982 and is
based in Westlake Village, California. Blue Cross of California,
Inc. operates as a subsidiary of WellPoint California Services,
Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Don A. Ernst, Esq.
          Christopher Edgington, Esq.
          Taylor Ernst, Esq.
          ERNST LAW GROUP
          1020 Palm Street
          San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
          Telephone: (805) 541-0300
          Facsimile: (805) 541-5168
          E-mail: dae @ernstlawgroup.com
                  ce@ernstlawgroup.com
                  te@ernstlawgroup.com


BMW: March 27 X5 Comfort Access Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a BMW X5
"comfort access" class action lawsuit settlement has been proposed
after a plaintiff alleged the doors can lock with the keys and fobs
inside the vehicles.

The class action includes current and former owners and lessees of
2007-2013 X5 SUVs equipped with optional comfort access systems and
who spent money due to unintended locking of the doors.

Plaintiff Kieva Myers filed the X5 lawsuit in January 2016 that
alleges the comfort access systems are defective because the doors
can unintentionally lock and trap children and pets in the
vehicles.

Ms. Myers says her 2013 BMW X5 came equipped with the feature that
allowed the doors to lock or unlock when the key fob was near the
SUV. But the plaintiff says the system should deactivate if the
vehicle's keys are inside. However, the system allegedly
malfunctioned and a window had to be shattered so a child could be
removed from inside the X5.

The plaintiff claims BMW told her in an email that it is not
impossible to lock a key inside the X5 and if it did happen it
doesn't mean there was a malfunction of the comfort access system.

A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in 2016 but told the
plaintiff she could amend her lawsuit and try again, an effort that
finally paid off.

BMW completely denies all accusations of wrongdoing and liability
and continues to argue the comfort access systems work as
intended.

BMW X5 customers may be reimbursed for out-of-pocket costs
associated with alleged comfort access failures that caused
children, pets or personal property to be locked inside the
vehicles.

Documents that may be used to show proof of expenses include
dealership repair orders or police and insurance reports. BMW X5
customers will also receive an owner's manual insert regarding the
comfort access systems.

In addition to supplying documentation of expenses related to
comfort access system problems, affected customers will need to
submit valid claim forms before the deadline of April 8, 2019.

Owners and lessees of 2007-2013 BMW X5s equipped with comfort
access systems will only receive the owner's manual inserts if they
have not experienced problems that cost them money.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs will receive $692,000 for fees and
expenses, and plaintiff Myers will receive a service award of
$5,000.

A fairness hearing before the judge is scheduled for March 27,
2019, but BMW X5 owners and lessees who want to learn more may
visit ComfortAccessSettlement.com.

The BMW X5 comfort access class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California - Myers
v. BMW of North America LLC, et al.

The plaintiff is represented by the Law Office of Robert L. Starr,
and the Law Offices of Stephen M. Harris. [GN]


BUDWEISER BREW: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Baumer, writing for KMOV.com, reports that a class-action
lawsuit accuses Ballpark Village's Budweiser Brew House of sending
unsolicited text messages.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court and claims the bar and its
corporate owner, Entertainment Consulting International, used an
auto-dialer to send text blasts. The text blasts, which contained
promotional and other marketing materials, were allegedly sent to
people who had never given their consent. The suit claims some of
those who received the texts were on the federal Do Not Call list.

The suit seeks to have anyone who received a promotional text from
Budweiser Brew House in the last five years be eligible to
participate. The suit suggests each member of the class-action
lawsuit should get $1,500 in damages for each message. [GN]


BULLY HILL: Website not Blind-accessible, Says Traynor
------------------------------------------------------
Yaseen Traynor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Bully Hill Vineyards, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-00186
(S.D. N.Y., January 8, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the American with Disabilities Act.

Because the Defendant's website, www.bullyhillvineyards.com, is not
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA, asserts the complaint.

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

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff is a resident of Bronx, New York.

The Defendant is a vineyard and wine retailer that operates Bully
Hills Wines vineyards as well as www.bullyhillvineyards.com,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services which Defendant offers in connection with their
physical locations. The Defendant operates the Bully Hill vineyard
in New York, located at 8843 Greyton H Taylor Memorial Drive,
Hammondsport, NY 14840. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Kohn, Esq.
      STEIN SAKS, PLLC
      285 Passaic Street
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Tel: (201) 282-6500
      Fax: (201) 282-6501
      E-mail: dkohn@steinsakslegal.com


CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN: Faces William Guy Labor Suit in Ventura County
-------------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action has been filed against
California Lutheran University. The case is captioned as WILLIAM
GUY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
56-2019-00524415-CU-OE-VTA (Cal. Super., Ventura Cty., Jan. 31,
2019).

California Lutheran University is an educational institution that
offers undergraduate, graduate, degree, and doctorate programs in
business, computer science, education, psychology, and public
policy and administration. California Lutheran University was
formerly known as California Lutheran College and changed its name
to California Lutheran University in 1986. The institution was
founded in 1959 and is based in Thousand Oaks, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
           ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
           1180 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 610
           Los Angeles, CA 90035
           Telephone:  (310) 277-0614
           Facsimile:  (310) 277-0635
           E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com


CARBON38 INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carbon 38, Inc. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Carbon 38, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01244 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 1, 2019).

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

Carbon38, Inc. owns and operates an e-commerce destination for
active and performance wear for women. The company offers its own
proprietary label along with curated selection of contemporary
brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Greenspoon Marder Defeats Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Greenspoon Marder team secured a major victory for client
Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. ("CCL") on February 8, 2019, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
defeating a plaintiff's bid for class certification in a case
claiming violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act when
the plaintiff received a single text message. Judge John Z. Lee's
27-page Memorandum Opinion and Order held that CCL's counsel
successfully demonstrated that individualized issues of consent
predominate and, when coupled with the plaintiff's close ties with
his lawyers, the case was inappropriate for adjudication as a class
action.

The named plaintiff, Richard Gordon, a class action plaintiff's
attorney himself, was unable to overcome the individualized issues
of consent that would have predominated any class wide resolution
of the case. All text messages had been sent, if at all, by a
different business which generated leads through Internet marketing
after obtaining express consent. Gordon also failed to establish
his adequacy as a class representative. In his Order, Judge Lee
noted that Gordon's "significant business ties" to the proposed
class counsel, as well as his close personal ties to one of his
attorneys, "cast significant doubt upon his ability to put the
interests of absent class members above that of class counsel."

This case had been put on hold for years while the same attorneys
pursued the same claim against CCL for a different plaintiff in New
York, which they ultimately dismissed without seeking class
certification. As noted by Judge Lee in his opinion, the
plaintiff's attorneys had failed to conduct any discovery from this
company in the earlier New York case, despite being warned by the
court in that case that "foregoing such discovery could have fatal
consequences."

The Greenspoon Marder team included Richard W. Epstein --
richard.epstein@gmlaw.com -- Jeffrey A. Backman --
jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com -- and Brian R. Cummings --
brian.cummings@gmlaw.com -- Mr. Epstein and Mr. Backman are
partners in Greenspoon Marder's Class Action Defense Practice Group
and Mr. Cummings is a partner in the firm's Creditors' Rights and
Commercial Litigation Practice Groups.

"After failing in New York, these same class lawyers tried to get a
do-over in Chicago, but the court saw through the plaintiff's
efforts to circumvent the elements of class certification," said
Mr. Backman, lead counsel for CCL in both cases. "This case is and
was always about consent -- an issue that cannot be resolved on a
class wide basis. What's more, the case was brought by lawyers who
maintained business associations and close personal friendships
with the named plaintiff: they shared office space, had the same
landlord for their offices -- the plaintiff's cousin -- they lived
in the same area, and sent their kids to the same school. As a
result, the court found that the plaintiff was not a proper class
representative."

Judge Lee's ruling finally brought closure to a series of class
actions against CCL arising from this text messaging campaign
brought by a small group of plaintiff attorneys, including an
unsuccessful effort in 2014 to combine the four cases.

"It's been almost five years since the original New York law suit
was filed. And now, with class certification rejected, this case is
about a single text message, a whopping $1,500 claim," Backman
said. "This case is illustrative of the rampant abuses of the class
action device in federal courts around the country. This case, and
the three others like it, were doomed from the start and should
never have been brought in the first place."

CCL intends to defend Gordon's individual claims on the merits.

The case is Richard Gordon v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., Case No.
14-cv-5848 (N.D., Ill.).

                      About Greenspoon Marder

Greenspoon Marder -- http://www.gmlaw.com-- is a national
full-service business law firm with more than 200 attorneys and 24
locations across the United States.  It serves Fortune 500,
middle-market public and private companies, start-ups, emerging
businesses, individuals and entrepreneurs nationwide. [GN]


CHAMPION PETFOODS: Judge Dismisses Orijen Dog Food Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charmaine Little, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
federal judge in Wisconsin has dismissed a class action lawsuit,
finding no evidence to support allegations that a brand of dog food
was contaminated with heavy metals.

U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller of the Eastern District of
Wisconsin dismissed with prejudice a case against Champion
Petfoods. The lawsuit alleged the companies falsified the quality
of the food.

Champion Petfoods is the maker of Orijen and Acana dog foods. Loeb
alleged Orijen Original and Orijen Senior contained lead, arsenic,
cadmium and mercury at excessive and unsafe levels. She filed a
class action lawsuit with five claims, three of which were
previously dismissed.

Judge Stadtmueller granted the defendants' motion for summary
judgment and dismissed the lawsuit.

The ruling states that the defendants did not intentionally add
heavy metals to the products and that they were naturally occurring
and present in the plants and animals processed into the food.

"Defendants have offered evidence that the presence of heavy metals
in Orijen does not make the product harmful or dangerous. In 2005,
the National Research Council published a study titled Mineral
Tolerance of Animals (the 'MTA'). The MTA describes maximum
tolerable levels ('MTL') for various substances in pet food,
including the heavy metals at issue here," Judge Stadtmueller
wrote.

"According to third-party lab studies commissioned by defendants,
the levels of arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury in defendants'
products are but a fraction of the MTLs. Plaintiff questions the
reliability of these studies but has not performed any such studies
on her own."

The ruling states the plaintiff provided evidence, including a Food
and Drug Administration reference chart called Total Diet Study,
and relied on it to compare the defendants' products with
consumer-bound chicken, turkey and eggs. The ruling states she
noted heavy metals in human food were lower, "implying that Orijen
is tainted and unfit for human consumption."

"Plaintiff offers no contrary expert opinions," Judge Stadtmueller
said as it pointed out the arguments she made was in hopes of
undermining Champion's expert witness.

The court said these issues had no merit. While she did point out
that there is a high amount of metal in the food, the court said it
simply offers the heavy metal concentration that is in many
store-bought foods.

"It does not say whether those concentrations are safe, unsafe, or
otherwise provide a scientific assessment of the data," Judge
Stadtmueller wrote. Considering this, the court dismissed the WDTPA
(Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act) claim.

Her unjust enrichment claim fell short as the court made clear she
failed to connect the level of metal with any manipulative
advertising statements the defendant made. It also added that she
bought the pet food from pet stores, not from the defendant. The
court concluded it was best to dismiss the case for the remaining
counts.

"The court's opinion is consistent with Champion Petfoods' position
that its food are safe and that the trace amounts of heavy metals
are naturally occurring in the healthy ingredients used by
Champion," said the company's trial counsel Dave Coulson in a press
release. "We vigorously fought the allegations in this case and
will do the same in any other cases that assert similar claims."
[GN]


CHARLES SCHWAB: Judge Dismisses Most Claims in Dorman Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Charles
Schwab Corp. convinced a federal judge to dismiss all but one claim
in a proposed class action targeting investments in its 401(k)
plan.

Former Schwab employee Michael Dorman can move forward with a
challenge to how the company replaced an affiliated stable value
fund in its 401(k) plan with other funds.

But Dorman's other allegations, which challenged the fees and
performance of the plan's Schwab-affiliated funds and certain loan
transactions, were dismissed in a Feb. 8 order by Judge Claudia
Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

Dorman's surviving claim accuses Schwab of swapping out its stable
value fund, a low-risk investment aimed at providing modest,
guaranteed returns, for a collection of new funds that ultimately
benefited Schwab in an alleged scheme aimed at avoiding statutorily
prohibited transaction rules.

In allowing the claim to move forward, Judge Wilken focused on the
fact that Schwab never produced a report from Mercer LLC, the
independent consultant hired to advise it on the stable value fund
elimination.

Schwab produced "thousands of pages" of discovery but never
produced that report, giving rise to the inference that Schwab
either "never received or disregarded" Mercer's recommendation,
Judge Wilken said. This is enough to state a claim for fiduciary
breach under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, she
said.

Arbitration Still Possible
Judge Wilken's decision comes while the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit considers Schwab's pending request to have the
case sent to arbitration. Judge Wilken twice rejected the company's
arbitration requests.

The arbitration requests raise a hot-button legal question that may
be poised for U.S. Supreme Court review. Employees of the
University of Southern California in 2018 filed a petition asking
the Supreme Court to decide whether employers can use arbitration
agreements to block proposed class actions brought on behalf of
their retirement plan and its participants.

The Schwab employees are represented by Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP and Berger Montague PC. Schwab represents
itself, along with Proskauer Rose LLP and Shepherd Finkelman Miller
& Shah LLP.

The case is Dorman v. Charles Schwab Corp., N.D. Cal., No.
4:17-cv-00285-CW, 2/8/19. [GN]


CHICAGO, IL: Class Action Over Distracted Driving Tickets OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a Cook
County judge, for now, has allowed a class action lawsuit to
proceed against the city of Chicago, brought by a group of people
who claimed the city wrongly prosecuted tens of thousands of
distracted driving tickets.

However, lawyers for the city have asked the judge to reconsider
that decision, arguing the tickets, while issued to people
operating a mobile device while driving, should not be considered a
so-called moving violation, under state law.

The lawsuit first pulled into Cook County court in 2017, when
lawyers from the firm of Myron M. Cherry & Associates, of Chicago,
filed suit on behalf of three named plaintiffs.

Only weeks earlier, the Cherry firm attorneys had already hauled in
a settlement worth $39 million, including $11 million in fees, on
behalf of a group of thousands of people who they argued had been
wrongly made to pay fines under the city's red-light camera
enforcement program.

In the subsequent lawsuit, the Cherry lawyers argued the city for
years had improperly prosecuted people ticketed by Chicago Police
for texting or otherwise using a mobile phone or other device while
driving, violating a city ordinance forbidding such use. The
lawsuit did not directly challenge the tickets themselves or
question whether the ordinance was unconstitutional.

Rather, the lawsuit bore down on a claim the city violated state
law by funneling the citations through the city's administrative
hearings system, depriving those accused of their rights to mount a
defense to the charges in Cook County Circuit Court and steering
the full amount of all fines collected into city coffers.

Typically, should a ticket be tried in court, the city must split
any fines collected with other offices associated with the courts,
keeping only 45 percent of the total paid. However, if the
violation is tried through the city's Department of Administrative
Hearings, the city could pocket the full amount.

The lawsuit contends state law doesn't allow the city to do that,
because the violation should be considered a moving violation, and
should be reported to the Illinois Secretary of State's Office to
be counted against a motorist's driving record.

Further, the lawsuit asserts the language of the city's ordinance
effectively mirrors that of a state law forbidding similar
behavior.

However, the lawsuit contends the city opted not to send the matter
to the courts, nor report convictions to the Secretary of State.

The lawsuit also accuses the city of using its administrative
hearing process to pressure those ticketed under the distracted
driving ordinance to quickly pay $100 fines, rather than risk going
to a hearing and ultimately paying $500.

Late last year, Cook County Circuit Judge Pamela McLean Meyerson
rejected City Hall's bid to dismiss the lawsuit, saying her plain
reading of the city ordinance led her to conclude violations of the
ordinance should be considered moving violations under state law.

She noted "the Ordinance 'itself says it's not a violation unless
you are moving in a vehicle,'" according to a brief filed by the
city's lawyers.

In the judge's opinion, this meant the plaintiffs should be allowed
to continue to press their case asserting the city sent traffic
violations to its administrative hearing process which, under state
law, rightly belonged in Cook County Circuit Court.

However, in that brief, filed Jan. 31, the city lawyers asked the
judge to reconsider her decision, contending the judge
misunderstood the law. They specifically said she misapprehended
the phrase "traffic regulation governing the movement of vehicles"
in state law. The city lawyers said the judge mistakenly assigned a
"plain" meaning to that phrase, when the phrase should be
considered a "legal term of art," which has a particular meaning
only under particular circumstances.

In this case, the city's lawyers said the term should not be
applied to the city ordinance, just as the term is not applied to
other offenses, such as running a red light, which state law allows
to be tried through administrative hearings, rather than in court.

"The Court's Order rests on an incorrect assumption that the
operative phrase, 'traffic regulation governing the movement of
vehicles,' is a simple description of *any* regulation directed to
conduct that occurs while driving or when a motor vehicle is in
motion," the city argued on Jan. 24. "A review relevant Illinois
Vehicle Code provisions, however, shows that the phrase is actually
a legal term of art the (Illinois) General Assembly uses to
categorize offenses.

"Specifically, the General Assembly often uses the phrase to except
offenses from being considered moving violations even though the
conduct proscribed involves the offender driving a motor vehicle."

The city also asserted the judge wrongly sided with plaintiffs on
the question of whether the city had improperly not reported
distracted driving violations to the Secretary of State.

The city pointed to differences in the law's reporting
requirements. And further noted the state to this point has not
treated a first violation of its distracted driving law as a moving
violation subject to points under the Secretary of State's
conviction reporting system.

The city noted that will change on July 1, 2019, when any violation
of the state's distracted driving law will clearly be treated by
the Secretary of State as a moving violation, moving a driver
potentially closer to suspension or revocation of their driver's
license.

Nearly seven months earlier, plaintiffs had responded to this
assertion in a brief filed in response to the city's motion to
dismiss. In that document, filed in June 2018, the plaintiffs
noted, without adequate reporting as required by law, there would
be no way for the Secretary of State's Office to know who had
recorded more than one violation.

The judge also took that view in December when she ruled the
plaintiffs could continue their lawsuit.

The judge has not yet ruled on the city's request for
reconsideration. [GN]


CONTAINER STORE: Court Denies Bid for Entry of Judgment in NFB Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, National Federation of the Blind, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. The Container Store, Inc., Defendant, Civil Action No.
15-12984-NMG (D. Mass.), Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for entry of judgment and writ of enforcement.

The dispute arises out of a decision of the First Circuit Court of
Appeals to affirm the Court's denial of the Container Store's
motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the terms of its Loyalty
Program.  Following that decision in 2018, the Plaintiffs moved for
entry of final judgment and injunctive relief with respect to the
subject arbitration provision.

In 2015, the National Federation of the Blind ("NFB") and Mika
Pyyhkala, Lisa Irving, Jeanine Lineback, Arthur Jacobs, Mark
Cadigan and Heather Albright filed a complaint against the
Container Store, alleging a violation of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and other state discrimination
statutes.

In response, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and
enforce class action waivers, pursuant to the terms of its
Perfectly Organized Perks ("POP!") Loyalty Program against all
individual plaintiffs except Cadigan and Albright.  The Court
denied that motion.  The Container Store sought interlocutory
review under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), which provides a
statutory exception for interlocutory appeal where final judgment
has not been certified by the district court.

In late 2018, the First Circuit affirmed the Court's order denying
the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration.  It held that for the
plaintiffs who enrolled in the Loyalty Program at the store
(Pyyhkala, Irving and Jacobs), there was no contract formation with
respect to the arbitration clause because those in-store plaintiffs
lacked actual or constructive notice of the arbitration clause at
the time of their acceptance.

As to the Plaintiff who enrolled in the Loyalty Program online
(Lineback), the First Circuit held that, because the Container
Store unilaterally retained the right to alter the terms and
conditions of the Loyalty Program retroactively, the contract was
illusory and thus no agreement to arbitrate was consummated between
the parties.  It declined to rule on the unconscionability of a
non-existent contract.

Following the First Circuit's decision, the Plaintiffs moved for
entry of final judgment with respect to the arbitration provision
of the Loyalty Program under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) and national
injunctive relief under the All Writs Act.  They allege that final
judgment is warranted because both the Court and the First Circuit
have held that the terms of the Loyalty Program are illusory.  They
further submit that national injunctive relief is appropriate
because 1) the Defendant continues to use the illusory terms in its
Loyalty Program agreement and 2) it will ensure the protection of
the rights of current customers in the Loyalty Program, including
the Plaintiffs.

The Defendant rejoins that the denial of its motion to compel does
not implicate Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) because 1) the motion to compel
arbitration is an embedded proceeding, not a final decision and 2)
interlocutory review of a denial of a motion to compel under the
FAA does not completely dispose of any claims.  It further contends
that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief under the
All Writs Act because 1) no justiciable controversy exists, 2) the
Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief on behalf of the
unnamed Plaintiffs, 3) the Plaintiffs have failed to meet the
requirements for injunctive relief under the All Writs Act and 4)
the issue is moot because the Defendant is in the process of
amending the terms of its Loyalty Program.

Judge Gorton finds that although the First Circuit's decision
resolves the issue of whether the Defendant can compel arbitration,
the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they have satisfied the
finality requirement with respect to the additional relief they are
seeking.  Nor have the Plaintiffs persuasively demonstrated why
final judgment should be entered.  Moreover, there is no evidence
that the Defendant has attempted to enforce arbitration on the
Plaintiffs' claims underlying the lawsuit, thus mitigating any
claim that final judgment must be entered immediately.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for entry of final judgment
under Rule 54(b) will be denied.

With respect to the prospective injunctive relief that the
Plaintiffs seek, the Judge finds that the All Writs Act does not
apply.  That Act is used sparingly and only in the most "critical
and exigent circumstances".  Only where the legal rights at issue
are "indisputably clear" and relief is necessary or appropriate in
aiding the Court's jurisdiction will courts consider providing
injunctive relief.  Because the Defendant is not attempting to
enforce the arbitration provision and is in the process of revising
the contract terms, the Plaintiffs can only suggest the
hypothetical harm of future arbitration.  Such a hypothetical harm
does not rise to the level of "critical" or "exigent circumstances"
and should such harm become likely, the Plaintiffs may then seek
injunctive relief again.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for
writ of enforcement under the All Writs Act will be denied.

For these reasons, Judge Gorton denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
entry of judgment and writ of enforcement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/ltCkk2 from Leagle.com.

National Federation of the Blind, on behalf of their members and
themselves, Mark Cadigan, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Mika Pyyhkala, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Lisa Irving, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Arthur Jacobs, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Heather Albright, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated & Jeanine Kay Lineback,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Jana Eisinger -- jeisinger@eisingerlawfirm.com --
Law Office of Jana Eisinger, PLLC, pro hac vice, Jeremy Y. Weltman
-- jweltman@hermesnetburn.com -- Hermes, Netburn, O'Connor &
Spearing, P.C., Scott C. LaBarre -- slabarre@labarrelaw.com --
LaBarre Law Office, P.C., pro hac vice, Timothy Elder, TRE Legal
Practice, pro hac vice & Karla Gilbride --
kgilbride@publicjustice.net -- Public Justice, P.C., pro hac vice.

The Container Store, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory F.
Hurley -- ghurley@sheppardmullin.com -- Shepphard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. Chilleen --
mchilleen@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton, LLP, pro hac vice & Howard E. Stempler, Seder & Chandler.


DENVER, CO: Faces Class Action Over Disabled Teachers Strike
------------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Mitchell, writing for The Denver Post, reports that attorneys
filed a federal lawsuit against Denver Public Schools on behalf of
more than 10,000 disabled students who the suit alleges likely will
be harmed more than other students by the teachers strike that
began on
Feb. 11.

The civil lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Denver on
Feb. 11 on behalf of a child identified only as E.A. by Aurora
attorneys Igor Raykin and Tyler Jeffery. The lawyers are seeking
class-action certification for the lawsuit.

The lawsuit seeks a court order against DPS ensuring that the
district provide necessary special education services to all
disabled students.

DPS spokesman Will Jones said students with disabilities were "well
supported" in their schools on Feb. 11, dismissing the lawsuit as
"appear(ing) to be based on speculation that students will be
denied services as a result of the strike."

As soon as the strike became a possibility, Jones said, DPS
officials began recruiting substitutes with special-education
expertise and developed plans to work with those students.

"We are committed to keeping our students safe and supported," he
said. "We will continue to monitor our allocation of staff supports
in an effort to meet the unique needs of all students for the
duration of the strike."

The Denver Post wants to see your photos of the strike from
rallies, organizing sessions and inside schools and classrooms. If
you're willing to let the Post use and publish your photos, submit
a photo of the Denver teacher strike here.

The lawsuit alleges that "the strike will cause severe emotional
and psychological trauma for special education students, especially
the large number of DPS students who suffer from autism. Students
with autism typically do not handle changes in routine."

Many of the students with severe intellectual disabilities require
specialized assistance for their health and safety, the lawsuit
says. They need help from special education teachers, counselors,
social workers, school psychologists and therapists.

Some of the children have special medical needs such as feeding
tubes or breathing apparatuses that must be provided by nurses or
other specialized caregivers, according to the lawsuit.

"They could get hurt, hurt themselves and/or hurt others," the
lawsuit states.

Because of the strike, DPS likely will replace essential employees
with substitute teachers with inadequate training, the lawsuit
says. Substitute teachers will not be capable of addressing the
federally required needs of special education students based on
Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), the lawsuit states.

If DPS is forced to merge classes or relocate students because of
the strike it will have a severe negative impact on blind students,
the lawsuit says. "That possibly could force these students to be
confined to a classroom, damaging their social-emotional
progress."

"It is simply impossible for the district to implement thousands of
IEPs for disabled children without having properly trained staff
during the strike in order to do so," the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit asks the federal court to immediately inform parents of
disabled children how the district intends to meet the special
education needs of their children during the strike. [GN]


DEUTSCHE BANK: Settles Antitrust Suit for CAD5.5MM
--------------------------------------------------
Chris Powell, Secretary/Treasurer Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee
Inc., in an article for GoldSeek.com, states

Dear Friend of GATA and Gold:

While the law firm superintending the Canadian class-action lawsuit
against gold and silver market rigging doesn't seem interested in
communicating to the public about the case, GATA is reliably
informed that the settlement agreement with Deutsche Bank reported
on Feb. 12 -- http://www.gata.org/node/18857
-- is not the end of the case.

The lawsuit continues against eight other banks, the London Gold
Market Fixing organization, and the London Silver Market Fixing
organization, as specified in the Feb. 12 announcement from the law
firm: https://is.gd/cEd0cu

GATA is also reliably informed that as with Deutsche Bank's
settlement of the similar anti-trust lawsuit against it in the
United States, the bank has agreed to provide evidence against the
other defendants in the Canadian class action. Thus the Canadian
lawsuit eventually may recover far more than the C$5.5 million
Deutsche Bank has agreed to pay to settle the claims against it in
Canada.

Of equal interest here is that as far as GATA can tell, the
monetary metals mining industry and the World Gold Council have had
nothing to say about these settlements, nor about the several
admissions of gold and silver market rigging recently extracted
from bullion bank traders by U.S. government agencies.

It seems that most of the monetary metals mining industry is
interested only in touting share ownership and the World Gold
Council is interested only in ensuring that there never is a world
gold council.

That may leave GATA as the only advocate for monetary metals
investors and adherents of free and transparent markets, limited
and accountable government, and fair dealing among nations. Until
the people and organizations with the resources to do this job as
it could and should be done actually undertake it, GATA will be
grateful for your financial support: http://www.gata.org/node/16

Even a $5 contribution will be $5 more than GATA has received from
Newmont Mining and Barrick Gold.

GATA -- http://www.gata.org-- is a civil rights and educational
organization based in the United States and tax-exempt under the
U.S. Internal Revenue Code. [GN]


DTE ENERGY: Peeples Files TCPA Suit in Michigan
-----------------------------------------------
Richard Peeples, individually and on behalf others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DTE Energy Services, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 4:19-cv-10611-MFL-SDD (E.D. Mich., March 1, 2019) brought this
action for injunctive relief and statutory damages to hold
Defendant accountable for its illegal activities in utilizing
automatically dialed calls and prerecorded messages to solicit
payment from individuals it presumably (but wrongfully) believed to
be debtors.

This case involves activities conducted by the Defendant in
contacting individuals believed to be its debtors through use of
automated calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA") and the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC").

The Defendant has violated the TCPA by making calls to Plaintiff
and Class Members using an "automatic telephone dialing system"
and/or an "artificial or prerecorded voice" without Plaintiff's and
Class Members' prior express consent within the meaning of the
TCPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is an individual citizen of the State of Michigan
residing in the City of West Bloomfield.

Defendant is an energy company based in Detroit, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
     GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
     5550 Glades Road, Ste. 500
     Boca Raton, FL 33431
     Phone: 561.826.5477
     Fax: 561.961.5684
     Email: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

     Andrew Campbell, Esq.
     1000 Beach Street, Suite B West Entrance
     Flint, MI 48502
     Phone: (810) 232-4344
     Email: michiganbk@gmail.com


ED MITCHELL INC: Faces Traynor ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class lawsuit has been filed against Ed Mitchell Inc. The case is
captioned as YASEEN TRAYNOR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ED MITCHELL INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00943-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 31, 2019).
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act. The case is assigned to Judge Vernon S. Broderick.

Ed Mitchell Inc. operates as a clothing store. The Company offers
men's, women's, and children's apparels, shoes, jewelry, hand bags,
and accessories. Ed Mitchell serves customers in the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Harris Kohn, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: dkohn@steinsakslegal.com


ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
on January 31, 2019, Judge Madeline Cox Arleo of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey granted with leave to
amend defendants' motion to dismiss a putative securities fraud
class action against a digital printing company (the "Company") and
two of its officers.  In Re:  Electronics For Imaging, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 17-5592 (D. N.J. Jan. 31, 2019).
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder by intentionally misrepresenting the adequacy of the
Company's internal controls.  The Court disagreed, finding that
because the complaint did not allege facts sufficient to show that
the deficiencies were "'so obvious' that defendants must have known
about them . . . , or allegations that defendants ignored 'red
flags,'" it failed to plead scienter.

Plaintiffs alleged that the Company assured investors of the
strength of its internal controls in its 2016 10-K and its first
quarter 2017 10-Q.  A few months later, the Company issued a press
release announcing that its second quarter 2017 financial results
would be delayed due to an internal investigation into the
effectiveness of its internal controls.  The next day the Company's
stock declined over 45%.  The Company later amended its SEC filings
and identified certain material weaknesses in internal controls
over financial reporting.

In support of their scienter allegations, plaintiffs argued that by
certifying the effectiveness of the Company's internal controls,
defendants "conceded that they actually assessed the effectiveness
of those controls thoroughly."  Based on those representations,
plaintiffs argued that two scenarios are possible:  (i) if
defendants lied about their thorough assessment, they are reckless
in certifying those controls as effective; and (ii) if they
assessed the effectiveness of the Company's internal controls
thoroughly, as they certified, then it defies credulity that they
did not uncover the pervasive deficiencies.

The Court rejected plaintiffs' first contention that defendants
"lied about their thorough assessment," finding the complaint
alleged no corroborative facts—let alone "strong circumstantial
evidence"—to support the inference that defendants lied about the
performance or the depth of their review.  According to the Court,
plaintiffs' allegations amounted to "nothing more than pure
conjecture."

The Court also rejected plaintiffs' alternative argument (if they
in fact conducted a thorough assessment, defendants must have
noticed the deficiencies), finding that plaintiffs pointed to no
evidence that any deficiency was "so obvious" that defendants must
have been aware of it.  Instead, plaintiffs cited only the
consequences of internal control deficiencies (e.g., "the worst
conversion rate of any quarter in recent memory, . . . due at least
in part to the Company's assessment of its controls"), rather than
"red flags" that should have alerted defendants to the weakness of
internal controls.

The Court also rejected plaintiffs' other bases for alleging
scienter.  First, the Court found that the "core operations
doctrine" did not support a finding of scienter because plaintiffs
failed to allege specific information conveyed to management
related to the fraud.  Second, the Court found that the fact that
executives signed certifications attesting to the accuracy of the
SEC filings did not—in the absence of specific
allegations—support the conclusion that defendants knew the
information was false.  Third, the Court rejected plaintiffs'
allegation that the Company's auditor's opinion in its 2016 10-K
supported an inference of scienter, again finding that plaintiff
failed to allege any particularized facts in support of the
allegation.  Fourth, because plaintiffs did not allege a "concrete
and personal benefit" resulting from the fraud to the individual
defendants, allegations regarding defendants' motive did not
support an inference of scienter.  And fifth, because plaintiffs
could not plead facts creating a strong inference that someone
whose intent could be imputed to the Company acted with scienter,
the theory under the "collective scienter" doctrine also failed.

Because the Court found no violation of Section 10(b), it also
dismissed the derivative Section 20(a) claim for control person
liability. [GN]


EMMIS OPERATING: Fischler Files ADA Class Action
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Emmis Operating
Company. The case is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Emmis
Operating Company doing business as: Hot 97, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01058 (E.D. N.Y., Feb. 21, 2019).

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

Emmis Operating Company provides radio broadcasting, television
broadcasting, and magazine publishing services in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     Fifth Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


ENDURANCE INT'L: Sep. 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

CHRISTOPHER MACHADO, and MICHAEL RUBIN, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated,

Case No. 1:15-cv-11775-GAO

Plaintiffs,

v.

ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., HARI RAVICHANDRAN,
and TIVANKA ELLAWALA,

Defendants.

This is a summary notice of: (i) pendency of class action and
proposed settlement; (ii) settlement fairness hearing; and (iii)
motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
litigation expenses.

This notice is to all persons and/or entities who or which
purchased or otherwise acquired Endurance International Group
Holdings, Inc. ("Endurance") common stock during the period of
October 25, 2013 through December 16, 2015, inclusive, including
all persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise
acquired Endurance common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
registered public offering conducted on or about October 25, 2013,
and who were injured thereby (the "Settlement Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III)
Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a
proposed settlement of the Action for $18,650,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Action.

A hearing will be held on September 13, 2019 at 10:00 a.m., before
the Honorable George A. O'Toole, Jr. at the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, John Joseph Moakley U.S.
Courthouse, Courtroom 9, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, Massachusetts
02210, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action
should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the
Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement dated July 6, 2018 ("Stipulation") (and in the
Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv)
whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  The Notice and Proof of
Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), can be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.EnduranceSecuritiesLitigation.com. You may also obtain copies
of the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator
at Endurance Securities Class Action Litigation, c/o JND Legal
Administration, P.O. Box 91346, Seattle, WA 98111, 1-833-747-6675.


If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than May 31, 2019.  If
you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim
Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the
net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound
by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than August 23, 2019,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than August 23, 2019, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

All capitalized words and terms not defined in this notice shall
have the meanings stated in the Stipulation, which can be
downloaded from www.EnduranceSecuritiesLitigation.com.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Endurance, or
its counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate
in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

         Endurance Securities Class Action Litigation    
         c/o JND Legal Administration
         P.O. Box 91346
         Seattle, WA 98111
         833-747-6675
         www.EnduranceSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

         GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
         Attn: Jason Krajcer
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, California 90067
         (888) 773-9224
         settlements@glancylaw.com

By Order of the Court [GN]


EVERGREEN HOSPITAL: Wash App. Affirms Arbitration Denial in Lee
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, issued an Opinion
affirming the trial court's judgment denying the Defendant's Motion
to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned JEOUNG LEE and SHERRI
McFARLAND, on their own behalf and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Respondents, v. EVERGREEN HOSPITAL MEDICAL
CENTER, a/k/a KING COUNTY PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT #2, Appellant.
No. 77694-1-I. (Wash. App.).

Lee filed a putative class action in November 2016 with herself as
the sole representative plaintiff alleging that Evergreen denied
emergency room nurses their statutorily guaranteed rest and meal
breaks.

The court also granted Lee's motion to file her second amended
complaint, which is the operative complaint. Two weeks later,
Evergreen filed its motion to compel arbitration and alleged
Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, recent discovery requests,
and deposition testimony of class representatives now make clear
that the claims arise under the Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA). The court denied Evergreen's motion to compel arbitration.

Whether The CBA Requires Arbitration

Evergreen contends the CBA compels binding arbitration of all class
claims because Lee's alleged violations arise from section 7.7 of
the CBA, not from any statute or regulation.

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)7 generally applies to CBAs.

Article 16 in the CBA provides a four-step grievance process. The
CBA defines a grievance as an alleged breach of the express terms
and conditions of the agreement. The terms of this CBA do not allow
an alleged statutory breach to be grieved under this narrow
definition.

Chapter 49.12 RCW authorizes the creation of regulations about meal
and rest periods for employees, which are defined in WAC
296-126-092:

"(1) Employees shall be allowed a meal period of at least thirty
minutes which commences no less than two hours nor more than five
hours from the beginning of the shift. Meal periods shall be on the
employer's time when the employee is required by the employer to
remain on duty on the premises or at a prescribed work site in the
interest of the employer. (2) No employee shall be required to work
more than five consecutive hours without a meal period. (3)
Employees working three or more hours longer than a normal work day
shall be allowed at least one thirty-minute meal period prior to or
during the overtime period. (4) Employees shall be allowed a rest
period of not less than ten minutes, on the employer's time, for
each four hours of working time. Rest periods shall be scheduled as
near as possible to the midpoint of the work period. No employee
shall be required to work more than three hours without a rest
period. (5) Where the nature of the work allows employees to take
intermittent rest periods equivalent to ten minutes for each 4
hours worked, scheduled rest periods are not required."

Evergreen makes much of the fact that section 7.7 provides for a
15-minute rest period, whereas WAC 296-126-092(4) provides for a
rest period of no less than ten minutes. But 15 minutes is no less
than ten minutes. The 15-minute rest period merely reflects
compliance with rather than variance from the regulation. Also,
Lee's claim is for missed rest breaks. The potential duration of a
rest break is irrelevant if the break never begins or was less than
10 minutes.

Evergreen contends that all disputes between parties to a CBA are
presumptively subject to arbitration unless specifically excluded.
This argument is not persuasive because it fails to recognize the
source of the rights Lee asserts in her complaint.

The Steelworkers Trilogy, which sets out the principles governing
arbitration of public employee labor disputes governed by a CBA,
strongly favors arbitration of contractual disputes within the
scope of an arbitration provision. But a public or private
employee's statutory rights are distinct from her contractual
rights. Even where a CBA contains a provision that is coextensive
with a statutory right, the ultimate question is what the law
requires and that is not a question which should be presumed to be
included within the arbitration requirement.

Moreover, arbitration clauses in CBAs differ from arbitration
clauses in bilateral employment contracts, particularly when it
comes to statutory rights. Consequently, an employee retains the
ability to enforce her statutory rights in court unless the
employees clearly and expressly agreed in the CBA to arbitrate
their statutory claims. The CBA must explicitly state in clear and
unmistakable language that employees waive their ability to enforce
statutory rights in court.

Article 16 provides the option of submitting unresolved grievances
to binding arbitration, rather than mandating arbitration in all
instances. Lee's complaint does not implicate the CBA and,
moreover, the CBA does not clearly and unmistakably waive Lee's
ability to bring individual statutory claims in court.

Because the CBA does not clearly and unmistakably waive Lee's
ability to enforce her statutory rights in court and PECBA is not
germane, the court did not err in denying Evergreen's motion to
compel arbitration.

Whether Evergreen Waived The Right To Compel Arbitration

Lee contends that even if the CBA required arbitration of her
claims, Evergreen waived its right to compel arbitration.

Washington courts have long held that the contractual right to
arbitration may be waived if it is not timely invoked. Because
Washington has a strong presumption in favor of arbitration, the
party arguing against it bears a heavy burden of showing that
waiver occurred.

To establish waiver of the right to arbitration, the party opposing
arbitration must demonstrate (1) knowledge of an existing right to
compel arbitration (2) acts inconsistent with that existing right
and (3) prejudice to the party opposing arbitration resulting from
such inconsistent acts.

A party asserting its right to arbitration acts inconsistently with
that right where it seeks a decision on the merits of issues in the
litigation and fails to assert its right at obvious opportunities
to do so. Simply put a party waives a right to arbitrate if it
elects to litigate instead of arbitrate.

Evergreen agrees it did not move to compel arbitration until the
parties had been litigating for nine months. But it contends it did
not know the claims in the complaint arose under the CBA until
after it deposed McFarland on July 26, 2017, and Lee added
McFarland as a representative plaintiff a few weeks later.

Evergreen behaved inconsistently with a party seeking to arbitrate.
Soon after McFarland's deposition, Lee moved to continue trial from
November 2017 to March 2018. Lee also sent Evergreen a copy of her
proposed second amended complaint adding McFarland as a
representative plaintiff.

Evergreen opposed the motion to continue, and stated it is prepared
to try this case on November 6, 2017. Also, Evergreen was fully
aware of McFarland's deposition testimony at the time it insisted
on litigating. Evergreen specifically argued against granting Lee a
continuance because McFarland had already been deposed and a second
class representative adds nothing to the present case. Put simply,
Evergreen elected to litigate and missed an obvious opportunity to
assert its right to arbitrate.

Evergreen's knowledge of its ability to invoke arbitration, its
litigation conduct, and the potential prejudice to Lee demonstrate
waiver of the right to arbitrate. Accordingly, the Court concludes
Evergreen waived the right to arbitrate when it elected to litigate
instead of arbitrate.

For these reasons, the Court affirms.

A full-text copy of the Wash. App.'s February 11, 2019 Opinion is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y2sghxaofrom Leagle.com.

John James White, Livengood Alskog, PLLC, 121 3rd Ave, PO Box 908,
Kirkland, WA, 98083-0908.

Kevin Blair Hansen, Livengood Alskog, PLLC, PO Box 908, 121 Third
Ave, Kirkland, WA, 98083-0908.

Rebecca Lauren Penn, Livengood Alskog, PO Box 908, Kirkland, WA,
98083-0908, Counsel for Appellant(s).

David Elliot Breskin, Breskin Johnson & Townsend PLLC, 1000 Second
Avenue Suite 3670, Seattle, WA, 98104.

Cynthia J Heidelberg, Breskin, Johnson & Townsend, 1000 2nd Ave Ste
3670, Seattle, WA, 98104-1053, Counsel for Respondent(s).


EVERLANE INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Everlane, Inc. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Everlane, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01243 (E.D. N.Y., Mar. 1, 2019).

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

Everlane is a United States clothing retailer that sells primarily
online. The organization is headquartered in San Francisco,
California and also has a store in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


EXCLUSIVE PREPAID: Rios Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Rios and Joseph Moore, individually and on behalf all other
employees similarly situated v. Exclusive Prepaid NY I Inc. d/b/a
Metro PCS and Ajay Angras, Case No. 1:19-cv-00996 (E.D.N.Y.,
February 19, 2019), alleges that the Defendants have committed
widespread violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to
pay their employees, including the Plaintiffs minimum wages and
overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

Exclusive Prepaid NY I Inc., doing business as Metro PCS, is a
domestic business corporation organization and existing under the
laws of the state of New York and maintains its principal place of
business in Corona, New York.  Ajay Angras is the owner, officer,
director and/or managing agent of the Company.

Metro PCS operates several retail cellular phone stores in Corona,
Flushing, East Elmhurst and Brooklyn, New York.  Metro PCS sells
cellular phones and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lorena P. Duarte, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Ave., Suite #10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
          E-mail: lduarte@hanglaw.com


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Diane Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Express Scripts, Inc., and Express Scripts
Holding Company, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-07752 (D. N.J., March
4, 2019) files this Class and Collective Action Complaint, against
the Defendant seeking all available relief for unpaid overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and The New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL") and New Jersey Wage and Hour
Regulations.

The Defendants violated the FSLA and the NJWHL, by misclassifying
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as exempt "managers" and
failing to pay these employees for all the hours worked, failing to
pay them overtime in a timely manner, and failing to pay them the
legally required amount of overtime compensation required by law
for all hours works over 40 in a work week, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was formerly employed by Defendant in Franklin Lakes, New
Jersey.

Defendants are pharmacy benefits managers, organized as a
corporation under the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Russell S. Warren, Jr., Esq.
     RUSSELL S. WARREN, JR.
     473 Sylvan Avenue
     Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
     Phone: (201) 503-0773
     Fax: (201) 503-0776
     Email: mail@rwarrenlaw.com

          - and -

     Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH LLC
     363 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 2C
     Montclair, NJ 07042
     Phone: (973) 259-6990
     Fax: (866) 848-1368
     Email: roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com

          - and -

     Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
     GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
     217 Centre Street, 6th Floor
     New York, NY 10013
     Phone: (212) 847-8315
     Fax: (646) 964-9620
     Email: canderson@gslawny.com


EZ FESTIVALS: Fischler Files Suit Asserting ADA Breach
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EZ Festivals, LLC.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EZ Festivals,
LLC doing business as: Electric Zoo, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01057 (E.D. N.Y., Feb. 21, 2019).

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

EZ Festivals, LLC organizes annual electronic dance music festival
under the Electric Zoo Festival name. The company is based in Long
Island City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     Fifth Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


FAMILY & COMMUNITY: McGraw Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomessa McGraw on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Family & Community Partners, LLC, Nicholas
Orange, Romuda Valentine, Dwight Holland and Sandra Donaldson,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00922-JRS-DLP (S.D. Ind., March 4,
2019) is a proposed class and collective actions brought on behalf
of all former and current employees of Defendants against
Defendants,

Plaintiff Ms. McGraw was not paid at least minimum wages within a
reasonable period of time following the end of a monthly pay
period.

The Defendants willfully failed to pay Ms. McGraw her minimum
and/or overtime wages in a timely fashion, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Ms. McGraw began employment with CFP in February 2016 and
is a resident of Indianapolis, Indiana.

FCP is a business that is headquartered in Indianapolis,
Indiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ronald E. Weldy, Esq.
     WELDY LAW
     8383 Craig Street, Suite 330
     Indianapolis, IN 46250
     Phone: (317) 842-6600
     Fax: (317) 842-6933
     Email: weldy@weldylegal.com


FOUNDERS ENTERTAINMENT: Violates ADA, Fischler Suit Asserts
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Founders
Entertainment, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler
Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Founders Entertainment, LLC doing business as: The
Governors Ball Music Festival, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01056-WFK-RER (E.D. N.Y., Feb. 21, 2019).

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

Founders Entertainment, LLC produces and promotes music festivals,
concerts, tours, and customized entertainment experiences. It
specializes in music festivals; and brand activation and event
production services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     Fifth Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


GLOBAL RADAR: June 7 Filing Due of Sanders Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHAWANA SANDERS and KENYATTA WILLIAMS, on their own
and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
GLOBAL RADAR ACQUISITION, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-555-FtM-99UAM (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Douglas N.
Frazier of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Fort Myers Division, granted the Notice of Mediation and
Joint Motion for Enlargement of Time to Current Case Schedule filed
on Feb. 11, 2019.

Under Local Rule 4.04, the named plaintiff or plaintiffs in a class
action must move for class certification within 90 days after the
filing of the complaint, unless the Court finds good cause to
extend the deadline.  The parties request an extension of time for
the Plaintiffs to move for class certification until June 7, 2019,
and an extension of the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines
until July 7, 2019 and Aug. 12, 2019, respectively.  The Case
Management and Scheduling Order entered Oct. 26, 2018 set the
discovery deadline for June 3, 2019, the mediation deadline for
April 15, 2019, the dispositive motions deadline for July 2, 2019
and a trial term beginning Jan. 6, 2020.  By separate Order, the
Court previously extended the Plaintiffs' deadline to move for
class certification to Feb. 10, 2019.

Magistrate Judge Frazier finds good cause to extend the deadlines
and will grant the motion, as the requested extensions are
relatively brief and will not necessitate changing any other
deadlines in the CMSO or the trial term.  Accordingly, he granted
the Notice of Mediation and Joint Motion for Enlargement of Time to
Current Case Schedule.  The Plaintiffs will have up to and
including June 7, 2019 to move for class certification.  The
parties will have up to and including July 7, 2019 to complete
discovery and up to and including Aug. 12, 2019 to file dispositive
motions.  All other deadlines and directives in the Case Management
and Scheduling Order remain unchanged.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/g84Xj3 from Leagle.com.

Shawana Sanders, on their own and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals & Kenyatta Williams, on their own and on
behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs,
represented by Andrew Ross Frisch -- afrisch@forthepeople.com --
Morgan & Morgan, PA, C. Ryan Morgan -- RMorgan@forthepeople.com --
Morgan & Morgan, PA, Craig C. Marchiando, Consumer Litigation
Associates P.C. & Marc Reed Edelman -- MEdelman@forthepeople.com --
Morgan & Morgan, PA.

Global Radar Acquistion, LLC, doing business as Radar Post-Closing
Holding Company, Inc., Global HR Research, Inc., Defendant,
represented by John Drury, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, Pamela Q. Devata,
Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, pro hac vice & Richard Barton Akin, II --
richard.akin@henlaw.com -- Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt,
PA.


GOOGLE INC: Supreme Court Set to Weigh in on Frank v. Gaos
----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph J. Lazzarotti, Esq., and Maya Atrakchi, Esq. --
Maya.Atrakchi@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an
article for The National Law Review, report that the U.S. Supreme
Court may finally weigh in on the hottest issue in data breach
litigation, whether a demonstration of actual harm is required to
have standing to sue. Standing to sue in a data breach class action
suit, largely turns on whether plaintiffs establish that they have
suffered an "injury-in-fact" resulting from the data breach.
Plaintiffs in data breach class actions are often not able to
demonstrate that they have suffered financial or other actual
damages resulting from a breach of their personal information.
Instead, plaintiffs will allege that a heightened "risk of future
harm" such as identity theft or fraudulent charges is enough to
establish an "injury-in-fact".

Federal circuits court over the past few years have struggled with
the question whether plaintiffs in a data breach class action can
establish standing if they only allege a heightened "risk of future
harm".  For example, the 3rd, 6th, 7th, 11th, and D.C. circuits
have generally found standing, while the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th
and 9th circuits have generally found no standing where a plaintiff
only alleges a heightened "risk of future harm". This circuit court
split is in large part to due to lack of clarity following the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins which held that
even if a statute has been violated, plaintiffs must demonstrate
that an "injury-in-fact" has occurred that is both concrete and
particularized, but which failed to clarify whether a "risk of
future harm" qualifies as such an injury.

The U.S. Supreme Court may finally weigh in on the status of
standing in data breach litigation this term, in Frank v. Gaos. The
Court recently requested supplemental briefs addressing whether any
of the name plaintiffs has standing such that federal courts have
Article III jurisdiction over the dispute. The Court's request is
particularly notable, as the issue before the Court was not
initially focused on standing. Although Frank is not a classic data
breach case, rather a privacy class action settlement based on
unauthorized sharing of website search terms to third-parties, it
may still provide the Court an opportunity to resolve the circuit
split and issue further guidance on standing in data breach
litigation.

Similarly, the Illinois Supreme Court recently held that actual
harm was not required to sue under the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Law ("BIPA"), likely to increase the already
large number of suits, including putative class actions, filed
under the law. It goes without saying that the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Frank v. Gaos could have significant impact on data
breach class action lawsuits. [GN]


GSG PROTECTIVE: Underpays Security Guards, Barnes Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA BARNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GSG PROTECTIVE SERVICES CA, INC.; GREEN
KNIGHT BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV02806 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Jan. 31, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid
regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal
and rest periods.

Mr. Barnes was employed by the Defendants as security guard.

GSG Protective Services CA, Inc. is a full-service provider of
security services in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James A. De Sario, Esq.
          Melissa M. Kurata, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 553-3600
          Facsimile: (310) 553-3603


HARRIS CUISINE: Ex-Lilette Server Files FLSA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Clair Lorell, writing for Eater, reports that late in January, a
former server at Uptown's elegant French bistro Lilette filed a
17-page motion seeking certification of a class action lawsuit
against Harris Cuisine LLC, the company that owns Lilette, and its
owner and chef John Harris.

The motion, signed on January 25 by judge Barry Ashe in the Eastern
District of Louisiana, alleges that Lilette's owners violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act by routinely forcing its servers,
including plaintiff Gustavo Figueroa, to contribute to an "illegal
and arbitrarily-determined" tip pool, and that time servers spent
performing side work before and after shifts went uncompensated.

The suit also claims that the amount the servers would contribute
to the tip pool was determined following each shift and differed by
shift, and that defendants took a tip "credit" as part of
management's compensation. Mr. Figueroa alleges that by utilizing
this system, defendants were able to avoid giving managers and
other hourly employees raises and were able to avoid paying certain
employees, like a glass polisher, altogether.

Mr. Figueroa, who worked at Lilette from February 2018 to May 2018,
also requests a three-year statute of limitations for staff that
had previously worked at the restaurant to be included in the
claim, which Harris doesn't oppose.

Lilette has received high praise since chef and owner John Harris
opened its doors on Magazine Street in 2001, both for its
expertly-executed French menu and its romantic atmosphere; it
appeared on Eater's list of 38 essential New Orleans restaurants in
the fall of 2017. Harris opened Exchange Alley, a restaurant in New
York City's East Village, in 2012 with chef Paul Gerard, which has
since closed. [GN]


HARRISBURG, PA: Inmates' Class Claims Junked Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MELVIN ABDULLAH EL and JAMES BROWN, Jr., Plaintiffs,
v. MAYOR OF HARRISBURG, SUSQUEHANNA POLICE DEPARTMENT CHIEF OF
POLICE, and WARDEN BRIAN S. CLARK, Defendants, Case No.
4:19-CV-00083 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Matthew W. Brann of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed
without prejudice the class action claims in the Plaintiffs'
Complaint, and struck the Complaint's request for a specific dollar
amount of unliquidated damages.

On Jan. 15, 2019, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson issued a
Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court dismisses the
class action claims in the Plaintiff's Complaint.  Magistrate Judge
Carlson recommended that the dismissal be without prejudice,
however, so that the Plaintiffs could amend their complaint to
reframe their class action claims as individual capacity claims.
Magistrate Judge Carlson also recommended that the Court strikes
the Plaintiffs' request for a specific dollar amount of
unliquidated damages.

The Plaintiffs did not file any timely objections to Magistrate
Carlson's Report and Recommendation.  Judge Brann has reviewed that
Report and Recommendation and has found no clear error on the face
of the record.  Therefore, he adopted the Report and Recommendation
in its entirety.

The Plaintiffs did file a motion seeking additional time to file an
amended complaint.  They did not, however, specify how much
additional time they are seeking.  Their motion also seeks an order
requiring prison officials to provide them additional law library
access time to access and to release certain mail allegedly held by
the prison.  The Plaintiffs will be given 28 days to amend their
complaint as suggested by Magistrate Judge Carlson, and may move
the Court for additional time if needed.  Their motion will
otherwise be denied.

Therefore, Judge Brann dismissed without prejudice the class action
claims in the Plaintiffs' Complaint, and struck the Complaint's
request for a specific dollar amount of unliquidated damages.
Within 28 days of the date of the Order, the Plaintiffs may file an
amended complaint that reframes the existing class action claims as
individual capacity claims.  The Plaintiffs' Motion for an
Extension of Time is otherwise denied.  The case is remanded back
to Magistrate Judge Carlson for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Hfdsz8 from Leagle.com.

Melvin Abdullah EL, Plaintiff, pro se.

James Brown, JR., Plaintiff, pro se.


HERSHEY COMPANY: Clark Files Fraud Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hershey Company.
The case is styled as Howard Clark, Todd Hall, Angela Pirrone
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
the general public, Plaintiff v. The Hershey Company, a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00356-LAB-MDD (S.D. Cal.,
Feb. 21, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

The Hershey Company, commonly called Hershey's, is an American
company and one of the largest chocolate manufacturers in the
world. It also manufactures baked products, such as cookies, cakes,
milk shake, drinks and many more, which increase its variety of
range.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ronald Marron, Esq.
     Law Office of Ronald Marron
     651 Arroyo Drive
     San Diego, CA 92103
     Phone: (619) 696-9006
     Fax: (619) 564-6665
     Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com


HUNTSMAN CORP: Faces Class Action in Texas State Court
------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that investors in pigments maker Venator Materials
PLC, which was spun off from Huntsman Corp., have filed a proposed
class action in Texas state court claiming they lost millions.
[GN]


IQVIA HOLDINGS: Thomas Sues over Unsolicited Fax Advertisements
---------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH A. THOMAS MD, LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. IQVIA HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, the
Defendant, Case 1:19-cv-00180 (M.D.N.C., Feb. 14, 2019), seeks to
stop Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited fax advertisements
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, IQVIA's faxes solicited recipients'
survey taking skills in return for a fee as part of Defendant's
effort to commercialize and profit from its data collection
products and services. The faxes also announced the commercial
availability and touted the quality of IQVIA's services, including
the National Healthcare Census and another "nationally recognized,
HIPAA-compliant research study for the "benefit" of, among others,
"private-sector establishments across the globe." The Defendant
sent the faxes to the Plaintiff and the Class without their consent
and without an established business relationship with them. As
such, the Defendant's fax advertisements violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, and caused Plaintiff and putative members
of the Class to suffer actual harm, including the aggravation and
nuisance of receiving such faxes, the loss of use of their fax
machines during the receipt of such faxes, and other expenses, the
lawsuit says.

IQVIA is a data collection and related services company.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class:

          Ted Lewis Johnson, Esq.
          PO Box 5272
          Greensboro, NC 27435
          E-mail: tedlewisjohnson@tedlewisjohnson.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

KTH PARTS: Baughman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------
Justin Baughman, Shawn Nichols, and Candi Williams, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated v. KTH Parts Industries,
Inc. and KTH Leesburg Products, LLC ("KLP"), Case No. 3:19-cv-00008
(S.D. Ohio, January 8, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants jointly suffered and
permitted the named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated
Timeclock Associates to work more than 40 hours per workweek, while
not fully compensating them for all such hours worked over 40 at a
rate of at least one and one-half times their regular rate of pay,
at a minimum, as a result of the Defendants' rounding policy and
practice.

The Plaintiff Baughman worked as an hourly, non-exempt "employee"
of the Defendants as defined in the FLSA and the Ohio Acts
primarily in the position of crane operator in or around November
2016 until March 2018. He also worked in KTH's welding department
as an hourly, non-exempt employee.

The Plaintiff Nichols has worked as an hourly, non-exempt
"employee" of the Defendant KTH as defined in the FLSA in the
position of production associate beginning in or around April 2018
and continuing through October 2018.

The Plaintiff Williams has worked as an hourly, non-exempt
"employee" of Defendants as defined in the FLSA in the position of
production worker beginning in or around December 2012 and
continuing through the fall of 2018.

The Defendant KTH is a domestic for-profit corporation authorized
to do business in Ohio and jointly conducts business in this
judicial district. KTH designs, develops, and manufactures
automotive parts, starting with raw material to the blanking, laser
welding, stamping, spot welding, and delivery to its customers.

The Defendant KLP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of KTH. It is a
foreign limited liability company with its principal place of
business located in Leesburg, Alabama. KLP is the production
business of stamping and welding automotive body sub-component
parts, which are "supplied to KTH Parts Industries and its
subsidiaries." [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
      COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
      1550 Old Henderson Road, Ste 126
      Columbus, OH 43220
      Tel: (614) 949-1181
      Fax: (614) 386-9964
      E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

          - and -

      Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
      BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
      1550 Old Henderson Road, Ste 126
      Columbus, OH 43220
      Tel: (614) 704-0546
      Fax: (614) 573-9826
      E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com


LAPIN SEPTIC: Reynolds Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY REYNOLDS and others, similarly situated v. LAPIN SEPTIC
TANK SERVICE, INC. and DAVID LAPIN, an individual, Case No.
6:19-cv-00331-PGB-KRS (M.D. Fla., February 19, 2019), seeks to
recover damages for alleged unpaid overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Lapin Septic Tank Service, Inc., is a Florida corporation.  David
Lapin is the president of the Company.

The Defendants operate a closely held septic, sewer and grease trap
business in Orange County, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Constantine W. Papas, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CONSTANTINE W. PAPAS, P.A.
          1277 N. Semoran Blvd., Suite 106
          Orlando, FL 32807
          Telephone: (407) 347-6502
          Facsimile: (407) 206-3655
          E-mail: cwp@deanpapaslaw.com


LOCKHEED MARTIN: Removes Hicks Suit to Middle District of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of ANGELA HICKS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOCKHEED
MARTIN CORPORATION, Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit
from the Superior Court of the State of Florida, County of
Hillsborough (Case No. 83065938) to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on January 31, 2019. The clerk of court
for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case No.
8:19-cv-00261-JSM-TGW.

Lockheed Martin Corporation, a security and aerospace company,
engages in the research, design, development, manufacture,
integration, and sustainment of technology systems, products, and
services worldwide. Lockheed Martin Corporation was founded in 1909
and is based in Bethesda, Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jurate Schwartz, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          2255 Glades Road, 421 Atrium
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 241-7400
          Facsimile: (561) 241-7145
          E-mail: jschwartz@proskauer.com


MACHOL & JOHANNES: A. Blanks FCRA Suit Settlement Has Prelim OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALANNAH BLANKS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MACHOL & JOHANNES, LLC,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-cv-02291-CMA-KMT (D. Colo.), Judge
Christine M. Arguello of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado granted the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement.

The Judge certified for settlement purposes the proposed settlement
classes -- the "FCRA Settlement Class" and the "FDCPA Settlement
Class," as defined in the Joint Motion -- under Rules 23(a) and
23(b)(3).  She finds that these classes satisfy the requirements
for an opt-out class under Rule 23(b)(3).

She appointed Plaintiff Alannah Blanks as the Class Representative;
Thomas J. Lyons Jr. of the law firm Consumer Justice Center, P.A.,
367 Commerce Ct., Vadnais Heights, Minnesota, 55127, as the Class
Counsel; and Analytics Consulting LLC as the Settlement
Administrator.

She approved the proposed Class Notice, finding that it satisfies
the legal standards required by Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and the Due
Process Clause of the Constitution.  She also approved that
parties' proposed settlement timeline for disseminating the Class
Notice, seeking final approval, and dispersing settlement payments
to the class members.

Accordingly, the Judge ordered that the Defendant will provide the
notices and materials to the appropriate state and federal
officials required by the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") by May
3, 2019, and will file a declaration with the Court by May 10,
2019, identifying the officials to whom the materials were sent,
and the date on which the materials sent.  For the purpose of
providing such notices and materials, the appropriate state and
federal officials under CAFA, are the Attorney General of the
United States and the Attorney General of the State of Colorado.

Within 10 days of the date of the Order, the Defendant will provide
the Settlement Administrator and Class Counsel with the names and
last known addresses for the members of the Settlement Classes.
The Settlement Administrator will thereafter mail the Class Notice
to the members of the Settlement Classes.

The Settlement Administrator will submit a declaration to the Court
confirming its compliance with the notice procedures of the Order
and the Settlement Agreement by May 3, 2019.  The Class Counsel
will file any motion for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses or costs by May 10, 2019.  The Plaintiff
will file her motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement
by May 10, 2019.

The Court will hold a fairness hearing at 2:00 p.m. on May 29,
2019, at the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, 901
19th Street, Denver, Colorado, 80294-3589, in Courtroom A602.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/bxOhNb from Leagle.com.

Alannah Blanks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas John Lyons, Jr. --
tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com -- Consumer Justice Center, P.A.

Machol & Johannes, LLC, Defendant, represented by Alan Daniel
Schindler -- as@timminslaw.com -- Timmins, LLC & Edward P. Timmins
-- et@timminslaw.com -- Timmins, LLC.


MAGARET O'LEARY: A. Nathan Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------
Alisa Nathan, on behalf of herself and all other employees
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Margaret
O'Leary, Inc., Margaret O'Leary and Bill Green, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01531 (N.D. Ill., March 4, 2019) is an action brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, ("FLSA") to recover
unpaid wages.

The Company, O'Leary and Green violated the FLSA by failing to pay
Nathan an overtime rate of not less than one and one-half times her
regular rate for all of hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

The Company's failure to pay overtime wages for Nathan's hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week was a willful violation of
the FLSA. O'Leary and Green knew Nathan was entitled to receive
overtime wages and they were personally responsible for not
authorizing or paying her overtime wages due, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Nathan was hired by the Company on or about August 9,
2015 as a Chicago Store Salesperson and was given the title
Assistant Store Manager.

The Company is a California Corporation authorized to do business
in the State of Illinois and doing business at a store location in
Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Glenn R. Gaffney, Esq.
     Joseph F. Kwiatkowski, Esq.
     Gaffney & Gaffney P.C.
     1771 Bloomingdale Road
     Glendale Heights, IL 60139
     Phone: (630) 462-1200
     Email: glenn@gaffneylawpc.com
            jk@gaffneylawpc.com


MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Feb. 11 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Maiden
Holdings, Ltd. (NASDAQ:MHLD) common stock during the period between
March 4, 2014 and November 9, 2018 (the Class Period). This action
was filed in the District of New Jersey and is captioned
Wigglesworth v. Maiden Holdings, Ltd., et al., No. 19-cv-5296.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Maiden common stock during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on
behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investors
ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from
February 11, 2019. If you wish to discuss this action or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact plaintiffs counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A.
Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as
filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/maiden/.

The complaint charges Maiden and certain of its former officers
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Maiden is a
Bermuda-based holding company that provides reinsurance services
through its subsidiaries. Maiden has two reportable operating
segments: (i) Diversified Reinsurance; and (ii) AmTrust
Reinsurance. The Diversified Reinsurance segment consists of a
portfolio of predominantly property and casualty reinsurance
business focusing on regional and specialty property and casualty
insurance companies. The AmTrust Reinsurance segment includes all
business ceded by AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. (AmTrust).
AmTrust and Maiden are closely related entities, and AmTrust is
Maidens largest customer.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
misrepresented the quality and nature of Maidens underwriting and
risk management policies and practices and the risks of its
reinsurance portfolio. In particular, defendants misleadingly
claimed that they were subjecting AmTrusts insurance portfolio to
robust analysis and cross-checks to ensure that the Company had
appropriately priced the risk of reinsuring AmTrusts insurance
portfolio. In truth, the Company had failed to employ sufficient
underwriting and risk management protocols and had largely
abdicated its responsibility to ensure that its AmTrust Reinsurance
segment priced policies commensurate with the risk assumed by the
Company. As a result of defendants misrepresentations, the price of
Maiden stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period to a
high of $18.85 per share.

On February 27, 2018, Maiden reported a net loss of $133.6 million
and a net adverse development of $171 million stemming from the
Companys workers compensation line of its AmTrust Reinsurance
segment and from two accounts in its commercial auto line of
business within the Diversified Reinsurance segment. On this news,
the price of Maiden common stock fell 16% to close at $6.00 per
share on February 28, 2018. On August 9, 2018, Maiden announced its
financial results for the quarter ended June 30, 2018, revealing
that it had continued to sustain losses, suffering a net loss of
$5.9 million for the quarter, and disclosing that Maiden had
suffered an adverse prior year loss development of $28.4 million in
its AmTrust Reinsurance segment. The Company also revealed that its
CEO and CFO would be retiring. On this news, the price of Maiden
common stock fell 41% to close at $4.40 per share on August 9,
2018.

Then, on November 9, 2018, Maiden announced its financial results
for the quarter ended September 30, 2018, including a massive
$308.8 million net loss and a $210.4 million adverse prior year
loss development in just its AmTrust segment. The Company also
revealed that the sale of Maidens business assets had resulted in
an impairment loss of $74.2 million. On this news, the price of
Maiden common stock fell nearly 32% to close at $2.40 per share on
November 12, 2018.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Maiden common stock during the Class Period (the Class). The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a national law firm
representing investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers
in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history. [GN]


MARRIOTT: Pierce Bainbridge Files Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP disclosed that Marriott's
data breach affected nearly 400 million people in both the United
States and abroad.  Pierce Bainbridge joined the battle against
Marriott on Feb. 11, filing suit on behalf of victims in the US and
worldwide.  The suit seeks to hold Marriott International, Inc. and
its President and Chief Executive Officer, Arne Sorenson,
responsible not only for the breach itself, but for failing to
notify unsuspecting travelers of the flaws in the Starwood
reservation system that made it a ready target for hackers, and
for, then, making matters worse by failing to inform the public
until years later. The suit alleges that Marriott exposed the
personal and sensitive information of hundreds of millions of
travelers by failing to take reasonable steps to secure it. The
suit seeks damages and injunctive relief to make sure that on
behalf of various plaintiffs and in connection with one of the
largest data breaches in history, Marriott changes its practices.

In November 2018, Marriott announced that its wholly owned
subsidiary, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, failed to secure
the personal information -- including passport numbers and payment
information -- of an estimated 383 million travelers worldwide.
Marriott claims that it did not discover the breach -- which first
occurred in 2014 -- for four years, giving hackers plenty of time
to pilfer and sell the sensitive and personal information of
hundreds of millions of hotel guests.

The value of this personal information -- including names, email
addresses, recovery email accounts, telephone numbers, payment card
information, and passport information -- on the black market is
well known. Identity thieves use the information to gain access to
different areas of the victim's digital life, including bank
accounts, social media accounts, and credit card accounts. They
also use the stolen information to harm victims through
embarrassment, blackmail or harassment, in person or online, to
commit other types of fraud, including obtaining ID cards or
driver's licenses, fraudulently obtaining tax refunds and other
government benefits.

Despite heightened public awareness of the danger of identity
theft, Marriott allegedly failed to institute adequate
cyber-security procedures.  Marriott's storage of over 5 million
unencrypted passport numbers was "extremely reckless and unsafe"
according to the class action complaint. And even the encryption
method it used for other data was woefully inadequate, as Marriott
admitted the components needed to decrypt the payment card numbers
may have been taken as well.

Marriott operates more than 6,700 properties in 130 countries. Any
guest who made reservations or stayed at one of the Starwood brand
hotels from 2014-2018 may be a victim of the data breach. The
Starwood brands include: W Hotels, St. Regis, Sheraton Hotels &
Resorts, Westin Hotels & Resorts, Element Hotels, Aloft Hotels, The
Luxury Collection, Tribute Portfolio, Le Méridien Hotels &
Resorts, Four Points by Sheraton and Design Hotels. Starwood
branded timeshare properties (Sheraton Vacation Club, Westin
Vacation Club, The Luxury Collection Residence Club, St. Regis
Residence Club, and Vistana) are also included.

If you believe you made a reservation at any of these hotels,
please visit our dedicated site at
https://piercebainbridge.com/marriott/ in order to contact us for
additional information about your legal rights and options.

          About Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP

Pierce Bainbridge -- http://www.piercebainbridge.com-- has
significant experience in prosecuting major class action cases and
taking cases through trial across the United States.  It has
represented individuals, companies, funds, foundations and other
entities worldwide with offices in New York, Los Angeles,
Washington, D.C., and Boston. [GN]


MDL 2492: Keo v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Jared Keo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00286 (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-00967 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 Keo 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: Kershaw v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Kris Kershaw, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00274 (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-00961 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 Kershaw 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: McCann v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, ALONZO MCCANN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-254 (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-00946 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
Akron ("Akron") student-athletes.

The McCann 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

               - 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: Shamsid-Deen v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case, HASSAN SHAMSID-DEEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00283 (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-00965 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 Shamsid-Deen 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: Shoenfelt v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidate
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, James Shoenfelt, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Gettysburg College, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00324 (Filed Jan. 26, 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. 20, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-01002 to the proceeding.

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

The Shoenfelt 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: Simons v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------
A case, Renaldo Simons, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and University of Indianapolis, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00335 (Filed Jan. 26, 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. 20, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:19-cv-01015 to the proceeding.

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

The Simons 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, we are 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: Smith v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, John Smith, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and New York Institute of Technology, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00327 (Filed Jan. 26, 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. 20, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01006 to the proceeding.

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

The Smith 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: Stinyard v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, CLEO STINYARD III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-266 (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-00957 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 Fort
Valley State University ("FVSU") student-athletes.

The Stinyard 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

               - 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: Thomas v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------
A case, CARL THOMAS, JR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-264 (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-00955 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 University of
Central Arkansas ("UCA") student-athletes.student-athletes.

The Thomas 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: Thompson v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A case, BRIAN THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-261 (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-00952 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
Savannah State University ("SSU") student-athletes.

The Thompson 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

               - 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: Thornton v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
A case, JOSEPH THORNTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00293 (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-00973 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 Thornton 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: Walls v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Jerry Walls, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00288 (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-00969 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 Walls 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: Wertz v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, Austin Wertz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and Ripon College, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00315 (Filed Jan. 26, 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. 20, 2019. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-00993 to the proceeding.

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

The Wertz 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: Williams v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
A case, BOBBIE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-259 (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-00951 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
University of Northern Iowa ("UNI") student-athletes.

The Williams 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

               - 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: Willis v. NCAA over Health & Safety Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A case, DAMON WILLIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-270 (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-00960 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
Southwestern Oklahoma State University ("SOSU") student-athletes.

The Willis 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

               - 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: Wilson v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------
A case, Jesse Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00289 (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-00970 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 Wilson 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 2734: Brooks Suit Transferred to Northern District of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: ABILIFY (ARIPIPRAZOLE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2734, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an order transferring
the action styled, BROOKS, ET AL. v. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY,
ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18-01937, from the District of Nevada to the
Northern District of Florida and, with the consent of that court,
assigned the action to the Honorable M. Casey Rodgers for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs in the Brooks action move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate
the Panel's order that conditionally transferred Brooks to the
Northern District of Florida for inclusion in MDL No. 2734.
Defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc., oppose the motion.

In opposing transfer, plaintiffs primarily argue that federal
subject matter jurisdiction over Brooks is lacking, and that it
would be more efficient for their pending remand motion to be heard
by the transferor court.  Plaintiffs' arguments that transfer would
be inefficient (i.e., because one of the plaintiffs is entitled to
a preferential trial setting under Nevada law, and remaining in
federal court could result in the severance of plaintiffs' claims)
necessarily depend on an initial legal conclusion that Brooks was
improperly removed from Nevada state court.  This is a conclusion
that the Panel is neither authorized nor inclined to reach.
Accordingly, the Panel has held that jurisdictional issues
generally do not present an impediment to transfer.  Plaintiffs can
present their remand arguments to the transferee judge.

Plaintiffs also argue that they will be prejudiced because transfer
will delay resolution of their pending remand motion.  This
argument is not persuasive.  Transfer of an action is appropriate
if it furthers the expeditious resolution of the litigation taken
as a whole, even if some parties to the action might experience
some inconvenience or delay.

After considering the parties' arguments, Judge Vance finds that
Brooks involves common questions of fact with the actions
transferred to MDL No. 2734, 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 the
Panel's order centralizing this litigation, the Judge held that the
Northern District of Florida was an appropriate Section 1407 forum
for actions sharing factual questions arising from allegations that
Abilify (aripiprazole), an atypical anti-psychotic medication
commonly prescribed to treat a variety of mental disorders, can
cause impulse control problems in users.  Plaintiffs in Brooks do
not dispute that they similarly allege that they experienced
compulsive behavior caused by ingesting Abilify.  Like the actions
in the MDL, Brooks will involve factual questions relating to
whether Abilify was defectively designed or manufactured, whether
defendants knew or should have known of the alleged propensity of
Abilify to cause compulsive gambling and other impulsive behaviors
in users, and whether defendants provided adequate instructions and
warnings with this product.

A full-text copy of the Court's February 7, 2019 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2VlTC7t


MDL 2801: Cisco Sues to Get Bigger Settlement Share
---------------------------------------------------
Kieren McCarthy, writing for The Register, reports that Cisco is
fighting its own side's lawyers to get a bigger share of a
component price-fixing payout, in the latest unedifying
class-action legal battle in tech land.

The networking equipment giant wants $192m of apparently
over-priced capacitor purchases it made to be considered when
calculating how much of a giant pot of settlement money it should
be given. Cisco has been joined by Aptiv Services, which wants
$199m included.

In other words, there's a pot of compensation for organizations
that bought the alleged over-priced capacitors, and Cisco and Aptiv
want a greater share of it based on the caps they bought.

But the lawyers -- who have argued the broad class-action lawsuit
since 2014, and there are a lot of them -- claim those sums aren't
eligible for any cash. Instead, they argue, the millions of dollars
in settlements so far should go to their own clients and, huh, the
lawyers themselves.

The money itself comes from a number of different Japanese
companies, including Hitachi Chemical, who have settled
price-fixing claims in the capacitor market. Settlements from other
manufacturers are expected soon.

The successful lawyers put forward a disbursement plan earlier this
year for that money and it sparked a furious response from Cisco
and Aptiv. "Objecting Members respectfully request an order
directing that their second-round claims, including supplemental
commerce for Incorporated Capacitors, be approved," the filing from
Cisco earlier in February argues.

The lawyers claim Cisco and Aptiv's purchases are not eligible
since they are exceptions under the Foreign Trade Antitrust
Improvement Act (FTAIA). Which basically means that they didn't
have an impact on the companies' sales within the United States.

Cisco and Aptiv, unsurprisingly, don't agree. They imported the
finished products that incorporate the capacitors in question,
their filing argues, and so they should be considered as being
covered by the Sherman Act and not the FTAIA. A remarkable 48.6 per
cent of Cisco products sold in the US included the capacitors in
dispute, the company notes.

Furthermore, they argue, their lawyers should be arguing for them
and not working against them: "Class counsel have an obligation to
ensure and fight for the inclusion of these claims -- though they
have thus far declined to do so."

All of which is lawyer speak for: give me my damn money!

Price bump
The price-fixing case started in 2014 when Chip-Tech sued basically
an entire industry alleging companies in Japan were conspiring to
throttle the trade of aluminum and tantalum capacitors – critical
electronic components in devices -- and so bump up the price.

None of those companies have admitted the charges, though they have
slowly been settling for large sums: NEC, Okaya, Fujitsu, Rohm and
Nitsuko settled in 2016, paying $32m. Hitachi and Soshi settled in
2017 for $67m. And at the end of December, more settled, putting a
further $120m into the pot.

Then came the class-action lawyers' submission to the court where
they broke out how that new money was going to be split and
suddenly Cisco and Aptiv found that the products they had bought
weren't considered relevant any more.

That was not what they had all agreed beforehand, Cisco and Aptiv's
lawyers note with some disdain. Being lawyers, they have extensive
notes about dates and events and happily provide them to the judge
that will decide the issue, complete with appendices.

Just one example: "Objecting Members subsequently provided detailed
responses to a number of questions posed by Class Counsel (id. at
3–10), despite Class Counsel's apparent refusal to indicate
whether global purchase data existed (id.Ex. F at 2), refusal to
provide the corresponding purchase volume for the percentages of
claims assigned to Cisco (id. Ex. A at 7), and prior refusal to
provide defendants' underlying data to analyze a purported
duplication issue raised by Class Counsel for Aptiv's data (MDL
Dkt. No. 327 at 7:14–21)." You get the idea.

It's almost as if class-action lawyers are only in it for the money
rather than the moral imperative of getting the best deal for
people and organizations that have been ripped off by others. Maybe
there needs to be a class-action lawsuit against class-action
lawyers.

The case is In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, Master File No.
3:17-md-02801-JD, Case No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD (N.D. Cal.). [GN]


MIDLAND CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debts, Reitz Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT REITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. and MIDLAND FUNDING,
LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00259 (E.D. Wisc., February 19, 2019),
accuses the Defendants of engaging in illegal practices of when
attempting to collect an alleged debt from the Plaintiff, in
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

MCM is a for-profit corporation formed under the laws of the state
of Kansas and maintains its principal place of business in San
Diego, California.  Midland Funding is a Limited Liability Company
formed under the laws of Delaware and maintains its principal place
of business in San Diego.

The Defendants are businesses the principal purpose of which is the
collection of defaulted consumer debts.  The Defendants are
commonly owned by Encore Capital Group, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MISSISSIPPI: Court Certifies Class in Harness Voting Rights Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROY HARNESS, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. DELBERT HOSEMANN,
SECRETARY OF STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Defendant, DENNIS HOPKINS, ET
AL., Plaintiffs, v. DELBERT HOSEMANN, SECRETARY OF STATE OF
MISSISSIPPI, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-791-DPJ-FKB,
Consolidated with Civil Action No. 3:18-CV-188-DPJ-FKB (S.D.
Miss.), Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Mississippi, Northern Division, granted
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The consolidated action to restore the voting rights of convicted
felons is before the Court on the Hopkins Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  

The Hopkins Plaintiffs seek class certification to challenge two
sections of the Mississippi Constitution -- sections 241 and 253.
Under section 241, individuals who have been convicted of murder,
rape, bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods under false
pretense, perjury, forgery, embezzlement, or bigamy are ineligible
to vote.  And section 253 allows the legislature to restore an
individual's suffrage by a two-thirds vote of both houses, of all
members elected.

The Plaintiffs say the lifetime voting ban violates the Eighth
Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and the
Fourteenth Amendment, which only permits states to temporarily
"abridge" an individual's right to vote based on participation in a
crime.  They also contend that the mechanism to restore voting
rights violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment and the First Amendment.

As relief, the Plaintiffs generally seek (1) class-wide
declarations that sections 241 and 253 are unconstitutional; (2)
class-wide injunctions effectuating those declarations; (3) an
order requiring the Secretary of State to provide notice to all the
class members and otherwise educate the public regarding the
restored rights; and (4) reasonable costs and attorney's fees.

In the present motion, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a class they
now define as any person who (a) is or becomes disenfranchised
under Mississippi state law by reason of a conviction of a crime
that the Secretary of State contends is disenfranchising under
Section 241 of the Mississippi Constitution, Miss. Code Section
23-15-11 and/or Miss. Code Section 23-15-19, and (b) has completed
the term of incarceration, supervised release, parole and/or
probation for each such conviction.

Defendant Secretary of State Hosemann acknowledges that the
Plaintiffs meet all of Rule 23's stated requirements but argues
that certification is unnecessary and therefore opposes it.  

Judge Jordan has considered all arguments raised by the parties;
those not addressed would not have changed the outcome.  For the
reasons given, he granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is granted.  The class is defined as any person who
(a) is or becomes disenfranchised under Mississippi state law by
reason of a conviction of a disenfranchising offense, and (b) has
completed the term of incarceration, supervised release, parole,
and/or probation for each such conviction.

There are, however, a few loose ends the parties will need to
address.  First, the Judge must appoint the class counsel under
Rule 23(g).  In their proposed order, the Hopkins Plaintiffs named
themselves as the class representatives and their attorneys as the
counsel.  But the case was consolidated with Harness v. Hosemann,
and the Judge is unsure how the Rule 23(g) designations affect the
Harness Plaintiffs and attorneys.  Second, the Judge needs input on
how notice should be addressed under Rule 23(c)(2)(A).  Finally,
the parties must provide guidance on whether class certification
and Rule 23's notice provisions (or any others) impact the pending
summary-judgment motions and/or the remaining course of litigation.
A joint status report outlining the parties' positions on these
issues should be filed within 14 days of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/4NcYol from Leagle.com.

Roy Harness & Kamal Karriem, Plaintiffs, represented by Armand G.
Derfner -- aderfner@derfneraltman.com -- DERFNER & ALTMAN, LLC, pro
hac vice, Robert B. McDuff, THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT MCDUFF, Beth
L. Orlansky -- borlansky@mscenterforjustice.org -- MISSISSIPPI
CENTER FOR JUSTICE, David Michael Lipman, LIPMAN LAW FIRM, Fred L.
Banks, Jr. -- fred.banks@phelps.com -- PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP, Jeremy
D. Eisler, MISSISSIPPI CENTER FOR JUSTICE & Paloma Wu --
pwu@aclu-ms.org -- SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER.

Dennis Hopkins, Herman Parker, Jr., Walter Wayne Kuhn, Jr., Byron
Demond Coleman, Jon O'Neal & Earnest Willhite, Consol Plaintiffs,
represented by Janet A. Gochman, SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP,
pro hac vice, Jody E. Owens, II, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER, Isaac
Rethy, SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan K.
Youngwood, SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisa S.
Graybill, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER, pro hac vice, Nihara Karim
Choudhri, SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP, pro hac vice, Paloma
Wu, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER, pro hac vice & Tyler A. Anger,
SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT, LLP, pro hac vice.

Delbert Hosemann, Secretary of State of Mississippi, Defendant,
represented by Justin L. Matheny, MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
OFFICE & Krissy Casey Nobile, MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
OFFICE.

Dennis Hopkins, Herman Parker, Jr., Walter Wayne Kuhn, Jr., Byron
Demond Coleman, Jon O'Neal & Earnest Willhite, Intervenors,
represented by Paloma Wu, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Matlock Sues over Sale of Roundup Products
------------------------------------------------------------
MARTHA MATLOCK, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Gregory
Dean Matlock, the Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00902-VC (N.D. Tex., Jan. 14, 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:

          Andrew Gardner, Esq.
          JOHNSON LAW GROUP
          2925 Richmond Ave., Suite 1700
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713)626-9336
          Facsimile: (713) 583-9460
          E-mail: agardner@johnsonlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Kori Westbrook, Esq.
          JOHNSON LAW GROUP
          2925 Richmond Ave., Suite 1700
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713)626-9336
          Facsimile: (713) 583-9460
          E-mail: kwestbrook@johnsonlawgroup.com

NETWORK RECOVERY: Brown Files FDCPA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Network Recovery
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Abraham Brown on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Network Recovery Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01226
(E.D. N.Y., Mar. 1, 2019).

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

Network Recovery Services, Inc. operates as a non-profit
organization. The Organization offers insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
     Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
     735 Central Avenue
     Woodmere, NY 11598
     Phone: (516) 668-6945
     Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


NEW BALANCE: "Made in USA" Class Action Settlement Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Christie Grymes Thompson, writing for Ad Law Access, reports that
most of Ad Law Access's posts regarding "Made in USA" claims relate
to FTC investigations and enforcement actions. Private plaintiffs,
however, also closely watch those claims. For example, in 2018
plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against New Balance
Athletics Inc. challenging qualified "Made in USA" claims. Although
the plaintiffs acknowledged that New Balance qualified the claim in
some places to indicate that the domestic value is at least 70%,
they alleged that the general impression is that the products are
American made. To resolve that litigation, a California federal
judge recently granted preliminary approval to a proposed $750,000
settlement.

In Dashnaw v. New Balance Athletics, Inc., consumers alleged that
New Balance mischaracterized its line of "Made in USA" sneakers
because as little as 70% of the product was made with domestic
components or labor. The claim appeared in advertising, on the
shoes, and on the shoe boxes. The complaint acknowledged that New
Balance disclosed in some places that its "Made in USA" sneakers
contain a domestic value of 70% or greater, but alleged that an
"Made in USA" claim appeared in places like the shoe and the shoe
box. Because 30% of the value of those shoes could be attributed to
a foreign country, plaintiffs alleged that the claims violated both
California law, requiring that foreign materials must not exceed 5%
of the final wholesale value, and FTC guidelines, stating that a
product must be "all or virtually all" made in the United States.

The case was transferred from state court to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, where the parties
initiated settlement discussions. In April, the parties proposed a
settlement of $750,000, with $215,000 going to settlement
administration costs and compensation and $535,000 to consumers,
with each consumer receiving up to $10. Judge Lorenz denied the
settlement stating that the proposed amount was not enough for the
estimated 1 million class action members. In response, the parties
explained that a 5% participation rate among class members would
result in full compensation and even with a 10-15% participation
rate, each class member would receive 35-50% of the maximum damages
the class could receive at trial, which they called a "reasonable
settlement amount." Judge Lorenz granted preliminary approval to
the proposed settlement of $750,000 on January 25, 2019.

This case reminds advertisers that when using a disclosure to
qualify a Made in USA claim or any other claim, the disclosure must
appear consistently to maximize effectiveness. The FTC has also
cautioned that even qualified claims may imply more domestic
content than exists, so advertisers should avoid qualified claims
unless the product has a significant amount of U.S. content or U.S.
processing. [GN]


NEW LASER: Metro Cardiovascular Sues Over Unsolicited Advertisement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Metro Cardiovascular Consultants, LTD., individually and as the
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons and
entities, Plaintiff, v. New Laser Scientific, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01509 (N.D. Ill., March 1, 2019) brought this civil
action to certify a class of persons and entities were set
facsimile advertisements without their prior express invitation or
permission.

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), as amended
by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 ("JFPA"), makes it unlawful
for any person to "use any telephone facsimile machine, computer or
other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an
unsolicited advertisement".

On January 10, 2019, the Defendant sent or transmitted an
unsolicited facsimile advertisement to Plaintiff's facsimile
telephone number. The Subject Facsimile promoted and advertised a
"CME Aesthetic Procedures Symposium" which was identified to be
taking place on February 9-10, 2019, in Las Vegas, Nevada. The
Defendant transmitted the Subject Facsimile to the Facsimile Number
without Plaintiff's "prior express invitation or permission", says
the complaint.

Plaintiff is an Illinois corporation, located in Oak Law,
Illinois.

Defendant is a domestic (California) based corporation, with a
principal office located at 504 CRANSTON DR., ESCONDIDO CA
92025.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
     Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd
     2500 South Highland Avenue #200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Phone: (630) 581-5456
     Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com


NEXTGEAR CAPITAL: Decertification Order in Red Barn Suit Vacated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ilana Rovner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit vacated the district court's decision to rescind class
certification in the case, RED BARN MOTORS, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEXTGEAR CAPITAL, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 18-1409 (7th Cir.), and remanded for
further proceedings.

The Defendant-Appellee, NextGear Capital, formerly known as Dealer
Services Corp., provided lines of credit for financing the
operations of used car dealerships.  The Plaintiffs Red Barn
Motors, Inc., Platinum Motors, Inc. and Mattingly Auto Sales, Inc.,
operated used car dealerships, and were solicited by NextGear to
enter into a contract called a Demand Promissory Note and Security
Agreement, whereby NextGear would issue a line of credit for them
to access in purchasing used vehicles at automobile auctions. Those
agreements provided the plaintiffs with a revolving line of credit,
called a floorplan agreement, to purchase vehicles at the auction
which they subsequently would sell at their dealerships.

In the typical auction and financing transaction, a new car dealer
provides a trade-in vehicle to an auction company, which presents
the vehicle to used car dealers at an auction.  If a used car
dealer's bid is accepted, that dealer takes possession of the
vehicle.  The dealer then either pays the auction company directly
or utilizes an automotive financing company such as NextGear, which
pays the auction company and provides financing by means of the
floorplan agreement to the dealer for repayment.  The auction
company forwards the title to the entity that paid for the vehicle
-- either the used car dealer or the financing company.

According to the Plaintiffs, NextGear deviated from that sequence.
It did not pay the auction house at the time that possession was
delivered, instead paying only after it received the title to the
vehicles purchased.  Although it could take as long as eight weeks
for NextGear to receive that title and pay the money to the auction
company, NextGear nevertheless charged interest and curtailment
fees to the plaintiffs from the date of the initial purchase.

The Plaintiffs brought this action challenging that imposition of
interest fees during the period prior to the receipt of title, when
NextGear was not yet paying any funds to the auction house.  They
sought class certification to pursue that challenge on behalf of
all other dealers who were subject to the same Agreement with
NextGear and were charged such interest.

The Plaintiffs' amended complaint included numerous claims
including breach of contract, constructive fraud, tortious
interference with business relationships, unjust enrichment, RICO
violations, and RICO conspiracy.  The district court granted class
certification as to the breach of contract claim against NextGear
and the substantive RICO claim against NextGear, Cox Automotive and
John Wick pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a).  In an
extensive 30-page analysis, the court determined that the
Plaintiffs met all of the requirements of the Rule 23(a) factors --
ascertainability, numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy
of representation—and that the Plaintiffs had also demonstrated
under Rule 23(b)(3) that a class action was superior to other
methods of adjudication.  Accordingly, on June 29, 2017, it granted
class status as to those claims.

Approximately two weeks later, NextGear filed a Motion to
Reconsider and/or Modify Class Certification Order.  It argued that
the court failed to consider evidence and arguments submitted after
the initial class certification briefing.  In response, the
Plaintiffs argued that NextGear presented no new arguments that
would warrant reconsideration, and that the argument concerning
ambiguous contracts and the impact on class certification had
already been presented in the Defendants' Notice of Additional
Authority and at oral argument on class certification.

Noting that it had the discretion to modify its certification order
in light of subsequent developments in litigation, the court held
that class certification was not appropriate.  In stark contrast to
the extensive analysis in its decision granting class
certification, the court's explanation for its decision to rescind
certification was terse.  Based on that reasoning, the court then
proceeded to determine that the class certification was unwarranted
regarding the substantive RICO claim as well.

Judge Rovner finds that the court's denial of class certification
lacks sufficient reasoning for the Court, on review, to ascertain
the basis of its decision.  Although the decision to grant the
class certification was a model of clarity and thoroughness,
analyzing the factors in detail, the decision withdrawing class
status provides only the conclusion that an ambiguous contract
requires consideration of extrinsic evidence, necessitates
individualized proof, and undermines the elements of commonality
and predominance for class certification.  Nor does the reference
to its Order on Motions for Summary Judgment lend any insight.

The Judge finds that the district court's holdings are insufficient
to sustain the court's assumption that commonality and predominance
were lacking.  Neither the categorization of the contract as
ambiguous, nor the prospect of extrinsic evidence, necessarily
imperils class status.  The court has not explained why a different
conclusion to that question was reached in the Motion for
Reconsideration, instead mentioning only the need for extrinsic
evidence.  Absent a more thorough explanation of its reasoning, the
Judge holds that she cannot uphold the decision decertifying the
class.

For these reasons, Judge Rovner vacated the decision of the
district court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/8kEkah from Leagle.com.

Kathleen A. DeLaney -- kathleen@delaneylaw.net -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

David J. Jurkiewicz -- djurkiewicz@boselaw.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Paul Delmar Vink -- pvink@boselaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Thomas M. Byrne -- tombyrne@eversheds-sutherland.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Tracey K. Ledbetter -- traceyledbetter@eversheds-sutherland.com --
for Defendant-Appellee.

Jason S. McCarter -- jasonmccarter@eversheds-sutherland.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.


ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Seeks to Reargue Bid to Dismiss Galestan Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
OneMain Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the Company has
requested court permission to reargue its motion to dismiss a class
lawsuit.

On February 10, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit, Galestan v.
OneMain Holdings, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants
the Company and two of its officers.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Exchange Act for allegedly
making materially misleading statements and/or omitting material
information concerning alleged integration issues after the OneMain
Acquisition in November 2015, and was filed on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between February 25, 2016 and November 7, 2016.

The complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory damages,
an award of interest, reasonable attorney's fees, expert fees and
other costs, and equitable relief as the court may deem just and
proper.

On March 23, 2017, the court appointed a lead plaintiff for the
putative class and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of
counsel. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 13, 2017
challenging statements regarding the Company's projections of
future financial performance and certain statements regarding
integration after the OneMain Acquisition.

On September 29, 2017, pursuant to the Court's Individual Rules and
Practices, the company sought permission to file a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint and on December 12, 2018, the Court
denied that motion.

On January 4, 2019, the Company requested permission to reargue the
motion to dismiss decision with respect to the challenged
statements from February 2016.

The Company believes that the allegations specified in the amended
complaint are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend
against the claims. As the lawsuit is in the preliminary stages,
the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of
loss, if any, that may result from the lawsuit.

OneMain Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides consumer
finance and insurance products and services. The company operates
in two segments, Consumer and Insurance, and Acquisitions and
Servicing. OneMain Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1920 and is based
in Evansville, Indiana.


OWENS CORNING: Court Denies Counsel Fees Bid in Gonzalez Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAIME GONZALEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OWENS CORNING
SALES, LLC and OWENS CORNING, Defendants, GERALD BOEHM, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. OWENS CORNING and OWENS CORNING SALES, LLC,
Defendants, PATRICIA WRIGHT and KEVIN WEST, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
OWENS CORNING and OWENS CORNING SALES, LLC, Defendants, EDWARD MAAG
and DIANE MAAG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OWENS CORNING and OWENS
CORNING SALES, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 13-cv-01378-JFC
(W.D. Pa.), Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania denied the Plaintiffs' motion
for counsel fees.

The sole issue remaining in these closed cases is the Plaintiffs'
motion to be compensated for lifting the federal bankruptcy bar and
voiding the bankruptcy injunction thereby creating a common benefit
for millions of shingle owners.  The filed a response in
opposition, the Plaintiffs filed a reply brief and the motion is
ripe for disposition.

The Plaintiffs' attorneys ask the Court to exercise its discretion
to award counsel fees in the case, even though a class was not
certified.  The Plaintiffs articulate three theories: (1) the
common fund doctrine; (2) the common benefit doctrine; and (3) the
catalyst theory and Unfair Trade Practices Consumer Protection Law
("UTPCPL"), fee shifting provision.

The Plaintiffs contend that they achieved success during the
litigation which accrued to millions of Owens Corning shingle
owners by reviving the right to pursue warranty claims for products
installed prior to the Sept. 26, 2006 bankruptcy discharge.  On
March 21, 2011, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of
Owens Corning and against Plaintiffs Patricia Wright and Kevin West
based on JELD-WEN, Inc. v. Van Brunt (In re Grossman's Inc.).  In
2012, the court of appeals reversed and held that applying
Grossman's rule retroactively to the Plaintiffs' claims would
violate due process.

The Plaintiffs retained their causes of action against Owens
Corning.  As a result of the 2012 decision, warranty claims based
on shingles installed prior to confirmation of the bankruptcy plan
in 2006 are not discharged as a matter of law; instead, those
customers may pursue warranty claims under the fact-intensive
Frenville discovery rule.

The Plaintiffs continued to pursue class certification for six
years after the 2012 court of appeals decision, but without
success.  The Court denied class certification.  That decision was
affirmed by the court of appeals.  On Dec. 19, 2018, the Court
closed the case after being advised of settlement, subject only to
the resolution of the Motion for counsel fees.

Judge Conti declines to exercise her discretion to award the
counsel fees under the common benefit theory.  She finds that there
is simply no reliable, practical and precise method to impose a fee
award on persons who may settle warranty claims in the future.  The
Plaintiffs suggest the model used in In re Building.  But in that
case, there was a class settlement and the contingent fee was to be
paid out of the proceeds awarded to class members.  No class
settlement or claims administration process exists, or is possible,
in the instant case.

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs achieved procedural
success on the legal issue of retroactivity, but did not obtain
success "on the merits."  After many years of litigation, the class
certification was denied and the settlement involved only the roofs
of the named Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs did not demonstrate that
they catalyzed changed behavior by Owens Corning; the record
reflects that its warranty practices were unchanged by the result
in the case.  In addition, the Judge is unwilling to adjudge Owens
Corning liable under the UTPCPL.  To the contrary, she is not
convinced that Owens Corning's reliance on the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals' decision in Grossman's was in bad faith, i.e., the
first Ursic factor.  Further litigation of the UTPCPL claim in an
effort to recovery counsel fees is not warranted.  The case is
settled.  In sum, the Judge will not award counsel fees under the
catalyst theory, even if it were not moribund.

In accordance with the foregoing, Judge Conti denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for counsel fees.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/OpQUa4 from Leagle.com.

JAIME GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan S. Thompson --
brendant@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Brian F. Fox,
Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Charles J. LaDuca --
charlesl@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Charles E.
Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Sedran & Berman, Dana M.
Isaac, Audet & Partners, LLP, Jonas P. Mann , Audet & Partners,
LLP, Michael A. McShane -- mmcshane@audetlaw.com -- Audet &
Partners, LLP, Robert K. Shelquist -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com --
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. & Sam H. Lock, Law Office of Sam
Lock.

PATRICIA WRIGHT, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by Baker T.
Jason, Audet & Partners, Brendan S. Thompson, Cuneo Gilbert &
LaDuca, LLP, Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP,
Charles E. Schaffer, Levin Sedran & Berman, Clayton D. Halunen,
Halunen & Associates, David Alexander Barnes, Opermayer, Rebmann,
Maxwell & Hipple LLD, James T. Davis, Davis & Davis, Michael A.
McShane, Audet & Partners, LLP, Robert J. Cynkar, Cuneo Gilbert &
LaDuca, LLP, Robert K. Shelquist, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.,
S. Clinton Woods, Audet & Partners, LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah R.
Schalman-Bergen, Berger Montague PC, Scott A. Moriarity, Baillon
Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP, Shanon J. Carson, Berger Montague PC,
Shawn J. Wanta, Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP, Steven A.
Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis & Dana M. Isaac, Audet & Partners,
LLP.

KEVIN WEST, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by Baker T. Jason,
Audet & Partners, Brendan S. Thompson, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP,
Charles J. LaDuca, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Charles E.
Schaffer, Levin Sedran & Berman, Clayton D. Halunen, Halunen &
Associates, David Alexander Barnes, Opermayer, Rebmann, Maxwell &
Hipple LLD, James T. Davis, Davis & Davis, Michael A. McShane,
Audet & Partners, LLP, Robert J. Cynkar, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca,
LLP, Robert K. Shelquist, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., S.
Clinton Woods, Audet & Partners, LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah R.
Schalman-Bergen, Berger Montague PC, Scott A. Moriarity, Baillon
Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP, Shanon J. Carson, Berger Montague PC,
Shawn J. Wanta, Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP, Steven A.
Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis & Dana M. Isaac, Audet & Partners,
LLP & Robert K. Shelquist, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.

GERALD BOEHM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff Consolidated, represented by Dana M. Isaac,
Audet & Partners, LLP, Jonas P. Mann, Audet & Partners, LLP,
Michael A. McShane, Audet & Partners, LLP, Brendan S. Thompson,
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP & Robert K. Shelquist, Lockridge
Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.

EDWARD MAAG & DIANE MAAG, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff Consolidateds, represented by Jacob
M. Polakoff, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Lawrence
Deutsch, Berger Montague PC, S. Clinton Woods, Audet & Partners,
LLP, pro hac vice, Brendan S. Thompson, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca,
LLP, Michael A. McShane, Audet & Partners, LLP, Robert K.
Shelquist, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. & Shanon J. Carson,
Berger Montague PC.

OWENS CORNING & OWENS CORNING SALES LLC, Defendants, represented by
Arthur H. Stroyd, Jr. -- astroyd@dscslaw.com -- Del Sole Cavanaugh
Stroyd LLC, Theodore R. Scarborough -- TSCARBOROUGH@SIDLEY.COM --
Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Colleen M. Kenney, Sidley Austin
LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel A. Spira -- DSPIRA@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley
Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Elizabeth M. Chiarello --
ECHIARELLO@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice & Kara L.
McCall -- KMCCALL@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP.


PAPA MURPHY'S: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Cottle Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Cottle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Papa Murphy's Company Stores, Inc., Case No.
3:19-cv-00045 (M.D. Fla., January 8, 2019), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages from the Defendant for
overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay,
as required by law.

Plaintiff is an adult individual residing in Jacksonville, Florida.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Store Manager from on
or about May 2014 until on or about December 2017, at a Papa
Murphy's location in Jacksonville, Florida.

The Defendant is a publicly traded corporation, incorporated in
Washington, with its corporate headquarters in Vancouver,
Washington. The Defendant does business under the name "Papa
Murphy's Take 'N' Bake Pizza" and operates over 145 corporate
locations throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Tel: (561) 447-8888
      Fax: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
              lpardell@shavitzlaw.com


PHILIP MORRIS: Union Named Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM RUBENSTAHL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PHILIP MORRIS
INTERNATIONAL INC., et. al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-13504
(ES) (MAH) (D. N.J.), Judge Esther Salas of the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey granted Plaintiff Union Asset
Management Holding AG's uncontested motion to be appointed the Lead
Plaintiff and have its lead counsel and liaison counsel approved
under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

Plaintiff Rubenstahl filed the action on Dec. 21, 2017, alleging
that Defendants Philip Morris, Andre Calantzopoulis, and Jacek
Olczak violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, injuring the Plaintiff and others similarly situated.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that (i) the Defendants
made false or misleading statements regarding Philip Morris'
clinical testing of its reduced-risk products; (ii) these false or
misleading statements caused artificially inflated prices of Philip
Morris securities; and (iii) putative class members, who purchased
Philip Morris securities at the artificially inflated prices, were
damaged upon revelation of the false or misleading statements.

On Feb. 20, 2018, Union submitted the instant motion.  Plaintiffs
Rubenstahl and Guodong Chen also filed motions to be appointed the
Lead Plaintiff, but they withdrew those motions after Union filed
its motion.  On July 3, 2018, the Court directed Union to submit a
supplemental brief to address deficiencies in its motion. Union
submitted that supplemental brief, as well as a copy of the
retainer agreement for in camera inspection.

Judge Salas concludes that Union is the class member most capable
of adequately representing the interests of the class members, and
will accordingly appoint Union the Lead Plaintiff.  First, she
finds that Union is the movant with the largest financial interest
in the relief sought by the class.  Next, she finds that Union has
shown a prima facie case of typicality and adequacy, and therefore
otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.  Finally, because no putative class
members challenge Union's motion to be appointed the Lead
Plaintiff, the Judge does not perform a proof-of-inadequacy
analysis under 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii)(II).  Union
will be the Lead Plaintiff in the matter.

The Judge also concludes that Union's choice of counsel resulted
from a good faith selection and negotiation process, the counsel's
retention arose from meaningful arms'-length bargaining, and court
interference is not necessary to protect the putative class'
interests.

For these reasons, Judge Salas granted Union's motion.  An
appropriate Order accompanies the Memorandum Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/mnB9Qg from Leagle.com.

Guodong Chen, Movant, represented by DONALD A. ECKLUND --
DEcklund@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY
& AGNELLO, P.C..

WILLIAM RUBENSTAHL, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by LAURENCE M. ROSEN --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA.

UNION ASSET MANAGEMENT HOLDING AG, Plaintiff, represented by BRUCE
DANIEL GREENBERG -- bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA
GREENBERG, LLC.

PHILIP MORRIS INTERNATIONAL INC., ANDRE CALANTZOPOULOS & JACEK
OLCZAK, Defendants, represented by KEVIN M. McDONOUGH --
kevin.mcdonough@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP.


PIONEER PRODUCTION: Young Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Raphael Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Pioneer Production Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01986-NJB-JCW (E.D. La., March 4, 2019)
brought this lawsuit to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").

Young and the other employees like him regularly worked for Pioneer
in excess of 40 hours each week. But Pioneer never paid these
employees overtime for the hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
single workweek.

Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Pioneer paid
these employees a day rate with no overtime compensation, says the
complaint.

Young worked for Pioneer as a W-2 employee from approximately May
2018 until August 2018. Specifically, Young worked as a Rigger.

Pioneer is a supplemental contract labor company that staffs
workers, including Young, to energy and marine companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Philip Bohrer, Esq.
     Scott E. Brady, Esq.
     BOHRER BRADY, LLC
     8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
     Baton Rouge, LA 70809
     Phone: (225) 925-5297
     Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
     Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com
            scott@bohrerbrady.com

          - and -

     Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
     Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
     JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: 713-352-1100
     Facsimile: 713-352-3300
     Email: adunlap@mybackwages.com
            tjones@mybackwages.com

          - and -

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


PROFESSIONAL COLLECTION: Gonzales Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional
Collection Consultants et al. The case is styled as John Gonzales
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Professional Collection Consultants, Mid Valley Collection
Bureau, The Best Service Co., Inc., DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01537 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 1, 2019).

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

Professional Collection Consultants provides debt collection and
credit reporting services. The company is based in Culver City,
California.

The Best Service Company provides debt collection services. The
company is based in Los Angeles, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Amir J Goldstein, Esq.
     Amir J Goldstein Law Offices
     8032 West Third Street Suite 201
     Los Angeles, CA 90048
     Phone: (323) 937-0400
     Fax: (866) 288-9194
     Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Certification Sought in Behfarin Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that a motion for
class certification has been filed in Richard Behfarin v. Pruco
Life Insurance Company.

In July 2017, a putative class action complaint entitled Richard
Behfarin v. Pruco Life Insurance Company was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
alleging that the Company imposes charges on owners of universal
life policies to cure defaults and/or reinstate lapses, that are
inconsistent with the applicable universal life policy.

The complaint includes claims for breach of contract, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of
California law, and seeks unspecified damages along with
declaratory and injunctive relief.

In September 2017, the Company filed its answer to the complaint.
In September 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.

Prudential Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
insurance, investment management, and other financial products and
services. It operates through PGIM, U.S. Workplace Solutions, U.S.
Individual Solutions, and International Insurance divisions.
Prudential Financial, Inc. was founded in 1875 and is headquartered
in Newark, New Jersey.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Consolidated Rosen & Muir Suit Now Closed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the consolidated
cases, Richard A. Rosen, on behalf of the Ferguson Enterprises,
Inc. 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan and On behalf of All Other
Similarly Situated Employee Benefit Plans v. PRIAC, Prudential Bank
& Trust, FS; and Prudential Investment Management Services, LLC;
and Muir v. PRIAC, are  now closed.

In December 2015, a putative class action complaint entitled
Richard A. Rosen, on behalf of the Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
401(k) Retirement Savings Plan and On behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated Employee Benefit Plans v. PRIAC, Prudential Bank & Trust,
FSB and Prudential Investment Management Services, LLC was filed in
the United States District Court, District of Connecticut.

The complaint: (i) seeks certification of a class of all
ERISA-covered employee pension benefit plans with which Prudential
has maintained a contractual relationship based on a group annuity
contract or group funding agreement; and (ii) alleges that the
defendants breached their fiduciary obligations by accepting
revenue sharing payments from investment vehicles in its separate
accounts and/or by accepting excessive compensation by crediting
rates on stable value accounts that are less than PRIAC's internal
rate of return.

In April 2016, plaintiff filed an amended complaint: (i) removing
Prudential Investment Management Services, LLC, as a defendant;
(ii) withdrawing all claims concerning Stable Value Accounts; and
(iii) adding as defendants the employer/sponsor of plaintiff's
retirement plan (Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.), and the investment
advisor for plaintiff’s retirement plan (Capital Partners, LLC
d/b/a Captrust Financial Advisors).

In May 2016, the Muir v. PRIAC complaint was consolidated with this
lawsuit. In June 2016, PRIAC, along with the other named
defendants, filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. In
December 2016, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss
with prejudice.

In January 2017, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the Second
Circuit. In March 2017, plaintiff filed a voluntary notice of
dismissal with prejudice as to Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. and
Capital Partners, LLC d/b/a Captrust Financial Advisors. In October
2017, a three judge panel from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the judgment of the district court, and plaintiff
subsequently filed a petition for rehearing before the entire Court
of Appeals.

In December 2017, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's request
for a rehearing. In March 2018, plaintiff's time to appeal the
decision of the Court of Appeals expired. This case is now closed.

Prudential Financial, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
insurance, investment management, and other financial products and
services. It operates through PGIM, U.S. Workplace Solutions, U.S.
Individual Solutions, and International Insurance divisions.
Prudential Financial, Inc. was founded in 1875 and is headquartered
in Newark, New Jersey.


SABRE CORP: Air Fare Prices Suit Proceeds on Individual Basis
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the litigation over
airline ticket prices is now proceeding on an individual basis
only.

In July 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and two other Sabre global distribution system (GDSs), in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The plaintiffs, who are asserting claims on behalf of a putative
class of consumers in various states, are generally alleging that
the GDSs conspired to negotiate for full content from the airlines,
resulting in higher ticket prices for consumers, in violation of
various federal and state laws.

The plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of damages in
connection with their state law claims, and they requested
injunctive relief in connection with their federal claim.

In July 2016, the court granted, in part, the company's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit, finding that plaintiffs' state law claims are
preempted by federal law, thereby precluding their claims for
damages. The court declined to dismiss plaintiffs' claim seeking an
injunction under federal antitrust law. The plaintiffs may appeal
the court's dismissal of their state law claims upon a final
judgment.

In August 2018, the plaintiffs sought leave from the court to
withdraw their motion for class certification. In October 2018, the
court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification with
prejudice. The case is now proceeding on an individual basis only.


Sabre said, "We believe that the losses associated with this case
are neither probable nor estimable and therefore have not accrued
any losses as of December 31, 2018. We may incur significant fees,
costs and expenses for as long as this litigation is ongoing. We
intend to vigorously defend against the remaining claims."

Sabre Corporation, through its subsidiary, Sabre Holdings
Corporation, provides technology solutions to the travel and
tourism industry worldwide. It operates in three segments: Travel
Network, Airline Solutions, and Hospitality Solutions. The company
was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Southlake, Texas.



SAMSUNG: Settles Class Action Over Exploding Washing Machines
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Moritz, writing for KSAT, reports that owners of certain
Samsung washing machines can file claims for rebates, repairs and
refunds, now that Samsung has settled a class-action lawsuit
prompted by complaints of exploding machines.

Across the county, owner after owner shared pictures and accounts
of exploding washing machines.

"I heard what sounded like a tornado whipping around," said Kristyn
Ryan, a Bandera woman whose machine violently ripped apart as she
did the morning laundry. "It sounded like the roof was caving in."

Months later, in 2016, Samsung recalled several models of the
high-efficiency top-load washing machines after nine injuries were
reported.

Now, a preliminary settlement has been reached in a class action
lawsuit. Three major retailers -- Home Depot, Best Buy and Lowes --
were also named in the lawsuit.

Samsung has denied allegations in the suit and said it was settling
to avoid further costly litigation.  

Owners who bought one of the 2.8 million machines made between
March 2011 and October 2016 can file a claim for various forms of
compensation.

The deadline to file a claim is Aug. 6. Owners can go to the
settlement website, www.washermdlsettlement.com, and enter their
model and serial number to file a claim.

Consumers who bought Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Dial foaming hand soap
and Charmin flushable wipes may also be able to claim a little
cash.

Canada Dry Ginger Ale settled an $11 million lawsuit over
allegations that the popular beverage does not contain real ginger
as stated on the label. Rather, the suit claimed, the product used
flavorings that do not provide the same health benefits as the
actual root.

People who bought Canada Dry Ginger Ale between January 2013 and
December 2018 may be able to pocket up to $5.20 without proof of
purchase or as much as $40 with proof. Claims must be filed by
March 19 through www.cdgasettlement.com.

Consumers who bought Dial Complete Foaming Liquid Hand Soap may
also be able to clean up as much as $8.10 without proof of
purchase. The company settled a $7 million class action lawsuit
alleging the soap's label, which allegedly overstated the product's
germ-killing properties. People are eligible to file a claim
through www.soapsettlement.com if they bought the product between
Jan. 1, 2001, and Jan. 2, 2019. The deadline to file a claim is
April 12.

Consumers who bought Charmin Freshmates Flushable wipes or any
premoistened Charmin wipes that claim flushable on the label may
also receive a few bucks. The company settled class-action claims
that the wipes are not flushable as advertised, and they clog
toilets and rack up plumbing repair bills.

For purchases made between April 2011 and November 2018, consumers
may receive up to $30 with proof of purchase or $4.20 without
proof. The deadline to file a claim at www.pettitwipesettlement.com
is Feb. 28.

The companies involved in these settlements are not admitting
wrongdoing, but say they are settling to avoid further costly legal
battles. [GN]


SAXE MANAGEMENT: Court Dismisses NDTPA Claim in Bauman Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEREMY BAUMAN, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAVID SAXE, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-01125-RFB-PAL (D. Nev.), Judge Richard
F. Boulware, II of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada granted in part and denied in part Defendant Twilio, Inc.'s
Motion to Dismiss.

The Plaintiffs' instant complaint is their Consolidated Second
Amended Class Action Complaints, filed on Sept. 20, 2016.  They
bring the instant action against the Saxe Defendants and Twilio.
They allege violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") and the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("NDTPA").

The Plaintiffs allege that the Saxe Defendants acquired their
cellular telephone numbers and made representations that the
cellular telephone numbers would not be used to send uninvited text
message advertisements.  They allege that the Saxe Defendants
devised the idea to send telemarketing text messages and
authorized, approved, and ratified a telemarketing text message
program which sent the Plaintiffs messages without their consent.

The Plaintiffs allege that Twilio collaborated as to the
development, implementation, and maintenance of the telemarketing
text message program.  Specifically, they allege that Twilio
committed the following acts: (1) joined their software and
hardware with David Saxe Productions, LLC's ("DSP") to create,
sort, and send hundreds of thousands of text message advertisements
to cellular telephone numbers in an automated manner; (2) caused
its devices to store the telephone numbers and messages,
prioritized in what sequence the text messages would be sent to the
various cellular telephone carriers to which each telephone number,
and ensured that the text messages were not blocked by cellular
telephone carriers as telemarketing spam; (3) controlled when and
how each of the telemarketing text messages was delivered to the
cellular telephone numbers of their intended recipients; (4)
provided DSP with software code tailored for DSP's devices to
enable and facilitate the automated transmission of telemarketing
text messages with the assistance of Twilio; (5) provided help and
advice to DSP on how to ensure their telemarketing program would
not run afoul of spam filters of cellular telephone carriers that
are intended to block such uninvited telemarketing; (6) helped DSP
obtain a short code telephone number for the telemarketing program
to aid in bypassing the spam filters of cellular telephone
carriers; (7) helped DSP obtain a short code telephone number for
the telemarketing program to aid in bypassing the spam filters of
cellular telephone carriers; and (8) assigned DSP a mobile
marketing campaign specialist who was specifically authorized by
Twilio to ensure that the telemarketing text message program was a
success.  The Plaintiffs allege that the telemarketing text message
program could not have worked without the knowledge, authorization,
approval, ratification, participation, and/or active support of
Twilio.

Before the Court is Twilio's Motion to Dismiss.  It makes two
arguments in support of dismissal of the TCPA claim: (1) that the
Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently plead the injury and
causation elements required for Article III standing, and (2) that
Twilio is a transmitter of communications, not an initiator of
communications, and therefore cannot be liable under the TCPA.
Twilio next makes two arguments in support of dismissal of the
NDTPA claim: (1) that the Plaintiffs fail to allege consumer fraud
as required under the statute, and (2) that the Plaintiffs fail to
allege injury.

Judge Boulware granted in part and denied in part Twilio's Motion
to Dismiss.  He denied the Motion as to the Plaintiffs' TCPA claim
(Count I) and granted as to the Plaintiffs' NDTPA claim (Count
II).

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs state a claim for Twilio's
liability under the TCPA that is plausible on its face.  Accepting
the facts in the Plaintiffs' complaint as true, Twilio took steps
necessary to send the automated text messages.  Twilio's alleged
involvement was to an extent that Twilio could be considered to
have initiated the contact, considering the TCPA's goal of limiting
the nuisance and invasion of privacy caused by automated calls and
text messages.  The Plaintiffs also allege that Twilio not only
knowingly allowed DSP to use their platform for automated text
messages but actively helped DSP bypass spam filters.  Because the
FCC has determined that transmitters can be liable under the TCPA
under certain circumstances, and because the Plaintiffs allege
circumstances under which liability is plausible, the Plaintiffs
state a claim against Twilio under the TCPA.

He also finds that the Plaintiffs characterize themselves as
consumers in their response, but they do not allege that any sale,
lease, or transaction occurred between Plaintiffs and Twilio.  The
Plaintiffs fail to state a plausible claim for relief under the
NDTPA.  In addition, he finds that the Plaintiffs allege damages in
the form of privacy violations and a disruption in the quiet use
and enjoyment of their cellular telephones.  The Plaintiffs state a
plausible claim as to damages, though the claim is nevertheless
dismissed for the failure to plead consumer fraud.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ugQeNa from Leagle.com.

Bijan Razilou, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Amanda L. Stevens,
Bailey Kennedy, LLP, Dennis L. Kennedy, Bailey Kennedy, Matthew R.
Mendelsohn -- mmendelsohn@mazieslater.com -- Mazie Slater Katz &
Freeman, LLC, pro hac vice, Paul C. Williams --
PWilliams@BaileyKennedy.com -- Bailey Kennedy, LLP & Payam Shahian,
Strategic Legal Practices, APC, pro hac vice.

Jeremy Bauman, Plaintiff, represented by Albert H. Kirby, Sound
Justice Law Group, PLLC, Candice Renka, Marquis & Aurbach, Phillip
S. Aurbach, Marquis & Aurbach & Michael David Maupin, c/o Marquis
Aurbach Coffing.

Saxe Management LLC, V Theater Group LLC & David Saxe, Defendants,
represented by James H. Corning -- jamescorning@dwt.com -- Davis
Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice, Kenneth E. Payson --
kenpayson@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice &
Jeffrey A. Silvestri -- jsilvestri@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald
Carano Wilson.

Saxe Theater, LLC, Defendant, represented by James H. Corning,
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice & Kenneth E. Payson, Davis
Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice.

Twilio, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam Daniel Bowser --
adam.bowser@arentfox.com -- Arent Fox LLP, Michael Brian Hazzard,
Jones Day, Joel D. Henriod, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP &
Kenneth E. Payson, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

David Saxe Productions, LLC & David Saxe Productions, Inc., Consol
Defendants, represented by Carrie McCrea Hanlon, Pyatt Silvestri &
Hanlon, Chtd., James H. Corning, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac
vice, Kenneth E. Payson, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, pro hac vice &
Jeffrey A. Silvestri, McDonald Carano Wilson.


SEQUIUM ASSET: Accused by Redfield Class Suit of Violating FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
RONDA REDFIELD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SEQUIUM ASSET SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Georgia Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 2:19-cv-14058 (S.D. Fla., February 19,
2019), is a consumer lawsuit accusing the Defendant of violating
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in connection with its debt
collection and demand letter.

Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC, is a Georgia Limited Liability
Company, which operates from offices located in Marietta, Georgia.

The Defendant regularly uses the United States Postal Service and
telephone in the collection of consumer debts.  The Defendant
regularly collects or attempts to collect consumer debts for other
parties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
          DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Telephone: (772) 231-9600
          Facsimile: (772) 231-0300
          E-mail: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com


SMITH & NEPHEW: McManus Suit Removed to S.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Isaac McManus, Plaintiff, v. Smith & Nephew,
Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2019 CV 00527 was removed from
the Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County, Ohio to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on March 4,
2019, and assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00066-TMR.

On or about February 1, 2019, Plaintiff Isaac McManus filed a
Complaint in the Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County, Ohio, S&N
was served with the Summons and Complaint on February 5, 2019, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff is, and was at the time the state court action was
commenced, a citizen of the State of Ohio.

S&N is, and was at the time Plaintiff commenced this action, a
corporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Julie B. Zogbaum, Esq.
     Zogbaum Law, LLC
     1955 N. Devon Rd.
     Columbus, OH 43212
     Email: ZogbaumLawLLC@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

     Steven A. Oldham, Esq.
     Eric Larson Zalud, Esq.
     BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF, LLP
     200 Public Square, Suite 2300
     Cleveland, OH 44114
     Phone: (216) 363-4500
     Facsimile: (216) 363-4588
     Email: ezalud@beneschlaw.com

          - and -

     Steven A. Oldham, Esq.
     BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF, LLP
     41 South High Street, Suite 2600
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Phone: (614) 223-9300
     Facsimile: (614) 223-9330
     Email: soldham@beneschlaw.com


SPARKS BLACK: Can Compel Arbitration in Sheehan Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, HANNAH SHEEHAN, TAMMY HENSON, TAYLOR WICKUM, and
KRISTIN HENDERSON, Plaintiffs, v. SPARKS BLACK BEAR, LLC, and
GALENA CREEK, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00510-HDM-CBC (D.
Nev.), Judge Howard D. McKibben of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada granted the Defendants' Motion to Compel
Arbitration.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are entities which
operate Black Bear Diner restaurants in Sparks, Nevada and Reno,
Nevada.  The Plaintiffs are former employees of the restaurants and
are members of a protected class (women), who were allegedly
subjected to adverse treatment "because of sex" in violation of 42
U.S.C. Section 2000(e).  The Plaintiffs bring claims for sexual
harassment, quid pro quo sexual harassment, and retaliation.
Additionally, Plaintiff Sheehan brings a cause of action pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

In the instant Motion, the Defendants move the Court to dismiss the
action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or in the alternative, to compel arbitration and stay the
case.  They assert that the Plaintiffs agreed, in a signed writing,
to the terms of an arbitration agreement where each Plaintiff and
the Defendants agreed to submit any and all disputes between them
arising out of or relating to employment with the Defendants to
binding arbitration, including any claims arising under federal
statutes.  The Plaintiffs also waived their right to jury trial and
further agreed that arbitration would proceed on an individual
basis, without consolidation with claims of other employees.  In
turn, the Defendants agreed to waive their right to a jury trial,
arbitrate their claims against Plaintiffs on an individual basis,
and pay costs of the arbitrator.  

Sheehan signed an initial arbitration agreement on July 25, 2017
and on Oct. 17, 2017 she signed a Mutual Arbitration Agreement,
which superseded the prior agreement.  Henderson signed an initial
arbitration agreement on April 5, 2017, and on Oct. 7, 2017, she
signed a Mutual Arbitration Agreement, which superseded the prior
agreement.  Henson signed an Arbitration Agreement on Oct. 25,
2014.  Wickum signed an Arbitration Agreement on Aug. 14, 2016.
The Defendants argue that the complaint must be dismissed because
the Plaintiffs each agreed to arbitrate any and all claims arising
out of or related to their employment with them.

In their response, the Plaintiffs argue that the arbitration
agreements are procedurally and substantively unconscionable and
therefore unenforceable.  They argue that the arbitration
agreements are unconscionable because: (1) of "unequal bargaining
power;" (2) terms of the agreements were in block text and hard to
read; (3) arbitration rules were not supplied; (4) making the
Plaintiffs arbitrate in Clark County is an oppressive term; and (5)
agreements were one-sided.  They also claim that the arbitration
clauses violate public policy by limiting Title VII.

Judge McKibben finds that finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to
show that the agreements at issue are procedurally or substantively
unconscionable.  Upon finding that a claim is subject to an
arbitration clause, the Judge may dismiss an action without
prejudice instead of staying the action while arbitration proceeds.
Further, the Plaintiffs do not dispute that their claims fall
within the scope of the agreements.  Accordingly, the Judge finds
that dismissal is warranted because all of the Plaintiffs' claims
are subject to arbitration.

For these reasons, and for good cause appearing, Judge McKibben
granted the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration.  He dismissed
the Complaint without prejudice.  The Clerk of the Court is
directed to enter judgment accordingly.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/wfkYim from Leagle.com.

Hannah Sheehan, Tammy Henson, Taylor Wickum & Kristin Henderson,
Plaintiffs, represented by Mark L. Mausert, Law Office Of Mark
Mausert & Cody Oldham, Law Office Of Mark Mausert.

Sparks Black Bear, LLC & Galena Creek, LLC, Defendants, represented
by Leigh T. Goddard -- lgoddard@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald
Carano Wilson & Laura R. Jacobsen -- ljacobsen@mcdonaldcarano.com
-- McDonald Carano & Wilson.


SUNSET FOOD: Railey Sues Over Improper Biometric Data Retention
---------------------------------------------------------------
RANITA RAILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SUNSET FOOD MART, INC., Case No. 2019CH02122 (Ill.
Cir., Cook Cty., February 19, 2019), is brought under the Biometric
Information Privacy Act on behalf of all persons in Illinois, who
had their fingerprints and/or handprints improperly collected,
captured, received, otherwise obtained or disclosed by SFM.

In Illinois, at least 100 individuals perform work for SFM at its
locations in Illinois -- Highland Park, Lake Forest, Libertyville,
Long Grove and Northbrook, according to the complaint.  SFM
collects biometric identifiers and biometric information from these
individuals through its timekeeping system.

SFM conducts business transactions in Illinois and is registered to
conduct business in Illinois.  SFM operates at least one
supermarket in Cook County, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Margherita Albarello, Esq.
          DI MONTE & LIZAK, LLC
          216 Higgins Road
          Park Ridge, IL
          Telephone: (847) 698-9600
          E-mail: malbarello@dimontelaw.com

               - and -

          Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
          Madeline K. Engel, Esq.
          CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
          224 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 763-6880
          E-mail: acaffarelli@caffarelli.com
                  m.engel@caffarelli.com


SWAY NIGHTCLUB: Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Rodriguez Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge E. Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. 111 SW 2nd Ave, LLC dba Sway Nightclub, Case
No. 19-cv-60061 (S.D. Fla., January 8, 2019), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that in order to drum up new business, the
Defendant sent Plaintiff and others automated telemarketing text
messages. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted
in the invasion of privacy, loss of time, harassment, aggravation,
and disruption of daily life.

The Plaintiff is a natural person who, at all times relevant to
this action, was a resident of Broward County, Florida.

The Defendant is a Florida limited liability company whose
principal office is located at 111 SW 2nd Ave., Fort Lauderdale, FL
33301. It claims to be the ultimate nightclub designed to impress
the "best of the best crowd in Broward". The Defendant directs,
markets, and provides its business activities throughout the State
of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

      Karl C. Gonzalez, Esq.
      KARL C. GONZALEZ, PLLC
      17113 Miramar Parkway Suite #152
      Miramar, FL 33027
      Tel: (833) 527-5529
      E-mail: karl@karlgonzalez.com


SYKES ENTERPRISES: Court OKs $500K FLSA Settlement
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Approval
of Collective Action Settlement in the case captioned DAVID
SLAUGHTER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. SYKES ENTERPRISES, INC., doing business as Sykes Home
Powered by Alpine Access, Defendant. Civil Action No.
17-cv-02038-KLM. (D. Colo.).

The Plaintiff requests that the Court approve the executed
Settlement Agreement, which resolves all of the Plaintiff's and
Collective Members' claims in this matter pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

In Baker v. Vail Resorts Management Company, No.
13-cv-01649-PAB-CBS, 2014 WL 700096, at *3 (D. Colo. Feb. 24,
2014), the Court held pursuant to Lynn's Foods that to approve the
settlement agreement, the Court must find that (1) the litigation
involves a bona fide dispute (2) the proposed settlement is fair
and equitable to all parties concerned and (3) the proposed
settlement contains a reasonable award of attorneys' fees.  

The mere existence of an adversarial lawsuit is not enough to
satisfy the bona fide dispute requirement. Sufficient information
regarding a bona fide dispute consists of the following: (1) a
description of the nature of the dispute (2) a description of the
employer's business and the type of work performed by the employees
(3) the employer's reasons for disputing the employees' right to a
minimum wage or overtime (4) the employees' justification for the
disputed wages and (5) if the parties dispute the computation of
wages owed, each party's estimate of the number of hours worked and
the applicable wage.

The parties have provided sufficient information in support of
their assertion that a bona fide dispute exists.  In short, the
parties dispute whether Defendant which provides customer support
services to companies in the communications, financial services,
healthcare, technology, transportation, and retail sectors
inappropriately classified Team Leaders as exempt employees not
entitled to overtime premiums.

The Plaintiff alleges that Team Leaders' primary duty was
performing routine, non-exempt work, including performing routine
inspections of agents' calls to track quality-control metrics using
standardized forms provided by the Defendant; running routine
reports regarding call data; and completing forms relating to
computer-generated metrics, while Defendant asserts that Team
Leaders actually managed large groups of customer agents, trained
them, coached them, provided them with feedback, and otherwise
performed exempt work. The parties further dispute whether the
Plaintiff and the Collective Members' unpaid overtime should be
calculated at time-and-a-half their regular rates or according to
the fluctuating workweek' method and they likely would have
disputed the number of hours the Plaintiffs worked.

In light of this and the parties' briefing, the Court finds that a
bona fide dispute exists.

Fair and Equitable Settlement

Second, the Court determines whether the proposed settlement is
fair and equitable to all parties concerned. In making this
determination, the Court considers: (1) whether the parties fairly
and honestly negotiated the settlement (2) whether serious
questions of law and fact exist which place the ultimate outcome of
the litigation in doubt (3) whether the value of an immediate
recovery outweighs the mere possibility of future relief after
protracted litigation and (4) the judgment of the parties that the
settlement is fair and reasonable.

Under the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement, the
Defendants will pay a total of $500,000 to the Plaintiff and the
other 482 opt-in Collective Members, exclusive of attorneys' fees.
This case involves serious questions of law and fact with respect
to the Plaintiff's claims and the Defendant's defenses that place
the ultimate outcome of the litigation in doubt, including whether
the executive and/or administrative exemptions to the FLSA apply to
Team Leaders and whether the Defendant willfully misclassified Team
Leaders as exempt and/or whether it acted in good faith.

Here, a trial on the merits would involve significant risk as to
both liability and damages.

Based on this, the Court finds that the parties have presented
evidence that they fairly and honestly negotiated the settlement.

The Court therefore finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair and
equitable.

The Motion is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's February 11, 2019 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/yygfdq8zfrom Leagle.com.

David Slaughter, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Cheryl-Lyn D. Bentley --
cbentley@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden, LLP, Daniel S.
Stromberg -- dstromberg@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden, LLP,
Gregg I. Shavitz, Shavitz Law Group, P. A., Juno E. Turner --
jturner@outtengolden.com --  Outten & Golden, LLP, Justin Mitchell
Swartz -- jms@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden, LLP, Melissa
Lardo Stewart -- mstewart@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden, LLP,
Paolo C. Meireles, Shavitz Law Group, P. A., Sarah J. Parady,
Lowrey Parady, LLC & Mary Josephine Lowrey, Lowrey Parady, LLC.

Sykes Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Sykes Home Powered by
Alpine Access, Defendant, represented by Claire B. Deason --
cdeason@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, Jennifer S. Harpole
-- jharpole@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC & Niloy Ray
nray@littler.com, Littler Mendelson, PC.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Still Defends Cambell, Neal & Mott TCPA Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that that the company
continues to defend itself against three putative class action
lawsuits alleging violations of the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Bank or the Company is, or has been, defending a number of
putative class actions alleging claims under the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") as a result of phone calls made by
the Bank. The complaints generally have alleged that the Bank or
the Company placed calls to consumers by an automated telephone
dialing system or using a pre-recorded message or automated voice
without their consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation,
without specifying an aggregate amount.

Campbell et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on January 25, 2017 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. The
original complaint named only J.C. Penney Company, Inc. and J.C.
Penney Corporation, Inc. as the defendants but was amended on April
7, 2017 to replace those defendants with the Bank.

Neal et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Synchrony Bank, for which
the Bank is indemnifying Wal-Mart, was filed on January 17, 2017 in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.
The original complaint named only Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. as a
defendant but was amended on March 30, 2017 to add Synchrony Bank
as an additional defendant.

Mott et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on February 2, 2018 in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

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

Synchrony Financial operates as a consumer financial services
company in the United States. The company offers private label
credit cards, dual cards, general purpose co-branded credit cards,
and small and medium-sized business credit products; and
promotional financing for consumer purchases, such as private label
credit cards and installment loans. Synchrony Financial was
incorporated in 2003 and is headquartered in Stamford,
Connecticut.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Union Local 338 Retirement Fund Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company continues
to defend itself against a putative class action suit entitled,
Retail Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338 Retirement Fund
v. Synchrony Financial, et al.

On November 2, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit, Retail
Wholesale Department Store Union Local 338 Retirement Fund v.
Synchrony Financial, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut, naming as defendants the Company
and two of its officers.

The lawsuit asserts violations of the Exchange Act for allegedly
making materially misleading statements and/or omitting material
information concerning the Company's underwriting practices and
private-label card business, and was filed on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between October 21, 2016 and November 1, 2018.

The complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory damages,
costs and expenses.

Synchrony Financial operates as a consumer financial services
company in the United States. The company offers private label
credit cards, dual cards, general purpose co-branded credit cards,
and small and medium-sized business credit products; and
promotional financing for consumer purchases, such as private label
credit cards and installment loans. Synchrony Financial was
incorporated in 2003 and is headquartered in Stamford,
Connecticut.


SYNERGY PHARMACEUTICALS: April 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Feb. 11 disclosed that
a federal class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
those who acquired Synergy Pharmaceuticals Inc., ("Synergy" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: SGYP) securities between September 7, 2017
through October 25, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period") against
certain of the Company's executives and officers. This action is
captained McMullen v. Hamilton, et al., No. 1:19-cv-00825.

Investors who purchased Synergy Pharmaceuticals Inc. shares and
suffered losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action on our website,
www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of Synergy during the
Class Period, you may, no later than April 12, 2019, request that
the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please
contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an
investor in Synergy.

The filed Complaint alleges that Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose
that:

The Company's launch of its primary product TRULANCE was not as
successful as represented and as a result, revenues from TRULANCE
underwhelmed;

Synergy faced substantial risk that it would not be able to satisfy
various covenants in its senior secure loan from CRG Partners III
L.P. ("CRG") due to the Company's poor launch of TRULANCE and its
underwhelming performance;

Synergy's relationship with CRG had soured and CRG was no longer
willing to collaborate or be flexible with respect to requirements
of the senior secure loan; and

The Company's strategic review had failed to yield a "white knight"
or financing alternative and as a result, the Company was likely to
default and enter into bankruptcy.
On October 25, 2018, Defendants revealed that Synergy's strategic
review process had failed to yield offers other than those
significantly below the Company's market value and similarly failed
to produce any partnership opportunities. Further, Defendants
disclosed that efforts to renegotiate the senior secured loan with
CRG had proven unsuccessful and due to TRULANCE's poor performance,
the Company was likely to be in breach of several covenants of the
senior secured loan and thus, default on the loan.

On this news, the price of Synergy shares fell $0.97 from $1.40 per
share on October 25, 2018, to close at $0.43 per share on October
26, 2018.

After the Class Period, on December 12, 2018, Synergy announced
that it voluntarily filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Synergy publicly traded securities during the Class Period. The
Plaintiff is represented by Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLP. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution
of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

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

Contact:

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


TESCO PLC: Ordered to Disclose SFO Documents in FSMA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Herbert Smith Freehills, in an article for Mondaq, reports that the
High Court has ordered Tesco to disclose, in civil proceedings
brought by its shareholders under s.90A of the Financial Services
and Markets Act 2000 ("FSMA"), documents that the SFO had provided
in confidence to Tesco's legal representatives in the course of
negotiating a deferred prosecution agreement: Omers Administration
Corporation & Ors v Tesco plc [2019] EWHC 109 (Ch).

The material in question comprised documents, interview transcripts
and witness statements that the SFO had obtained from third parties
using its powers to compel the production of information/documents
under s.2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987. Accordingly, the
decision highlights the possibility that material provided to the
SFO (and potentially other regulatory or enforcement bodies) may
become disclosable in subsequent civil proceedings.

More generally, the decision provides an illustration of how the
court will deal with a request that a party disclose documents
which are subject to third party confidentiality obligations.
Confidentiality is not, in itself, a bar to disclosure, but it is a
factor the court will take into account in considering whether to
order disclosure. The decision emphasises that the court must
approach the matter by reference to all the circumstances of the
case and without any presumptions one way or the other. In general,
however, where the documents are relevant, the balance is very
likely to favour production, unless the same information is
available from another source without disproportionate difficulty
-- but the court will seek to impose appropriate measures to
protect that confidentiality, insofar as compatible with the needs
of justice. [GN]


TRISTAR PRODUCTS: DOJ Opposes "Coupon" Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Valley News reports that the Department of Justice filed
an amicus brief with the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
opposing a class action settlement that would provide consumers
coupons worth only part of the price of a new pressure cooker,
while awarding class counsel millions of dollars in attorney's fees
and costs.

Plaintiffs in the case, Chapman et al. v. Tristar Products, Inc.,
alleged that a pressure cooker sold by Tristar Products contained a
defect that could cause hot liquid to "erupt" out of the appliance.
A settlement reached between the parties would provide class
members with a limited warranty extension and a non-transferrable
$72.50 credit toward the purchase of certain Tristar products, to
be ordered directly from the company. At current prices, the credit
would pay for less than half the cost of a new pressure cooker from
Tristar. Under the settlement, class members would release all
claims relating to alleged defects in the pressure cookers,
including claims for personal injury or property damage. Out of the
estimated 3.2 million consumers who purchased the pressure cooker
at issue, only about 13,300 claimed the coupons. The settlement, as
approved by the district court, would award plaintiff's counsel
more than $2 million in attorney's fees and costs.

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 provides the Attorney General
and state officials an opportunity to review federal class action
settlements before district courts grant final approval. The United
States filed a statement of interest in 2018 opposing the Chapman
settlement in district court for the Northern District of Ohio. A
coalition of 18 state attorneys general also filed a brief arguing
that the settlement was unfair to consumers. The district court
approved the settlement, which is now on appeal with the Sixth
Circuit.

"Under the Class Action Fairness Act, the Department of Justice
plays an important role in reviewing the reasonableness and
adequacy of proposed class action settlements," said Principal
Deputy Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio.  "Settlements
such as this one raise serious fairness concerns by awarding class
members only illusory relief while the lawyers bringing the lawsuit
are awarded substantial fees.  We will continue to scrutinize such
proposed settlements to ensure they comport with the law and are
fair, reasonable, and adequate."

"Class action settlements that provide nothing of real value to
consumers but award significant attorney's fees to class counsel
are precisely what Congress meant to curtail with the Class Action
Fairness Act," said Assistant Attorney General Jody Hunt for the
Department of Justice's Civil Division. "We will continue to
advocate on behalf of consumers when we see inappropriate class
action settlements of this kind."

Trial Attorney Kendrack Lewis of the Civil Division's Consumer
Protection Branch represents the United States in the matter. [GN]


UBER TECH: Arbitration Bid Hearing in TCPA Suit Moved
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE UBER TEXT MESSAGING, Case No. 18-cv-02931-HSG
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California vacated the hearings
scheduled for Feb. 14, 2019 on Uber's motions to compel arbitration
and to stay, and rescheduled for March 14, 2019 at 1:00 p.m.

In their putative class action complaint, Plaintiffs Wanda Rogers
and Christopher Ziers allege that Uber used an automatic telephone
dialing system to send text messages without the recipient's
consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").  Uber, however, maintains that Ziers registered for an
Uber account in June 2016, thereby agreeing to arbitrate these
claims and waiving his right to bring a class action complaint.
Uber relied on the declarations of two of its employees to support
its motion to compel arbitration.  Beyond the declarations and
generic screenshots documenting the registration process and
agreement, Uber did not originally supply any other evidence to
support its contention that Ziers registered for the service and
agreed to be bound by Uber's Terms and Conditions.

In a sworn declaration attached to his opposition to the motion to
compel, Ziers stated that he did not recall ever completing the
Uber registration process, that he did not receive a welcome email
from Uber, that he did not believe he provided his credit card
information to Uber, and that the Android phone he owned in 2016
was incapable of downloading third-party applications.

Then, in its reply brief, Uber voluntarily produced information
from its records that supports its employee's declaration.  Though
Uber believed production of these records was "unnecessary," it
decided to provide them in its reply (but no earlier) in an effort
to efficiently resolve the issue.  Unsurprisingly, in Uber's view,
these newly disclosed documents confirm that Mr. Ziers entered into
a binding arbitration agreement with Uber.

In response to these never-before-seen documents making their first
appearance in Uber's reply brief, the Plaintiffs filed an objection
under Civil Local Rule 7-3(d)(1).

Pending before the Court are Defendant Uber's motion to stay the
action pending a decision on the motion to compel, and motion to
compel arbitration.

Because Uber inexplicably produced these records only after Ziers
filed his opposition, Judge Gilliam finds that Ziers has not had an
opportunity to explain how they may affect his argument that he is
not subject to Uber's Terms and Conditions, including mandatory
arbitration and a class action waiver.  To avoid the unfairness
inherent in this eleventh-hour revelation of what appears to be
consequential new information, the Judge will give the Plaintiffs
an opportunity to respond.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs may file a
sur-reply, explaining their position on how the Court should assess
the information Uber divulged in its reply and how it affects their
assertion that Ziers did not complete the Uber registration process
and thus never agreed to arbitrate his claims.

Judge Gilliam granted the Plaintiffs leave to file a sur-reply of
no more than 10 pages by Feb. 27, 2019.  The hearings scheduled for
Feb. 14, 2019 on Uber's motion to compel arbitration and motion to
stay are vacated and are rescheduled for March 14, 2019 at 1:00
p.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/fnZqmt from Leagle.com.

Lucius Manning, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David S. Ratner --
david@davidratnerlawfirm.com -- David Ratner Law Firm, Avi Kaufman
-- kaufman@kaufmanpa.com -- Kaufman P.A., pro hac vice & Simon
Seiver Grille -- sgrille@girardsharp.com -- Girard Sharp LLP.

Wanda Rogers, Andrew Katzman & Christopher Ziers, Plaintiffs,
represented by Simon Seiver Grille, Girard Sharp LLP.

Carla Vario, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Patrick Harry Peluso
-- ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow & Peluso, LLC, Rebecca Leah
Davis -- admin@lozeaudrury.com -- Lozeau Drury LLP, Richard
Toshiyuki Drury, Lozeau Drury LLP, Steven Lezell Woodrow --
swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow & Peluso, LLC, Taylor True
Smith -- tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow and Peluso, LLC &
Simon Seiver Grille, Girard Sharp LLP.

Uber Technologies Inc., a Delware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Tiffany Cheung -- tcheung@mofo.com -- Morrison &
Foerster LLP, Adam James Hunt -- adamhunt@mofo.com -- Morrison
Foerster LLP, pro hac vice & Lucia X. Roibal -- lroibal@mofo.com --
Morrison Foerster LLP.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Dickinson Wright Attorneys Discuss Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Dylan Augruso, Esq. -- daugruso@dickinson-wright.com -- and Era
Saraci, Esq., of Dickinson Wright PLLC, in an article for Mondaq,
report that a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision may have
significant implications on the interpretation of "dispute
resolution" provisions contained in employment and independent
contractor agreements. On January 2, 2019, the Ontario Court of
Appeal released its decision in Heller v Uber Technologies Inc.
("Heller"), overturning the lower court's decision to stay the
plaintiff's proposed $400 million class action in favour of
arbitration. The Court of Appeal held that the arbitration clause
contained in the service agreements between Uber drivers and the
company, which compelled Ontario-based drivers to resolve disputes
using an arbitration process in the Netherlands, was unconscionable
and contravened the Ontario Employment Standards Act ("ESA").

Background
In early 2017, Toronto-based UberEats driver, David Heller,
commenced a proposed $400 million class action as representative
plaintiff against the ride-hailing services giant, Uber. Heller
sought, among other things, a declaration that all Uber drivers are
employees rather than independent contractors, and are therefore
entitled to the employment rights and benefits of the ESA.3 The
defendants, Uber and its affiliated companies (collectively
"Uber"), brought a motion to stay the proceeding pursuant to s.
7(1) of the Arbitration Act.4 Uber argued that a dispute resolution
clause contained in its service agreements with drivers required
the class members to resolve their claims through arbitration in
Amsterdam under the Rules of Arbitration of the International
Chamber of Commerce.

In granting Uber's pre-certification motion to stay the action in
January of 2018, Justice Perell rejected the plaintiff's argument
that the arbitration clause was invalid. He concluded that the
service agreements were "international commercial agreements,"
which fell squarely within the scope of the International
Commercial Arbitration Act. Any challenges to the arbitrator's
jurisdiction to determine the employment relationship of drivers
was to be made before the arbitrator on the basis of the
"competence-competence" principle (i.e., that any dispute over an
arbitrator's jurisdiction should first be determined by the
arbitrator). In finding that Uber drivers could also deal with
grievances through the complaints mechanism available through
Uber's "In-App Support", Justice Perell also rejected the
plaintiff's claim that the arbitration clause was unconscionable.

The Ontario Court of Appeal Decision
The Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously overturned Justice Perell's
decision, finding that the arbitration clause was invalid and
therefore a mandatory stay was not applicable pursuant to s.7(2) of
the Arbitration Act.

In permitting the class action to proceed, the Court of Appeal
first accepted Heller's argument that the arbitration clause was
invalid as it constituted a prohibited contracting-out of the ESA.
The Court found that if the action was to proceed, the arbitration
clause deprived Uber drivers of their right under the ESA to make a
complaint to the Ministry of Labour. Contracting-out of an
employment standard is contrary to s.5 of the ESA, rendering the
arbitration clause invalid. As well, the Court of Appeal
acknowledged that at issue was the arbitration clause's validity
and not the scope of the arbitration. In rejecting the
applicability of the "competence-competence" principle, the
appropriate forum to deal with the impugned clause was found to
rest with the Ontario courts.

Independent of the reasons provided above, the Court of Appeal also
found the arbitration clause to be unconscionable. Since Uber's
"In-App Support" did not resolve complaints through a neutral third
party and most drivers did not have local Uber support centers to
address their grievances, the Court found that the motion judge
erred in dismissing the claim for unconscionability. Relying on the
four-part test in Titus v William F. Cooke Enterprises Inc.,5 the
arbitration clause was found unconscionable on the basis that:

   -- requiring Uber drivers (who earn on average $400-$600 per
week) to incur costs of USD $14,500 to initiate arbitration in the
Netherlands was an "unfair and improvident bargain";
   -- there was no evidence that either the drivers received legal
advice prior to entering the service agreement or that the terms of
the agreements could be negotiated;
  -- there was significant inequality between the drivers and Uber;
and
   -- Uber knowingly drafted the arbitration clause in its favour.
As a result, the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside the stay,
thereby allowing the proposed class action to proceed in Ontario
courts.

Key Insights
It remains to be determined whether the proposed class action will
be certified and whether Uber drivers are employees rather than
independent contractors in Ontario. With the emergence and growing
prominence of the "gig" economy, the Heller decision confirms that
Ontario, like many U.S. States, may soon need to re-visit and
clarify its interpretation of independent contractors and
employees.

In light of the decision, employers are encouraged to review their
employment and independent contractor agreements to consider their
enforceability. Arbitration or dispute resolution provisions should
not overreach to the point that they become too onerous on
employees or contractors. [GN]


ULTA SALON: Discovery in Wise Stayed Pending Settlement Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH WISE, an individual, Plaintiff, v. ULTA
SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants. JULIE ZEPEDA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS &
FRAGRANCE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case Nos. 1:17-CV-00853-DAD-EPG (Lead Case),
1:18-cv-00750-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Erica P.
Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California, Fresno Division, granted the Parties' stipulation to
stay discovery pending approval of the settlement in the
consolidated actions.

On June 26, 2017, Plaintiff Wise filed the putative class action in
the Eastern District of California.  On Nov. 13, 2017 the putative
class action, Zepeda v. ULTA Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc.,
Case No. 30-2017-000955264-CU-OE-CXC was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, Orange County involving the
similar California wage and hour claims and common questions of law
and fact.

On June 1, 2018, the Court denied the Defendant's pending Motion to
Dismiss, and transferred Zepeda from the Central District to the
Eastern District of California.  On Aug. 8, 2018, the Court
consolidated the putative class action, Zepeda, as a member case
with the first-filed Wise action as the lead case.

The Court set deadlines on July 19, 2018, which includes the
following dates: Motion for Class Certification filing deadline is
7/12/2019, with said motion to be noticed before, and in compliance
with, District Judge Dale A. Drozd's law and motion calendar and
motion filing requirements; Non-Expert Discovery due by 2/28/2019;
Designation of Expert Witnesses due by 4/12/2019; Rebuttal
Designation of Expert Witnesses due by 5/10/2019; Expert Discovery
due by 6/7/2019; Dispositive Motions filed by 1/17/2020; Pretrial
Conference set for 5/18/2020 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5 (DAD)
before District Judge Dale A. Drozd; Jury Trial set for 7/21/2020
at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 5 (DAD) before District Judge Dale A.
Drozd.

The Parties agreed to, and participated in mediation with Mr.
Steven Serratore on Jan. 24, 2019.  While no settlement was reached
during the mediation, the Parties participated in continued
negotiations with Mr. Serratore and reached an agreement on Feb. 8,
2019.

The Parties are working cooperatively to finalize and file a
long-form settlement agreement and motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement agreement reached between the Parties.  They
would like to focus on the finalization of the long-form settlement
agreement and the related motion, and vacate all deadlines under
the currently-set schedule.

Therefore, the parties stipulated and agreed, and Judge Grosjean
granted that all deadlines, including trial, as set forth in the
minute orders, are stayed pending approval of the settlement of the
consolidated cases and, if no such approval is granted, then all
deadlines, including trial, will be re-calendared based on the date
of denial of the motion for preliminary approval.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2019 Stipulated Order is
available at https://is.gd/VuUukP from Leagle.com.

Elizabeth Wise, Plaintiff, represented by John Paul Briscoe --
jbriscoe@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC, Nicholas John Scardigli
-- sscardigli@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC, Robert Joshua
Wasserman -- rwasserman@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC, William
J. Gorham, III -- wgorham@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC &
Vladimir Joseph Kozina -- jkozinaj@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley
P.C.

Julie Zepeda, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis Hyun --
info@hyunlegal.com -- Hyun Legal, APC, Edward Wonkyu Choi --
dward.choi@choiandassociates.com -- Law Offices of Choi &
Associates & William Lucas Marder -- bill@polarislawgroup.com --
Polaris Law Group, LLP.

Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Courtney Marguerite Osborn -- cosborn@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson PC, John C. Kloosterman -- Jkloosterman@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, P.C., Kai-Ching Cha -- kcha@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, P.C., Alexis A. Sohrakoff -- asohra@uber.com --
Littler Mendelson PC, Julie A. Stockton -- jstockton@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson P.C. & Richard H. Rahm -- rrahm@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, P.C..


UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Morgan Suit Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma dismisssed without prejudice the case,
DAVID BRIAN MORGAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. CIV-19-022-D (W.D. Okla.).

The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell
which recommended a voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(2) based on the filing of a "Motion to Withdraw Pleadings for
Civil Rights Violation Class Action Okla. 9."  Although submitted
by Morgan, Judge Mitchell liberally construes the filing as a joint
request by all the nine Plaintiffs (who refer to themselves
collectively as the "Oklahoma Nine") to voluntarily dismiss the
action.

The case file shows no timely objection to the Report or request
for an extension of time, even though the Plaintiffs were expressly
informed of their right to object, the procedure for doing so, and
the consequences of failing to object.  Instead, within the time
period for an objection, the Court has received two filings:
"Motion to File Withdrawal of Case," submitted by "Ernest Draper on
behalf of Oklahoma Nine;" and "Motion to Address This Court,"
submitted by "Oklahoma Nine David Brian Morgan."  The first
confirms the Plaintiffs' request for a voluntary dismissal.  The
second is intended to explain why they're are doing it, but it
contains no objection to the recommended dismissal.

Therefore, Judge DeGiusti finds that the Plaintiffs have waived
further review of the issues addressed in the Report.  Further, for
the reasons stated by Judge Mitchell, he finds that the action
should be dismissed without prejudice to refiling.  The Judge
adopted the Report and Recommendation, and dismissed the action
without prejudice to a future filing.  A separate judgment of
dismissal will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/gGlme9 from Leagle.com.

David Brian Morgan, Plaintiff, pro se.

Ernest Draper, Plaintiff, pro se.

Eric Lucas, Plaintiff, pro se.

Kenneth Johnson, Plaintiff, pro se.

Mark Schemm, Plaintiff, pro se.

Danny Armstrong, Plaintiff, pro se.

Ernest Moncada, Plaintiff, pro se.

Luther Barnett, Plaintiff, pro se.

Cleve Billings, Plaintiff, pro se.


UNITED STATES: Honduran, Nepali Immigrants File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that citing President Donald Trump's racist immigration policies,
immigrants from Honduras and Nepal sued the United States in a
federal class action on Feb. 11 to stop the scheduled deportation
of 100,000 Honduran and Nepali immigrants temporarily authorized to
live and work in the United States.

It is the second class action filed in San Francisco federal court
challenging Trump's abrupt decision to cancel temporary protected
status, or TPS, for immigrants who face dangerous conditions in
their home countries.

This past October, the federal judge overseeing the first suit,
Ramos et al. v. Nielsen et al., temporarily blocked the
administration's decision to terminate TPS for immigrants from El
Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua and Sudan, finding the decision was
racially motivated. The case is stayed pending appeal to the Ninth
Circuit.

"All of us have a fear, and we are mostly afraid of the retaliation
we can face at taking steps, but we have to fight," Donaldo
Posadas, one of the plaintiffs and a bridge painter in Baltimore,
said in a news conference on Feb. 11. "I don't want my children to
go back to Honduras, a country they don't know, where the quality
of life will be different, and where the situation is dangerous."

Similar to Ramos, the Feb. 11 suit claims the administration
unlawfully changed the criteria for making TPS designations out of
"racial animus" toward immigrants of color. The 37-page complaint
offers a litany of Trump's racist statements to support the
allegation, including recent reports that Trump mispronounced
"Nepal" as "nipple" and Bhutan as "button" during a national
security briefing, and that he is "known to fake an Indian accent
to imitate Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during Oval Office
meetings."

The complaint also references a January 2018 White House meeting in
which Trump infamously called TPS-designated countries
"shithole[s]" and expressed a preference for immigrants from
countries "like Norway."

The TPS statute was established by Congress in 1990 as a form of
humanitarian relief. Under it, every prior administration has
considered all country conditions, including the impact of natural
disasters and armed conflict, when deciding to continue or
terminate a TPS designation.

But the plaintiffs claim the Trump administration without
explanation changed the rules for making TPS designations to
consider only the event that triggered a country's original TPS
designation, like the magnitude 7.8 earthquake in Nepal that killed
9,000 people and injured another 20,000 in April 2015.

"It's a disgrace," Jessica Bansal, an attorney with the National
Day Laborer Organizing Network who represents the class, said by
phone. "There was tremendous political pressure to conclude that
TPS should be terminated for these countries, and as part of that
pressure, [the Department of Homeland Security] changed the
standard for looking at TPS."

Ms. Bansal says documents unearthed in TPS cases filed around the
country and through Freedom of Information Act requests reveal the
Trump administration decided to end TPS for the countries at issue
to achieve Trump's "America First" immigration policy of reducing
the number of non-white immigrants in the United States.

In one of these documents, from November 2017, then-Acting
Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke said "[t]he TPS program
must end for these countries soon," and that "[t]his conclusion
[was] the result of an America first view," according to the
plaintiffs. Other records show that former White House Chief of
Staff John Kelly and former Homeland Security adviser Tom Bossert
"put massive pressure" on Duke to terminate TPS for Honduras and
Nicaragua because it was an obstacle to Trump's "wider strategic
goal" on immigration.

In an amicus brief filed in the Ramos appeal, the Anti-Defamation
League explains the concept of "America First" has been used to
incite anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States since the
early 1900s. In the 1920s, it appeared on banners at Ku Klux Klan
parades reading, "America First, One God, One Country, One Flag,"
and alongside the words "White Supremacy," the league says. And it
was used during World War II by groups that sympathized with Nazi
Germany or opposed U.S. involvement in the war.

"[W]hile the government claims that the phrase 'America First'
refers to 'merit-based entry' into the United States and 'focuses
on America's interests foremost,' its pernicious and
well-documented history as an expression of racial animus show,
quite clearly, otherwise," the league said in its brief.

The Feb. 11 suit includes Administrative Procedure Act and equal
protection claims, and two due process claims brought separately by
TPS holders and by their U.S.-citizen children.

Many of these children are school-aged and "face an impossible
choice between leaving the only home they have ever known and
growing up without one or both of their parents," the complaint
says.

"When you bring in the impact on the kids, it's heartbreaking," Ms.
Bansal said. "To suddenly be faced with this choice is just
heartbreaking."

In a statement, Justice Department spokesman Steven Stafford
defended the administration's TPS rules.

"Temporary Protected Status is temporary -- and it is given on a
purely discretionary basis," Stafford said. "The Secretary's
decision to terminate TPS for Honduras and for Nepal was both
lawful and reasonable. Hondurans were given TPS due to a hurricane
that happened 20 years ago. Nepalese were given TPS because of an
earthquake in 2015. We look forward to defending the Department of
Homeland Security's determination in court."

Right now, 15,000 Nepali immigrants are set to lose TPS protection
in June 2019, and 85,000 Honduran immigrants in January 2020,
according to Ms. Bansal.

The TPS program covers more than 400,000 people living in the
United States. If the administration's decisions take effect, 98
percent of TPS holders will lose protection, according to the
suit.

The class is also represented by the ACLU of Southern California
and by the law firm Sidley Austin in Los Angeles. [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Settles Tyndall Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Elam and Rosalina Nieves, writing for CNN, report that a
$215 million class action settlement agreement between the
University of Southern California and several law firms
representing dozens of women who allege they were sexually abused
by Dr. George Tyndall was filed in federal court on Feb. 12. The
money will be used to compensate women saying they were victimized
by Tyndall, a gynecologist in the institution's student health
center for almost three decades.

Beyond compensation, the settlement, which still needs court
approval, will also require USC to implement a number of reforms,
including background checks for anyone who will interact with
patients in the USC Student Health Center and personnel adjustments
so female students have the option to see a female doctor,
according to the filing.

To make sure USC stays in compliance with the terms of the
settlement, an independent women's health advocate will be
appointed to hear any complaints about inappropriate sexual or
racial conduct, making sure those claims are thoroughly
investigated. The filing also says USC will be required to
implement mandatory training for its students in an effort to
prevent inappropriate sexual behavior.

A task force, which will include the health advocate and an
independent member, will be formed to make recommendations for
policy changes at USC. And, if they feel terms of the settlement
aren't being fulfilled, will take their concerns to a court
appointed special master, the filing says.

CNN previously reported that a USC lawyer said as many as 17,000
women could qualify for this class action settlement. The special
master will also oversee the disbursement of money from the
settlement fund.

Tyndall was fired by USC in 2017 for inappropriate behavior.
University officials said the school reached a settlement with
Tyndall but did not report him to law enforcement or state medical
authorities.

Tyndall denies any wrongdoing and has not been charged with any
crime. However, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office
says it "has received a total of 99 crime reports from the [Los
Angeles Police Department]" regarding Tyndall.

"Dr. Tyndall continues to deny that he engaged in any criminal
conduct during his employment at USC," said Leonard Levine, a
lawyer representing Tyndall.

The settlement filing says class members include all women who saw
Tyndall for women's health issues; all women who received an
examination of their breasts or genitals by Tyndall; and any woman
who had her nude or partially nude body photographed or videotaped
by Tyndall. The settlement covers the period between August 14,
1989 and June 21, 2016, with victims' compensation being broken
into three tiers:

Tier 1 applies to all women who saw Tyndall at the USC Student
Health Center. Women identified as part of this class through USC's
health center records will automatically receive an initial $2,500.
Individuals who believe they belong in this class but aren't
identified through USC's health center records will need their
student status verified via the university's registrar's office or
"submit credible evidence of Class Membership," according to the
document. These women are still eligible to be included in Tier 2
and Tier 3 claims, the filing says.

To be included in Tier 2, victims will have to submit a written
form "describing her experience with Tyndall, the impact to her,
and the harm she suffered," according to a release from the
plaintiffs' lawyers. Compensation will range between $7,500 and
$20,000 for each woman who falls in this category.

Women willing to share more details about their experience with
Tyndall will have to submit a written claim as well as be
interviewed by the special master's team to be included in
Tier 3. Payment to this class will range between $7,500 and
$250,000.

"I am encouraged by the settlement filing, which takes another
important step in healing our community," USC Interim President
Wanda M. Austin said in a statement. "Every affected individual is
a member of the Trojan family and we care deeply about their
wellbeing. Providing a fair and respectful resolution to as many
former, impacted patients as possible, and making impactful changes
that strengthen our university continues to be our top
priorities."

This class-action settlement is separate from other lawsuits that
have been filed in the state of California and Los Angeles County
against Tyndall and the university which remain outstanding. [GN]


US BANK: Guiette Consumer Credit Suit Settlement Has Prelim Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VIRGINIA GUIETTE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00174-TSB (S.D. Ohio), Judge Timothy S.
Black of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Western Division, granted the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement.

The Judge has conducted a preliminary evaluation of the Settlement
as set forth in the Agreement for fairness, adequacy, and
reasonableness.  Based on this evaluation, he finds there is cause
to believe that: (i) the Agreement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and within the range of possible approval; (ii) the
Agreement has been negotiated in good faith at arms'-length between
experienced attorneys familiar with the legal and factual issues of
the case; and (iii) with respect to the forms of notice of the
material terms of the Agreement to Settlement Class Members for
their consideration and reaction, that notice is appropriate and
warranted.  Therefore, he granted preliminary approval of the
Settlement.

The Judge, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, conditionally certified, for purposes of
this Settlement only, the Settlement Class defined as all users or
subscribers to a wireless or cellular service within the United
States who used or subscribed to a phone number to which U.S. Bank
made or initiated one or more Calls during the Class Period using
any automated dialing technology or artificial or prerecorded voice
technology, according to U.S. Bank's available records, and who are
within Subclass One and/or Two, which are defined as follows:
Subclass One consists of persons who used or subscribed to a
cellular phone number to which U.S. Bank made or initiated a Call
or Calls in connection with a Residential Mortgage Loan.  Subclass
Two consists of persons who used or subscribed to a cellular phone
number to which U.S. Bank made or initiated a Call or Calls in
connection with a Home Equity Loan.

He appointed the Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives; Hyde &
Swigart, APC and Kazerouni Law Group, APC as the Class Counsel; and
Rust Consulting, Inc. as the Claims Administrator.

The Fairness Hearing is set for July 8, 2019 at 1:30 p.m., in
Courtroom 1, Room 805 of the Potter Stewart United States
Courthouse, 100 East Fifth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, or at
such other date and time later set by Court Order.  No later than
May 6, 2019, the Plaintiff must file papers in support of the Class
Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses, and the
incentive award to the Class Representative.  No later than June
24, 2019, which is 14 days prior to the Final Approval Hearing, the
Plaintiff must file papers in support of final approval of the
Settlement and respond to any written objections.  The Defendant
may (but is not required to) file papers in support of final
approval of the Settlement, so long as it does so no later than
July 1, 2019.

Judge Black approved the proposed Notice Plan for giving notice to
the Settlement Class.  He directed the Parties and the Claims
Administrator to complete all aspects of the Notice Plan no later
than March 15, 2019 in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.

The Claims Administrator will file with the Court by no later than
June 24, 2019, which is 14 days prior to the Final Approval
Hearing, proof that Notice was provided in accordance with the
Agreement and the Preliminary Approval Order, as well as proof that
notice was provided pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.

The Settlement Class Members who wish to either object to the
Settlement or request to be excluded from it must do so by the
Objection Deadline and Opt-Out Deadline of June 6, 2019 which are
both 90 calendar days after the Settlement Notice Date.  

Pending the final determination of whether the Settlement should be
approved, all pre-trial proceedings and briefing schedules in the
Action are stayed.  If the Settlement is terminated or final
approval does not for any reason occur, the stay will be
immediately terminated.

If the Settlement is not approved or consummated for any reason
whatsoever, the Settlement and all proceedings in connection with
the Settlement will be without prejudice to the right of the
Defendant or the Settlement Class Representative to assert any
right or position that could have been asserted if the Agreement
had never been reached or proposed to the Court, except insofar as
the Agreement expressly provides to the contrary.  In such an
event, the Parties will return to the status quo ante in the Action
and the certification of the Settlement Class will be deemed
vacated.  The certification of the Settlement Class for settlement
purposes will not be considered as a factor in connection with any
subsequent class certification decision.

The following are the deadlines by which certain events must
occur:

     a. March 15, 2019 - Deadline to Provide Class Notice

     b. May 6, 2019 - Deadline for the Plaintiff's Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Incentive Award

     c. June 6, 2019 - Deadline for the Class Members to file
Objections or submit Requests for Exclusion

     d. June 24, 2019 - Deadline for the Parties to File the
Following: (1) List of Class Members who Made Timely and Proper
Requests for Exclusion; (2) Proof of Class Notice and CAFA Notice;
and (3) Motion and Memorandum in Support of Final Approval,
including responses to any Objections.

     e. June 6, 2019 - Deadline for the Settlement Class Members to
Submit a Claim Form

     f. July 8, 2019 - Final Approval Hearing in Courtroom 1, Room
805 at 1:30 p.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 13, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Jmzn66 from Leagle.com.

Virginia Guiette, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated., Plaintiff, represented by W. Mark Jump, Jump
Legal Group, Abbas Kazerounian -- ak@kazlg.com -- pro hac vice,
Anthony P. Chester -- tony@westcoastlitigation.com -- pro hac vice
& Joshua Swigart -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- pro hac vice.

U.S. Bank National Association, Defendant, represented by Timothy
Craig Sullivan -- sullivan@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius &
Hollister, Artin Betpera -- artin.betpera@wbd-us.com -- WOMBLE BOND
DICKINSON (US) LLP, pro hac vice, Eric J. Troutman --
eric.troutman@squirepb.com -- The Troutman Firm, pro hac vice &
Susan Nikdel -- susan.nikdel@wbd-us.com -- WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON
(US) LLP, pro hac vice.


US STEEL: Consolidated Shareholder Action Ongoing in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15,
2019, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated shareholder class action suit
pending before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.

On October 2, 2017, an Amended Shareholder Class Action Complaint
was filed in Federal Court in the Western District of Pennsylvania
consolidating previously-filed actions. Separately, four related
shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in State and Federal
courts in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The underlying consolidated class action lawsuit alleges that U. S.
Steel, certain current and former officers, an upper level manager
of the Company and the financial underwriters who participated in
the August 2016 secondary public offering of the Company's common
stock (collectively, Defendants) violated federal securities laws
in making false statements and/or failing to discover and disclose
material information regarding the financial condition of the
Company.

The lawsuit claims that this conduct caused a prospective class of
plaintiffs to sustain damages during the period from January 27,
2016 to April 25, 2017 as a result of the prospective class
purchasing the Company's common stock at artificially inflated
prices and/or suffering losses when the price of the common stock
dropped.

The derivative lawsuits generally make the same allegations against
the same officers and also allege that certain current and former
members of the Board of Directors failed to exercise appropriate
control and oversight over the Company and were unjustly
compensated.

The plaintiffs seek to recover losses that were allegedly
sustained. The class action Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs'
claims.

On September 29, 2018, the Court ruled on those motions granting
them in part and denying them in part. The Company is vigorously
defending the remaining claims.

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

United States Steel Corporation produces and sells flat-rolled and
tubular steel products primarily in North America and Europe. It
operates through three segments: North American Flat-Rolled
(Flat-Rolled), U. S. Steel Europe (USSE), and Tubular Products
(Tubular). United States Steel Corporation was founded in 1901 and
is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


VERSUM MATERIALS: B. Price Files Securities Fraud Suit in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Price, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Versum Materials, Inc., Guillermo Novo,
Jacques Croisetiere, Seifollah Ghasemi, Susan C. Schnabel, Thomas
J. Riordan, Dr. Yi Hyon Paik, and Alejandro D. Wolff, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00427-UNA (D. Del., March 1, 2019) is brought as a
class action by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other public
holders of the common stock of Versum Materials, Inc. against the
Defendants for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the proposed merger between Versum and
Entegris, Inc.

On January 27, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's
shareholders stand to receive 1.120 shares of common stock of
Entegris for each share of Versum stock they own. Upon completion
of the merger, Entegris stockholders will own 52.5 percent and
Versum Materials stockholders will own 47.5 percent of the combined
company.

On February 28, 2019, in order to convince Versum shareholders to
vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, the Board authorized the
filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form S-4
Registration Statement (the "S-4") with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC"), in violation of the Exchange Act. The
materially incomplete and misleading S-4 violates both Regulation G
and SEC Rule 14a-9, each of which constitutes a violation of the
Exchange Act.

While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the S-4, Defendants have failed to
disclose certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Merger, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and rendering
certain statements in the S-4 materially incomplete and misleading,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times has been, a holder of
Versum common stock.

Versum is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal
executive offices at 8555 South River Parkway, Tempe, Arizona
85284.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 983-9330
     Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
            jwilson@faruqilaw.com

          - and -

     Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Phone: (302) 482-3182
     Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com


VIZIO: Customers Set to Get TV Spying Settlement Payouts
--------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Liao, writing for The Verge, reports that you turn on your
Vizio TV right now, you may see a strange message telling you that
"you could get money" from a class-action settlement. That's
because Vizio has settled a $17 million lawsuit for allegedly
spying on what you've been watching -- and it's telling you how to
get your money by controlling your TV, because that isn't ironic or
creepy in the least. It's a feature that's been spotted in
development last September, so we knew it was coming.

Customers -- and the Federal Trade Commission -- have accused Vizio
of tracking data for years, even getting second-by-second details
on what people were watching. It allegedly tracked data by default,
made tracking difficult to turn off, and compared those streaming
habits against your age and gender to target you with ads. In 2016,
some customers filed a class-action lawsuit against the company and
in 2017, the FTC fined Vizio $2.2 million as well.

Last year, Vizio settled the lawsuit portion for $17 million, and
that's where the payout is coming from. After subtracting legal
fees and dividing the remaining money by the 16 million customers
who used their Vizio TVs during the affected time frame, most
customers won't be seeing a tremendous windfall -- but at an
estimated $13 to $31, it should be enough for a month worth of
Netflix if nothing else.

One thing that creepy TV message is good for? Putting the word out
about how to get that cash. If you purchased a Vizio TV between
February 1st, 2014 and February 6th, 2017, you can visit
VizioTVsettlement.com to complete the online paperwork anytime
before April 29th, 2019.

As part of the settlement, Vizio already promised to delete any
viewing data it collected before February 6th, 2017. It also said
it would change the opt-out language to "accept/decline" rather
than "accept/settings," so that users could more clearly decline to
have their data tracked if desired.

Even though Vizio is notifying users about the settlement, it
maintains its innocence, saying, "Vizio denies these allegations.
The court has not decided who is right." [GN]


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Stony Landfill Class Members Receive Payouts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Blizzard, writing for Dayton Daily News, reports that a $4.1
million federal lawsuit settlement stemming from odors at a Dayton
landfill resulted in nearly 1,800 area residents receiving checks,
according to an attorney for the plaintiff.

The base share for those approved as class-action members in a
Moraine resident's suit against Stony Hollow Landfill was $602.42,
said attorney Nicholas Coulson.

Mr. Coulson said on Feb. 12 all checks to approved class-action
members from the settlement of the 2016 lawsuit filed by Carly Beck
have been sent. The settlement approved by U.S. District Judge
Thomas Rose in November directed Stony Hollow parent company Waste
Management Inc. to deposit $1.875 million as part of the
class-action.

It also required the 2460 S. Gettysburg Road site to invest $1.45
million there to "reduce the potential for odor emissions,"
according to court records .The landfill has drawn complaints from
residents in Jefferson Twp., Kettering, Miamisburg, Moraine,
Oakwood and points beyond since early 2016. [GN]


WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Proskauer Rose Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence I Weinstein, Esq. -- lweinstein@proskauer.com -- Carl
Mazurek, Esq. -- cmazurek@proskauer.com -- and Kelly Landers
Hawthorne, Esq. -- klandershawthorne@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer
Rose LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that
two recent contrasting decisions in class action false advertising
cases alleging misleading uses of the term "natural" for food
products underscore the difficulty in predicting the likelihood of
achieving an early stage dismissal in these cases.

Late last year, Judge Richard Seeborg in the Northern District of
California denied Williams-Sonoma's motion to dismiss an alleged
class action false involving food labels describing products as
containing "Active Ingredients Derived from Natural Sources." Kutza
v. Williams-Sonoma, 2018 WL 5886611. Just a few weeks later, Judge
Allyne Ross of the Eastern District of New York dismissed a
putative class action alleging that the brand name "Florida's
Natural" for orange juice misleadingly suggests that the juice
contains no herbicide or other chemicals. Axon v. Citrus World,
2018 WL6448646. In January, the Axon court denied plaintiff's
motion to amend the complaint, causing plaintiff to appeal to the
Second Circuit.

The facts of the cases do not readily explain why the Kutza and
Axon decisions came out differently.  In the former case, plaintiff
claimed Williams-Sonoma breached express and implied warranties to
him and to a nationwide class by deceptively advertising that its
products are "natural" through product labels that state "Active
Ingredients Derived from Natural Sources." Plaintiff alleged that
product ingredients, ranging from phenoxyethanol and dimethicone to
citric acid and sodium chloride, are "hazardous" and/or synthetic,
and that he would not have purchased the products had he known the
nature of these ingredients.

In addition to the product labels, plaintiff also alleged that
Williams-Sonoma's website contains misleading statements that
further imply the products are "natural." One such statement is
that "[t]here are no dangerous chemicals like ammonia or chlorine
to worry about, and no lauramide DEA or parabens either – only
natural oils, essences and cleansing elements."

Williams-Sonoma argued that none of these statements would mislead
reasonable consumers. Indeed, as the court noted, the principal
statement at issue -- "Active Ingredients Derived From Natural
Sources" -- concededly is literally true. Nonetheless, Judge
Seeborg allowed the false advertising claims to proceed,
notwithstanding his recognition of the retailer's "strong arguments
that it can present to the fact-finder, or perhaps on summary
judgment." The opinion did not clearly explain, however, how the
label's literally true, qualified statement might mislead a
reasonable consumer that every ingredient in the product was
natural.

By contrast, in Axon, the court granted the defendant's motion to
dismiss on the ground that the complaint failed plausibly to
explain how a reasonable consumer would be misled by the "Florida's
Natural" brand name into believing that the fruit in the product
was not treated with any herbicide or other chemicals. The court
relied on In re General Mills, 2017 WL 2983877 (D. Minn. July 12,
2017) -- another lawsuit alleging false advertising based on trace
amounts of glyphosate in "natural" products -- which held that
"[i]t would be nearly impossible to produce a processed food with
no trace of any synthetic molecule." As a result, the court found
it "implausible that a reasonable consumer would believe that a
product labeled 'Florida's Natural' could not contain a trace
amount of glyphosate." It distinguished the instant case -- in
which a synthetic compound remained in the products due to its use
in the growing process -- from those in which products labeled
"natural" contained synthetic ingredients that had been
specifically added. It also distinguished use of the term "natural"
in a brand name from instances in which it was applied as a
descriptor of the product.

Together, Kutza and Axon are noteworthy for highlighting the degree
to which the dismissal of suits challenging "natural" claims on
product labels (and for that matter, many other advertising
statements challenged in class action false advertising cases)
depends on a district court's inclination (or lack thereof) to
"kick the can down the road" to a later phase of the case. This
results in significant uncertainty for defense counsel and their
clients as to their ability to obtain early stage dismissal even of
obviously weak and conclusory allegations of false advertising. The
dichotomy in the case law will be one to watch in the future. [GN]


WIRECARD AG: Faces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Feb. 11 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the
securities of Wirecard AG ("Wirecard" or the "Company") (OTC:
WCAGY; WRCDF) between April 7, 2016 and February 1, 2019, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
Wirecard shareholders' investment losses.

If you purchased Wirecard securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options, please visit Wirecard Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Daniel Sadeh toll free at (877)
779-1414 or dsadeh@bernlieb.com.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) for the period spanning from 2015 to 2018, a senior
Wirecard executive in Singapore had been accused of forging and
backdating contracts, including falsifying accounts and money
laundering; (2) an external law firm commissioned to investigate
Wirecard's Singapore office had reportedly found evidence of
"serious offences of forgery and/or of falsification of accounts";
(3) Wirecard had downplayed weaknesses in its internal controls
over financial reporting and failed to disclose the true extent of
those weaknesses; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about
Wirecard's business, operations and prospects were materially false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 9, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Wirecard securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options, please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/wirecard-ag-wcagy-wrcdf-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-109/
or contact Daniel Sadeh toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
dsadeh@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP -- https://www.bernlieb.com --
has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to
representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by
some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country
to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a
result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class
actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's
"Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500
for ten consecutive years. [GN]


YALE UNIVERSITY: Sanford Heisler Sharp Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys from Sanford Heisler Sharp filed a class action complaint
against Yale University and nine of its all-male fraternities on
Feb. 12 in United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut alleging the defendants discriminate against female
students and subject them to a sexually hostile environment. In
addition to other relief, the plaintiffs seek an order requiring
all Yale fraternities to fully integrate women into their
organizations.

The plaintiffs are three female Yale undergraduates -- juniors Anna
McNeil and Ry Walker and sophomore Eliana Singer. They are
represented in the matter by a Sanford Heisler Sharp team led by
Chairman and Founder of the firm, David Sanford, attorneys David
Tracey and Albert Powell, and Scott Sullivan, who is Of Counsel to
the firm.

"Yale promises female students an educational environment free of
gender discrimination, but the reality of campus life does not
deliver on that promise," said Mr. Sanford.  "Women on campus must
navigate a hostile, all-male fraternity scene that plays a
significant role in campus social life. Male members of the
fraternities control and create dangerous party environments in
which sexual misconduct thrives. Although Yale has known about
these conditions for more than a decade, the University has failed
to protect its students. Faced with Yale's deliberate indifference
and the continuing dangers, students now turn to federal court to
make their campus safe."

In addition to Yale, the plaintiffs are suing the national
organizations, local chapters and housing corporations of the
university's fraternities – Alpha Epsilon Pi, Alpha Delta Phi,
Chi Psi, Delta Kappa Epsilon, Sigma Alpha Epsilon/Leo, Sigma Chi,
Sigma Nu, Sigma Phi Epsilon, and Zeta Psi.

Yale's fraternity alumni include powerful business and political
leaders, such as former President George W. Bush and Associate
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh -- both alumni of Delta Kappa
Epsilon.

According to the complaint, the three student plaintiffs were
groped at fraternity parties in their first semesters at Yale. The
student plaintiffs know of other female students who experienced
similar sexual harassment and assault during and after fraternity
parties and at the hands of fraternity brothers.

The complaint also alleges that fraternities offer Yale men social
and economic opportunities that are denied to female students. In
addition to controlling many of Yale's parties, fraternity brothers
have access to a nationwide alumni-network, which often results in
coveted job opportunities.

The plaintiffs, however, refused to accept this status quo. They
decided to challenge fraternity-related discrimination and sexual
misconduct by demanding gender integration. In every year of their
college careers, the plaintiffs have petitioned Yale's fraternities
for the chance to become members. The fraternities have
consistently rejected the plaintiffs because of their gender.

"Gender discrimination and sexual assault should have no place at
Yale," said David Tracey, attorney for the Plaintiffs, who is also
a Yale College alumnus. "Fraternities discriminate against women
and are known sites of sexual harassment and assault. It is
inconsistent for Yale to profess ideals of equality while
permitting fraternities to thrive."

Yale has long been embroiled in scandals related to its all-male
fraternities. In 2008, pledges of Zeta Psi posed outside the Yale
Women's Center with a sign stating, "We Love Yale Sluts." In
October 2010, pledges of Delta Kappa Epsilon paraded around campus
chanting, "No means yes! Yes means anal!" In 2015, partygoers were
allegedly turned away from Sigma Alpha Epsilon because brothers
wanted "white girls only." And in 2018, public reports emerged of
ten women with sexual misconduct allegations against members of
Delta Kappa Epsilon.

Harvard Versus Yale:  The Right Versus The Wrong

Since 2016, Harvard has barred students who are members of
single-gender clubs from leading campus groups, from becoming
captains of sports teams, and from receiving endorsements for
prestigious fellowships.  Those single-gender organizations, said
former Harvard President Drew Faust, enacted "forms of privilege
and exclusion at odds with our deepest values."  Various
organizations have sued Harvard over that policy, and that suit is
currently pending.

Regarding the Harvard/Yale divide, Sanford said, "Yale should
follow Harvard and commit to enacting reform consistent with Yale's
deepest values of inclusion, equality, and diversity.  Harvard did
the right thing; to date, Yale has failed.  Harvard is getting sued
for doing the right thing; Yale is now being sued for doing the
wrong thing.  Yale should be with Harvard on the right side of the
law and on the right side of history."

The Complaint Against Yale

The complaint alleges violations of Title IX, the federal Fair
Housing Act, Connecticut's law against discrimination in places of
public accommodation, the state's Unfair Trade Practices Act, and
breach of contract.

The plaintiffs seek certification of the case as a class action, an
injunction against the fraternities from discriminating by gender
in admissions and housing, an order requiring Yale to take measures
to remedy the gender discrimination, sexual harassment and hostile
environment at the institution, monetary damages and other relief.
A jury trial is requested.

                 About Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP

Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP -- http://www.sanfordheisler.com-- is a
public interest class-action litigation law firm with offices in
New York; Washington, D.C; Nashville; San Francisco, Baltimore and
San Diego. Our attorneys have graduated from the nation's top law
schools, clerked for judges throughout the United States, and
amassed extensive experience litigating and trying cases that have
earned over one billion dollars for our clients.

The firm specializes in civil rights and general public interest
cases, representing plaintiffs with claims of employment
discrimination, sexual violence, labor and wage violations,
predatory lending, consumer fraud, and whistleblowing, among other
claims. Along with a focus on class actions, the firm also
represents individuals and has achieved extraordinary success in
the representation of executives and attorneys in employment
disputes. [GN]


[*] New Zealand's Dormant Class Action Needs Reform
---------------------------------------------------
The Global Legal Post reports that Class action litigation in New
Zealand is relatively rare according to new research, as The New
Zealand Law Society highlights issue.

The New Zealand Law Society states its position on class actions is
that it is an area "crying out for reform which it supports." Class
actions are relatively dormant in New Zealand according to research
from University of Auckland Law School lecturer Nikki Chamberlain,
in her thesis "Contracting-out of Class Action Litigation: Lessons
from the United States."

On the rise

The research cites comparison the United States, noting an
empirical study of Class Action Settlements and their Fee Awards by
the Brian T Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt Law School which found that
class action settlements from 2006 and 2007 resulted in district
court judges approving 688 class action settlements over that two
year period. That involved nearly $US33 billion, and roughly $US5
billion was awarded to class action lawyers, or about 15 per cent
of the total. Despite being "largely invisible," Ms Chamberlain
explains the use of class action procedure is on the rise in New
Zealand. But unlike the United States, she says New Zealand does
not have comprehensive legislation that administers how class
action litigation is to be managed. She says it only has the High
Court Rule (HCR) 4.2411 which provides that 'one or more persons
may sue or be sued on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons
with the same interest in the subject matter of a proceeding' by
consent of all persons with the same interest, or as directed by
the court upon an application by a party or intended party. Ms
Chamberlain writes that the Rules Committee drafted a Class Action
Bill to expand on class action procedure about a decade ago.
Regrettably, she says, the Class Action Bill was never enacted.

Common law development

Ms Chamberlain notes, "the consequence is that class action
procedure is currently being developed through the common law -- an
undesirable outcome where justice, efficiency and economy are of
primary importance in the judicial system." She concludes that "the
lack of consistency and certainty in class action procedure in New
Zealand is likely to result in corporate defendants mimicking their
American counterparts by attempting to contract-out of class action
litigation." She adds "class action legislation would enhance
consistency and certainty in class action litigation procedure for
the benefit of all class action stakeholders, which, in the end, is
fundamental to the credibility of New Zealand's legal system."
[GN]


[*] Pierce Atwood Attorney Discusses Amendments to Rule 23
----------------------------------------------------------
Katherine S. Kayatta, Esq. -- kkayatta@pierceatwood.com -- of
Pierce Atwood LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that on December 1, 2018, the amendments to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23 took effect, principally altering portions of the Rule governing
class action notice, settlement, and appeals. Although the
amendments were approved earlier in 2018 by the United States
Supreme Court, they had been in the works for some time.

In 2014, a subcommittee of the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules
met with class action attorneys from both the plaintiffs' and
defense bar all across the country in a series of meetings, seeking
input on amendments to Rule 23. One such meeting was held in
October 2014 during the ABA's National Institute on Class Actions,
a two-day conference well-attended by counsel in private practice,
in-house counsel, academics, and reporters from class action news
services. Those of us in attendance had the opportunity to offer
the subcommittee suggestions on how to amend the Rule to better
address problems we encounter in practice, such as cy pres awards,
professional objectors, and issue classes. Fast-forward four years
later, and the amendments now address one of these topics, as well
as others. Below is a summary of the recent Rule changes:

Notice to Class Members
Rule 23(c)(2)(B) as amended now clarifies that notice by electronic
means -- a method many attorneys and claims administrators have
been using for some time -- may be "the best notice that is
practicable under the circumstances . . ." The Committee Notes
suggest that "when selecting a method or methods of giving notice
courts should consider the capacity and limits of current
technology, including class members' likely access to technology."
This amendment ushered the Rule into the 21st century, where the
landscape of technology and social media has changed rapidly in the
past fifteen years.

Settlement
Rule 23(e) was amended to add a new requirement that parties
seeking preliminary approval of a proposed class settlement
"provide the court with information sufficient to enable it to
determine whether to give notice of the proposal to the class."
Parties must show that the court is able to (i) approve the
proposed settlement and, (ii) if a class has not been certified,
that the court will be able to certify the class for purposes of
judgment on the proposal. Defendants need not worry that taking the
position that the class is certifiable will be held against them
later if the litigation proceeds, as the Committee Notes state "If
the settlement is not approved, the parties' positions regarding
certification for settlement should not be considered if
certification is later sought for purposes of litigation."

The amended Rule 23(e) now also includes a list of factors courts
should consider in determining whether a proposed class settlement
is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Those factors are whether (1)
class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented
the class, (2) the proposed settlement was negotiated at arm's
length, (3) the relief provided for the class is adequate, taking
into account the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal, the
effectiveness of the proposed method of distributing relief to the
class, including the method of processing claims, the terms of any
proposed award of attorney's fees, and any agreement required to be
identified under Rule 23(e)(3), and (4) the settlement proposal
treats class members equitably relative to each other. This
amendment is designed to codify a uniform set of factors across all
federal circuits that courts should consider in deciding whether to
approve a settlement.

Finally, amendments of Rule 23(e)(5) were implemented to combat the
rise in "professional objectors," a pestilence which has
increasingly plagued both plaintiffs' and defense counsel in recent
years. Under the amended Rule, any objection must "state whether it
applies only to the objector, to a specific subset of the class, or
to the entire class, and also state with specificity the grounds
for the objection." Further, no payments may be made in connection
with an objection unless court approval is obtained. The new Rule
attempts to weed out bad-faith objections brought by objectors
seeking a pay-off from objections brought in good faith.

Appeals
Rule 23(f) was amended to clarify that parties may only seek
interlocutory appeal of orders denying or granting class
certification, and not of decisions to give notice to a class of a
proposed settlement (often referred to colloquially as "preliminary
approval orders"). The amended Rule also provides 45 days, instead
of 14 days, for United States government, agency, or officer or
employee parties to file a Rule 23(f) petition for interlocutory
appeal. [GN]


[] Companies Hit with Mass Arbitration Filings Face Challenges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Wallender, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Corporate
America rejoiced when the Supreme Court allowed them to force
employees to agree to arbitration and forgo their right to sue in
workplace disputes.

Employers rushed to include "class action waivers" in contracts.

But now they may be rethinking that approach as some employees are
taking those clauses to their extreme. Aided by law firms, they've
initiated arbitration proceedings by the thousands. The cost for
employers could total tens of millions of dollars.

At Uber Technologies Inc., 12,501 drivers filed for arbitration
beginning in August 2018, saying they were misclassified as
independent contractors and should be employees. Similar arguments
have failed in court. But that doesn't mean employees can't
arbitrate those claims.

The cost for Uber to initiate all of the proceedings with a
required $1,500 filing fee would be more than $18.7 million. Each
individual arbitration would run tens of thousands of dollars.

Critics have derided arbitration clauses as a way to minimize
workers' voices and deny them their day in court. But the tactic of
mass arbitration may give employees an upper hand in settling
disputes or forcing a settlement.

"If it's successful, I think it is a creative way that lawyers are
trying to help individuals actually vindicate their claims,"
arbitrator and Ohio State University law professor Sarah Rudolph
Cole said.

It also may be speeding up a growing reluctance among some firms to
include class action waivers.

Accidental Compromise
The mass arbitration strategy wasn't something attorney
Kent Williams initially wanted to pursue. It grew from necessity.

He's one of a handful of lawyers representing employees at Chipotle
Mexican Grill Inc. in a series of lawsuits dating back to 2013.
Employees allege the company committed numerous wage-and-hour
violations at stores across the country. Workers routinely would be
asked to complete cleaning and other tasks while off the clock to
meet unrealistic labor expense goals, Mr. Williams said.

As Chipotle faced a potential company-wide collective lawsuit under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the business quietly began requiring
new employees to sign class action waivers.

"We didn't know that," Mr. Williams said. "We didn't find out that
they were requiring that until almost a year later."

About 10,000 employees opted in to the collective action lawsuit
Mr. Williams was pursuing and 2,814 were tossed out for having
signed class action agreements. But with these employees already on
board to pursue lost wages and their claims already vetted, Mr.
Williams decided to go ahead and arbitrate the cases one-by-one
like Chipotle said needed to happen.

Had the claimants not already been in a collective action, the mass
arbitration strategy likely wouldn't have been possible,
Mr. Williams said. The claims are each in the hundreds of dollars
and likely wouldn't have been lucrative enough to attract a
coordinated campaign of arbitration filings.

Chipotle declined to comment due to the ongoing nature of the
litigation.

Corrupting the System?
Mass arbitration campaigns are being waged with at least four
companies. Chipotle, Uber, Lyft, and Buffalo Wild Wings each were
hit with hundreds or thousands of arbitration requests.

Employees at Buffalo Wild Wings also initiated arbitration over
wage-and-hour disputes after being tossed from a collective.
Workers at Uber and Lyft are seeking arbitration hearings over
their classification as independent contractors.

Buffalo Wild Wings has since settled with the claimants to avoid
arbitration but the other three companies continue to fight the
arbitration demands in court.

The mass dispute filings at the four companies are "a curious use
of arbitration," said law professor Thomas E. Carbonneau, the
director of the Institute of Arbitration Law and Practice at
Pennsylvania State University.

"I'm not sure the lawyers are doing arbitration justice,"
Mr. Carbonneau said. "They're not using it properly. They're
adjusting it, adapting it, and in some degree corrupting it."

Legal observers told Bloomberg Law that the attorneys behind the
mass arbitration proceedings may not actually intend to arbitrate
every claim. Instead, they're gaining leverage so they can
negotiate a settlement for workers rather than arbitrate.

"The technique is to say, look, we're going to file just a ton of
individual employment claims and that's going to force Uber or
whoever to the table," said Ohio State's Cole.

Data posted by arbitration service providers JAMS and the American
Arbitration Association shows that nearly 75 percent of all
employment arbitration claims end with a settlement. Only about 10
percent of employment arbitration claims results in an award by an
arbitrator, according to a Bloomberg Law analysis of the data.

The end game is to "always, always" get a settlement because it's
cheaper, Mr. Carbonneau said.

'A Slow-Motion Train Wreck"
The companies hit with mass arbitration filings have so far
struggled with how to respond.

Attorneys for the claimants at Uber and Lyft filed motions in
federal court to compel arbitration after the two companies failed
to pay the majority of filing fees to initiate the arbitration
process.

Chipotle has challenged the arbitration proceedings multiple times
in court but was unable to get the claims thrown out or the
claimant's attorneys disqualified as representation.

Mr. Williams, the attorney on the Chipotle case, said that watching
the company's reaction to the arbitration filings has been like
watching a slow-motion train wreck.

"I have been puzzled by their reaction to all of this," he told
Bloomberg Law. He said that the company is waging a war of
attrition hoping that employees feel the claims are no longer worth
pursuing.

The feet-dragging is a terrible strategy, Cole said.

"I don't get how that's going to work because I'm an arbitrator and
if somebody isn't going to respond, I'm going to order default
judgment against them at some point," she said.

Hard to Replicate
Even if the mass arbitration strategy is successful, it may be hard
to replicate.

Coordinating dozens, let alone hundreds or thousands, of
arbitration proceedings is a daunting task. Law Firm Keller Lenkner
LLC is behind the 12,501 Uber drivers filing arbitration claims and
the 3,420 drivers filing arbitration claims at Lyft.

Very few people have the expertise and capital to engage in a
campaign of mass arbitration filings, a plaintiff's attorney
familiar with these types of campaigns told Bloomberg Law.

Finding hundreds of employees willing to initiate arbitration
proceedings from scratch takes expensive ad campaigns and
time-consuming administrative coordination.

Mass arbitration is a more attractive strategy when class or
collective actions are already in progress, said Williams, the
attorney in the Chipotle proceedings.

Losing Steam
As lawyers discover the strategy of mass arbitrations, companies
already may be souring on the extensive use of arbitration and
class action waivers. The mass filings may be quickening firms'
reluctance to rely solely on arbitration.

Companies rushed to include class action waivers after the Supreme
Court's 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion that found
the Federal Arbitration Act permits class action waivers. But
employment arbitration claims peaked around 2015 and have been
declining since then, said Doug Hass, a general counsel at Lifeway
Foods and member of the Association of Corporate Counsel.

Employers don't like the uncertainty that comes with arbitration.
There's limited case history to know how an arbitrator might rule
and if the result is unfavorable, there's no recourse or appeal.
The threat of mass arbitration may quicken the pullback already in
process, he told Bloomberg Law.

"Everybody walks away a little bit unhappy," Mr. Hass said. [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 ***